RFC 9546
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet) with the MPLS Data Plane
📮 RFC 9546: OAM for DetNet with the MPLS Data Plane ✨
Okay bestie, this one is RFC 9546, a Standards Track doc from February 2024 🗓️. It's written by G. Mirsky (Ericsson), M. Chen (Huawei), and B. Varga (Ericsson). It's published in the IETF stream with ISSN 2070-1721, and its title block doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates. So it's a fresh, standalone spec 💅
The whole thing is about OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) for DetNet (Deterministic Networking) when you're running the MPLS data plane 🧚 It's basically the rulebook for how DetNet's service Associated Channel works over that setup, and how test packets from active OAM protocols can ride along in it.
Abstract ✨
Okay so the abstract is short and sweet 🍓 This document defines the format and usage principles of the DetNet service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane. That channel can carry test packets from active OAM protocols, and those packets are used to detect DetNet failures and measure performance metrics. Iconic 🔥
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document, meaning it's an official Internet Standard in the making 👑
It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), so it reflects what the IETF community agreed on. It went through public review and got approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want more on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 7841 🎀
For the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, go to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9546 🦋
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 💜
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents, which you can find at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info, as they're in effect on the publication date. Please actually read those, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document 🙈 Also, any Code Components pulled out of this document must include Revised BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions. Those components come with no warranty, just like the Revised BSD License says 💀
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms
2.2. Key Words
3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with the MPLS Data Plane
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation
3.2. DetNet PREOF Interaction with Active OAM
4. OAM Interworking Models
4.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN
4.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags Registry
6. Security Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction 🌸
Okay so first things first: [RFC8655] is the doc that introduces and explains the DetNet architecture. It also explains how the Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) can keep the packet drop ratio low in a DetNet domain. It's giving foundations 💖
Next, OAM protocols are how you detect and localize network defects and keep an eye on performance 👀 Some OAM functions, like failure detection, usually happen proactively in the network. Others, like defect localization, usually happen on demand. You can get all this done with a mix of active and hybrid OAM methods, which are classified in [RFC7799] ✨ This document gives you a format for active OAM in DetNet networks with the MPLS data plane.
This document also defines the format and usage rules for the DetNet service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane [RFC8964] 🧚
2. Conventions Used in This Document 🎀
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms
Lowkey the most important thing here: the term "DetNet OAM" in this doc is used interchangeably with "set of OAM protocols, methods, and tools for Deterministic Networking" 🫶
Now the acronym list, so we're all on the same page 📚
- BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
- CFM: Connectivity Fault Management
- d-ACH: DetNet Associated Channel Header
- DetNet: Deterministic Networking
- DetNet Node: A node that is an actor in the DetNet domain. Examples of DetNet nodes include DetNet domain edge nodes and DetNet nodes that perform PREOF within the DetNet domain. Main character energy 👑
- E2E: End to end
- F-Label: A DetNet "forwarding" label. The F-Label identifies the Label Switched Path (LSP) used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS Packet Switched Network (PSN), e.g., a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers. 🚀
- OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
- PREOF: Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
- PW: Pseudowire
- S-Label: A DetNet "service" label. An S-Label is used between DetNet nodes that implement the DetNet service sub-layer functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at the DetNet service sub-layer. 💅
- TSN: Time-Sensitive Networking
- Underlay Network or Underlay Layer: The network that provides connectivity between the DetNet nodes. One example of an underlay layer is an MPLS network that provides LSP connectivity between DetNet nodes. 🌈
2.2. Key Words
Here's the important part for the requirement words 🔥 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174], but only when they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Lowercase versions are just regular words, so no drama 🙈
3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with the MPLS Data Plane 🦋
Okay so OAM protocols and mechanisms work inside the data plane of a particular networking layer. That's why it's critical that the data plane encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms that comply with the OAM requirements listed in [OAM-FRAMEWORK] 💖
The operation of a DetNet data plane with an MPLS underlay network is specified in [RFC8964] ✨ Inside that MPLS underlay, DetNet flows get encapsulated analogously to pseudowires (PWs), as specified in [RFC3985] and [RFC4385] 🎀 For reference, the Generic PW MPLS Control Word (defined in [RFC4385] and used with DetNet) is shown in Figure 1 below 👇
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Generic PW MPLS Control Word FormatNow the PREOF part 🌟 PREOF in the DetNet domain is made up of a combination of nodes that do replication and elimination. The Elimination sub-function always uses the S-Label together with the packet sequencing information, meaning the Sequence Number encoded in the DetNet Control Word. The Replication sub-function only uses the S-Label information. That's the whole vibe ✨
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation ✨
okay so bestie, DetNet OAM is basically following the exact same playbook as PW OAM 💅, which means it uses the PW Associated Channel Header from [RFC4385] 🎀. But here's the tea: a DetNet PW can be seen as a Multi-Segment PW 🦋, where the DetNet service sub-layer functions live at the segment endpoints. The twist is that those sub-layer functions work per packet, not per segment 🙈. That per-packet vibe of PREOF means we need some extra fields so OAM packets get processed correctly 💖. MPLS encapsulation [RFC8964] of a DetNet active OAM packet is shown in Figure 2 🌸.
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet OAM Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-Label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 2: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in the MPLS Data
PlaneFigure 3 shows the encapsulation of a test packet for a DetNet active OAM protocol when we're doing MPLS over UDP/IP [RFC9025] 🧚. Same squad, just with a UDP and IP layer tucked in 🫶.
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet OAM Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--+
| UDP Header | |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane
| IP Header | | IP encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 3: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS over UDP/IPFigure 4 is the d-ACH format 🎀, the header that makes all of this work.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number| Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node ID |Level| Flags |Session|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: d-ACH FormatThe d-ACH encodes the following fields, and they are very much not optional 👑:
- Bits 0..3: these MUST be
0b0001. This lets the packet be told apart from an IP packet [RFC4928] and from a DetNet data packet [RFC8964] 💅. - Version: a 4-bit field. This document specifies version 0 ✨.
- Sequence Number: an unsigned circular 8-bit field. Because a DetNet active OAM test packet includes d-ACH, Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8964] does not apply to handling the Sequence Number field in DetNet OAM over the MPLS data plane 🙈. The sequence number space is circular with no restriction on the initial value. The originator DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence Number field before the transmission of a packet. The initial value SHOULD be random (unpredictable). The originator node SHOULD increase the value of the Sequence Number field by 1 for each active OAM packet. The originator MAY use other strategies, e.g., for negative testing of Packet Ordering Functions 🦋.
- Channel Type: a 16-bit field and the value of the DetNet Associated Channel Type. It MUST be one of the values listed in the IANA "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry [IANA-G-ACh-Types] 🌈.
- Node ID: an unsigned 20-bit field. The Node ID identifies the DetNet node that originated the packet. A DetNet node MUST be provisioned with a Node ID that is unique in the DetNet domain. Methods for distributing Node ID are outside the scope of this specification 🍓.
- Level: a 3-bit field. Semantically, it's analogous to the Maintenance Domain Level in [IEEE.802.1Q] 🌸. The Level field is used to cope with the "all active path forwarding" (defined by the TSN Task Group of the IEEE 802.1 WG [IEEE802.1TSNTG]) characteristics of the PREOF concept. A hierarchical relationship between OAM domains can be created using the Level field value, as illustrated by Figure 18.7 in [IEEE.802.1Q] ⭐.
- Flags: a 5-bit field containing five 1-bit flags. Section 5.1 creates the IANA "DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags" registry for new flags to be defined. The flags defined in this specification are presented in Figure 5 🎀.
- Session ID: a 4-bit field. The Session field distinguishes OAM sessions originating from the same node (a given Maintenance End Point may have multiple simultaneously active OAM sessions) at the given Level 💜.
0 1 2 3 4
+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|U|U|U|U|
+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Field Format- U: unused and for future use. It MUST be 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt 🙈.
According to [RFC8964], a DetNet flow is identified by the S-Label, which MUST be at the bottom of the stack. An active OAM packet MUST include d-ACH immediately following the S-Label 🫶.
3.2. DetNet PREOF Interaction with Active OAM 🌈
At the DetNet service sub-layer, special functions (notably PREOF) MAY be applied to the particular DetNet flow to potentially reduce packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery, and ensure in-order packet delivery 💖. PREOF relies on sequencing information in the DetNet service sub-layer. For a DetNet active OAM packet, PREOF MUST use the Sequence Number field value as the source of this sequencing information. App-flow and OAM use different sequence number spaces. PREOF algorithms are executed with respect to the sequence number space identified by the flow's characteristic information 🦋. Although the Sequence Number field in d-ACH has a range from 0 through 255, it provides sufficient space because the rate of DetNet active OAM packets is significantly lower compared to the rate of DetNet packets in an App-flow, so wrapping around is not an issue 👑.
4. OAM Interworking Models ✨
Interworking two OAM domains that use different networking technology can be done with either a peering model or a tunneling model 🧚. In a peering model, OAM domains sit within the corresponding network domain. With peering, state changes detected by a Fault Management OAM protocol can be mapped from one OAM domain into another, or a notification (e.g., an alarm) can be sent to a central controller 🔥. In the tunneling model, usually only one active OAM protocol is used. Its test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data flow, which keeps test and data packets fate sharing 💜.
4.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN 🎀
DetNet active OAM can provide end-to-end (E2E) fault management and performance monitoring for a DetNet flow 💅. When DetNet runs on an MPLS data plane and an IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) sub-network, it means DetNet active OAM has to interwork with TSN OAM, whose data plane aspects are specified in [RFC9037] 🌸.
When the peering model (Section 4) is used in the Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) OAM protocol [IEEE.802.1Q], the node bordering both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST support [RFC7023]. [RFC7023] specifies the mapping of defect states between Ethernet Attachment Circuits and associated Ethernet PWs that are part of an E2E emulated Ethernet service, and these are also applicable to E2E OAM across DetNet MPLS and TSN domains 🫶. CFM [IEEE.802.1Q] [ITU.Y1731] can provide fast detection of a failure in the TSN segment of the DetNet service ⭐. In the DetNet MPLS domain, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), as specified in [RFC5880] and [RFC5885], can be used 🦋. To provide E2E failure detection, the TSN and DetNet MPLS segments could be treated as concatenated, such that the diagnostic codes (see Section 6.8.17 of [RFC5880]) MAY be used to inform the upstream DetNet MPLS node of a TSN segment failure 💖. Performance monitoring can be supported by [RFC6374] in the DetNet MPLS domain and by [ITU.Y1731] in TSN domains, respectively 🧚. Performance objectives for each domain should refer to metrics that are composable [RFC6049] or are defined for each domain separately 🌈.
The following considerations apply when using the tunneling model of OAM interworking between DetNet MPLS and TSN domains, based on the general principles described in Section 4 of [RFC9037] 👑:
- Active OAM test packets MUST be mapped to the same TSN Stream ID as the monitored DetNet flow.
- Active OAM test packets MUST be processed in the TSN domain based on their S-Label and Class of Service marking (the Traffic Class field value).
Mapping between a DetNet flow and a TSN Stream in the TSN sub-network is described in Section 4.1 of [RFC9037] 💜. The mapping has to be done only on the edge node of the TSN sub-network, and intermediate TSN nodes do not need to recognize the S-Label. An edge node has two components:
- A passive Stream identification function.
- An active Stream identification function.
The first component identifies the DetNet flow (using Clause 6.8 of [IEEE.802.1CBdb]), and the second component creates the TSN Stream by manipulating the Ethernet header 🎀. That manipulation simplifies identifying the TSN Stream in intermediate TSN nodes, because they don't need to look outside the Ethernet header 🌸. DetNet MPLS OAM packets use the same S-Label as the DetNet flow data packets. The mapping function described above treats these OAM packets as data packets of the DetNet flow, so DetNet MPLS OAM packets are fate sharing within the TSN sub-network ⭐. As an example of the mapping between DetNet MPLS and TSN, see Annex C.1 of [IEEE.802.1CBdb], which, in support of [RFC9037], describes how to match MPLS DetNet flows and achieve TSN Streams 🫶.
Note that the tunneling model of OAM interworking requires that the remote peer of the E2E OAM domain supports the active OAM protocol selected on the ingress endpoint. For example, if BFD is used for proactive path continuity monitoring in the DetNet MPLS domain, BFD support (as defined in [RFC5885]) is necessary at any TSN endpoint of the DetNet service 🦋.
4.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP ✨
Okay, bestie, this one is about connecting two worlds 🌈. Interworking between active OAM segments in the DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP domains can also use either the peering model or the tunneling model, the same two options we just covered in Section 4.1 💖. Using the same protocol on both sides, like BFD over both segments, makes it way easier to map errors in the peering model 🫶. For example, the BFD sessions in the DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP domains can be in a concatenated relationship, as described in Section 6.8.17 of [RFC5880] 🔗.
Now for performance monitoring over a DetNet IP domain 📊. The Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] and its extensions [RFC8972] can measure packet loss and packet delay metrics. Those performance metrics can then be used to calculate composable metrics [RFC6049] within both the DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP domains, so you get the end-to-end DetNet service performance picture. It's giving complete big-picture energy 🧚💅
5. IANA Considerations 🎀
5.1. DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags Registry 🦋
IANA has created the "DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags" registry inside the "DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags" registry group 📁. The registration procedure is "IETF Review" [RFC8126]. There are five flags in the 5-bit Flags field, and they're laid out in Table 1 below 🌸.
+=====+=============+
| Bit | Description |
+=====+=============+
| 0-4 | Unassigned |
+-----+-------------+
Table 1: DetNet
Associated Channel
Header (d-ACH) Flags
Registry6. Security Considerations 🔐💀
Okay, this section is serious, so let's go 😭. The security considerations discussed in the DetNet specifications [RFC8655], [RFC8964], [RFC9055], and [OAM-FRAMEWORK] all apply to this document. The security concerns and issues tied to MPLS OAM tools like LSP Ping [RFC8029] and BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to this specification. Read those carefully, bestie, because they're not optional vibes 🙈.
7. References 📚
7.1. Normative References 💜
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7023] Mohan, D., Ed., Bitar, N., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., DeLord,
S., Niger, P., and R. Qiu, "MPLS and Ethernet Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking",
RFC 7023, DOI 10.17487/RFC7023, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7023>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.
[RFC9025] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025>.7.2. Informative References 🌷
[IANA-G-ACh-Types]
IANA, "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
(including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/>.
[IEEE.802.1CBdb]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Frame Replication and Elimination for
Reliability--Amendment 2: Extended Stream Identification
Functions", IEEE Std 802.1CBdb-2021, December 2021.
[IEEE.802.1Q]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Network--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-
2018, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8403927, July 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8403927>.
[IEEE802.1TSNTG]
IEEE 802.1, "Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group",
TSN Standards, <https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/>.
[ITU.Y1731]
ITU-T, "Operation, administration and maintenance (OAM)
functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks",
ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, June 2023.
[OAM-FRAMEWORK]
Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Bernardos,
CJ., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11, 8 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
oam-framework-11>.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>.
[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC6049, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6049>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
[RFC9037] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9037, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9037>.
[RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.Acknowledgments 🫶
The authors send a big thank-you to Pascal Thubert for his insightful comments and productive discussion, which helped make the document better 💖. They're enormously grateful to János Farkas for his detailed comments and the inspiring discussion that made this document clearer and stronger ✨. They also recognize helpful reviews and suggestions from Andrew Malis, David Black, Tianran Zhou, and Kiran Makhijani 🌸. And special thanks to Ethan Grossman for his fantastic help in improving the document 👑.
Authors' Addresses 💌
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc9546 2024-02
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms