DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen
Expires: January 9, 2021 Huawei
July 8, 2020
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-01
Abstract
This document lists functional requirements for Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) and, using these requirements; defines format and
use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel over a DetNet
network with the MPLS data plane..
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 5
4.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-
functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. OAM Interworking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . 9
6.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
[RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet)
architecture and how the Packet Replication and Elimination function
(PREF) can be used to ensure low packet drop ratio in DetNet domain.
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used
to detect, localize defects in the network, and monitor network
performance. Some OAM functions, e.g., failure detection, work in
the network proactively, while others, e.g., defect localization,
usually performed on-demand. These tasks achieved by a combination
of active and hybrid, as defined in [RFC7799], OAM methods.
This document lists the functional requirements toward OAM for DetNet
domain. The list can further be used for gap analysis of available
OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing or whether
new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on-demand path
monitoring and service validation. Also, this document defines
format and use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel
over a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms
The term "DetNet OAM" used in this document interchangeably with
longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for
Deterministic Networks".
CW Control Word
DetNet Deterministic Networks
d-ACH DetNet Associated Channel Header
d-CW DetNet Control Word
DNH DetNet Header
GAL Generic Associated Channel Label
G-ACh Generic Associated Channel
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
PREF Packet Replication and Elimination Function
POF Packet Ordering Function
PW Pseudowire
RDI Remote Defect Indication
E2E End-to-end
CFM Connectivity Fault Management
BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
TSN Time-Sensitive Network
F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP used to
forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-hop label
used between label switching routers (LSR).
S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet nodes
that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer functions. An
S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at DetNet service sub-
layer.
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
Underlay Network or Underlay Layer: The network that provides
connectivity between the DetNet nodes. MPLS network providing LSP
connectivity between DetNet nodes is an example of the underlay
layer.
DetNet Node - a node that is an actor in the DetNet domain. DetNet
domain edge node and node that performs PREF within the domain are
examples of DetNet node.
2.2. Keywords
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] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Requirements
This section lists requirements for OAM in DetNet domain with MPLS
data plane:
1. It MUST be possible to initiate DetNet OAM session from any
DetNet node towards another DetNet node(s) within given domain.
2. It SHOULD be possible to initialize DetNet OAM session from a
centralized controller.
3. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring
and measurement methods.
4. DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the
same path as DetNet data plane traffic.
5. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, continuity
check, connectivity verification, and performance measurement.
6. DetNet OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such OAM
methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the
forward direction and out-of-bound notification in the reverse
direction, i.e., from egress to ingress end point of the OAM
test session.
7. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of a DetNet node
availability in the given DetNet domain.
8. DetNet OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit
discovery.
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
9. DetNet OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication (RDI)
notification to the DetNet node performing continuity checking.
10. DetNet OAM MUST support performance measurement methods.
11. DetNet OAM MAY support hybrid performance measurement methods.
12. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement
methods. Calculated performance metrics MUST include but are
not limited to throughput, packet loss, delay and delay
variation metrics. [RFC6374] provides excellent details on
performance measurement and performance metrics.
13. DetNet OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like
Alarm Indication Signal. Any DetNet node in the given DetNet
domain MAY originate a defect notification addressed to any
subset of nodes within the domain.
14. DetNet OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of the
DetNet domain. These recovery methods MAY use protection
switching and restoration.
15. DetNet OAM MUST support the discovery of Packet Replication,
Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions locations in
the domain.
16. DetNet OAM MUST support testing of Packet Replication,
Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions in the domain.
17. DetNet OAM MUST support monitoring any sub-set of paths
traversed through the DetNet domain by the DetNet flow.
4. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane
OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the
particular networking layer. And thus it is critical that the data
plane encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms in such a way to comply
with the above-listed requirements. One of such examples that
require special consideration is requirement #5:
DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the
same path as DetNet data plane traffic both for unidirectional and
bi-directional DetNet paths.
The Det Net data plane encapsulation in transport network with MPLS
encapsulation specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. For the MPLS
underlay network, DetNet flows to be encapsulated analogous to
pseudowires (PW) over MPLS packet switched network, as described in
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
[RFC3985], [RFC4385]. Generic PW MPLS Control Word (CW), defined in
[RFC4385], for DetNet displayed in Figure 1.
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: DetNet Control Word Format
PREF in the DetNet domain composed by a combination of nodes that
perform replication and elimination sub-functions. The elimination
sub-function always uses the S-Label and packet sequencing
information, e.g., the value in the Sequence Number field of DetNet
CW (d-CW). The replication sub-function uses the S-Label information
only. For data packets Figure 2 presents an example of PREF in
DetNet domain.
1111 11111111 111111 112212 112212 132213
CE1----EN1--------R1-------R2-------R3--------EN2----CE2
\2 22222/ 3 /
\2222222 /----+ 3 /
+------R4------------------------+
333333333333333333333333
Figure 2: DetNet Data Plane Based on PW
4.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation
DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses PW Associated Channel Header defined in
[RFC4385]. Figure 3 displays the encapsulation of a DetNet MPLS
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] active OAM packet.
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet App-Flow |
| Payload Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-Label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 3: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS Data Plane
Figure 4 displays encapsulation of a test packet of an active DetNet
OAM protocol in case of MPLS-over-UDP/IP
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip].
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet App-Flow |
| Payload 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 4: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS-over-UDP/IP
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
Figure 5 displays the format of the DetNet Associated Channel Header
(d-ACH).
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Format
The meanings of the fields in the d-ACH are:
Bits 0..3 MUST be 0b0001. This value of the first nibble allows
the packet to be distinguished from an IP packet [RFC4928] and a
DetNet data packet [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
Version: this is the version number of the d-ACH. This
specification defines version 0.
Sequence Number: this is unsigned eight bits-long field. The
originating DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence Number
field to a non-zero before packet being transmitted. The
originating node MUST monotonically increase the value of the
Sequence Number field for the every next active OAM packet.
Channel Type: the value of DetNet Associated Channel Type is one
of values defined in the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry.
The DetNet flow, according to [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], is identified
by the S-label that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. Active OAM
packet MUST have d-ACH immediately following the S-label.
4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-functions
Interaction with Active OAM
At the DetNet service layer, special functions MAY be applied to the
particular DetNet flow - PREF to potentially lower packet loss,
improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and Packet
Ordering Function (POF) to ensure in-order packet delivery. As data
and the active OAM packets have the same Flow ID, S-label, sub-
functions that rely on sequencing information in the DetNet service
layer MUST process 28 MSBs of the d-ACH as the source of the
sequencing information for the OAM packet.
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
5. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet
Hybrid OAM methods are used in performance monitoring and defined in
[RFC7799] as:
Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination
of Active Methods and Passive Methods.
A hybrid measurement method may produce metrics as close to passive,
but it still alters something in a data packet even if that is the
value of a designated field in the packet encapsulation. One example
of such a hybrid measurement method is the Alternate Marking method
described in [RFC8321]. Reserving the field for the Alternate
Marking method in the DetNet Header will enhance available to an
operator set of DetNet OAM tools.
6. OAM Interworking Models
Interworking of two OAM domains that utilize different networking
technology can be realized either by a peering or a tunneling model.
In a peering model, OAM domains are within the corresponding network
domain. When using the peering model, state changes that are
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 of OAM
interworking, usually, only one active OAM protocol is used. Its
test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data
flow, thus ensuring the fate sharing among test and data packets.
6.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN
Active DetNet OAM is required to provide the E2E fault management and
performance monitoring for a DetNet flow. Interworking of DetNet
active OAM with MPLS data plane with the IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
Networking (TSN) domain based on [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn].
In the case of the peering model is used in the fault management OAM,
then the node that borders both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST
support [RFC7023]. [RFC7023] specified the mapping of defect states
between Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet
PWs that are part of an end-to-end (E2E) emulated Ethernet service.
Requirements and mechanisms described in [RFC7023] are equally
applicable to using the peering model to achieve E2E FM OAM over
DetNet MPLS and TSN domains. The Connectivity Fault Management (CFM)
protocol [IEEE.CFM] or in [ITU.Y1731] can provide fast detection of a
failure in the TSN segment of the DetNet service. In the DetNet MPLS
domain BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection), specified in
[RFC5880] and [RFC5885], can be used. To provide E2E failure
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
detection, the TSN segment might be presented as a concatenated with
the DetNet MPLS and the Section 6.8.17 [RFC5880] MAY be used to
inform the upstream DetNet MPLS node of a failure of the TSN segment.
Performance monitoring can be supported by [RFC6374] in the DetNet
MPLS and [ITU.Y1731] in the TSN domains, respectively. Performance
objectives for each domain should refer to metrics that additive or
be defined for each domain separately.
The following considerations are to be realized when using the
tunneling model of OAM interworking between DetNet MPLS and TSN
domains:
o Active OAM test packet MUST be mapped to the same TSN Stream ID as
the monitored DetNet flow.
o Active OAM test packets MUST be treated in the TSN domain based on
its S-label and CoS marking (TC field value).
Note that the tunneling model of the 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, a TSN endpoint of the DetNet service has also support BFD as
defined in [RFC5885].
6.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP
Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP
domains can also be realized using either the peering or the
tunneling model, as discussed in Section 6.1. Using the same
protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of
errors in the peering model. To provide the performance monitoring
over a DetNet IP domain STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] can be used.
7. IANA Considerations
TBA
8. Security Considerations
This document lists the OAM requirements for a DetNet domain and does
not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common
to networking. Additionally, security considerations discussed in
DetNet specifications: [RFC8655], [I-D.ietf-detnet-security],
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] are applicable to this document. Security
concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM tools like LSP Ping
[RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to this specification.
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
9. Acknowledgment
Authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his
insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve
the document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S.,
and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf-
detnet-mpls-08 (work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet
Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking
(TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-03 (work in
progress), June 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP", draft-ietf-
detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06 (work in progress), May 2020.
[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>.
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
10.2. Informational References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T. and E. Grossman, "Deterministic Networking
(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet-
security-10 (work in progress), May 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]
Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
option-tlv-06 (work in progress), June 2020.
[IEEE.CFM]
IEEE, "Connectivity Fault Management clause of IEEE
802.1Q", IEEE 802.1Q, 2013.
[ITU.Y1731]
ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
Networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November
2013.
[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>.
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS July 2020
[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>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Mirsky & Chen Expires January 9, 2021 [Page 13]
