💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc5885.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 17:50:37.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Nadeau, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5885 BT
Category: Standards Track C. Pignataro, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
June 2010
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
Abstract
This document describes Connectivity Verification (CV) Types using
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV). VCCV provides a control channel
that is associated with a pseudowire (PW), as well as the
corresponding operations and management functions such as
connectivity verification to be used over that control channel.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Connectivity
Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. BFD CV Type Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. BFD Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. CV Types for BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Capability Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV . 10
5.2. PW Associated Channel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP . . . . . . . 11
6. Congestion Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
1. Introduction
This document describes Connectivity Verification (CV) Types using
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV). VCCV [RFC5085] provides a control
channel that is associated with a pseudowire (PW), as well as the
corresponding operations and management functions such as
connectivity/fault verification to be used over that control channel.
BFD [RFC5880] is used over the VCCV control channel primarily as a
pseudowire fault detection mechanism, for detecting data-plane
failures. Some BFD CV Types can additionally carry fault status
between the endpoints of the pseudowire. Furthermore, this
information can then be translated into the native Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) status codes used by the native
access technologies, such as ATM, Frame Relay, or Ethernet. The
specific details of such status interworking are out of the scope of
this document, and are only noted here to illustrate the utility of
BFD over VCCV for such purposes. Those details can be found in
[OAM-MSG-MAP].
The new BFD CV Types are PW demultiplexer-agnostic, and hence
applicable for both MPLS and Layer Two Tunneling Protocol version 3
(L2TPv3) pseudowire demultiplexers. This document concerns itself
with the BFD VCCV operation over single-segment pseudowires (SS-PWs).
This specification describes procedures only for BFD asynchronous
mode.
2. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The reader is expected to be familiar with the terminology and
abbreviations defined in [RFC5085].
3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Connectivity Verification
VCCV can support several Connectivity Verification (CV) Types. This
section defines new CV Types for use when BFD is used as the VCCV
payload.
Four CV Types are defined for BFD. Table 1 summarizes the BFD CV
Types, grouping them by encapsulation (i.e., with versus without IP/
UDP headers) and by functionality (i.e., fault detection only versus
fault detection and status signaling).
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
+----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| | Fault | Fault Detection and |
| | Detection | Status Signaling |
| | Only | |
+----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+
| BFD, IP/UDP Encapsulation | 0x04 | 0x08 |
| (with IP/UDP Headers) | | |
| | | |
| BFD, PW-ACH Encapsulation | 0x10 | 0x20 |
| (without IP/UDP Headers) | | |
+----------------------------+--------------+-----------------------+
Table 1: Bitmask Values for BFD CV Types
3.1. BFD CV Type Operation
When heart-beat indication is necessary for one or more PWs, the
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] provides a means
of continuous monitoring of the PW data path and, in some operational
modes, propagation of PW receive and transmit defect state
indications.
In order to use BFD, both ends of the PW connection need to agree on
the BFD CV Type to use:
For statically provisioned pseudowires, both ends need to be
statically configured to use the same BFD CV Type (in addition to
being statically configured for VCCV with the same CC Type).
For dynamically established pseudowires, both ends of the PW must
have signaled the existence of a control channel and the ability
to run BFD on it (see Sections 3.3 and 4).
Once a node has selected a valid BFD CV Type to use (either
statically provisioned or selected dynamically after the node has
both signaled and received signaling from its peer of these
capabilities), it begins sending BFD Control packets:
o The BFD Control packets are sent on the VCCV control channel. The
use of the VCCV control channel provides the context required to
bind and bootstrap the BFD session, since discriminator values are
not exchanged; the pseudowire demultiplexer field (e.g., MPLS PW
Label or L2TPv3 Session ID) provides the context to demultiplex
the first BFD Control packet, and thus single-hop BFD
initialization procedures are followed (see Section 3 of [RFC5881]
and Section 6 of [RFC5882]).
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
o A single BFD session exists per pseudowire. Both PW endpoints
take the Active role sending initial BFD Control packets with a
Your Discriminator field of zero, and BFD Control packets received
with a Your Discriminator field of zero are associated to the BFD
session bound to the PW.
o BFD MUST be run in asynchronous mode (see [RFC5880]).
The operation of BFD VCCV for PWs is therefore symmetrical. Both
endpoints of the bidirectional pseudowire MUST send BFD messages on
the VCCV control channel.
The details of the BFD state machine are as per Section 6.2 of
[RFC5880]. The following scenario exemplifies the operation: when
the downstream PE (D-PE) does not receive BFD Control messages from
its upstream peer PE (U-PE) during a certain number of transmission
intervals (a number provisioned by the operator as "Detect Mult" or
detection time multiplier [RFC5880]), D-PE declares that the PW in
its receive direction is down. In other words, D-PE enters the "PW
receive defect" state for this PW. After this calculated Detection
Time (see Section 6.8.4 of [RFC5880]), D-PE declares the session
Down, and signals this to the remote end via the State (Sta) with
Diagnostic code 1 (Control Detection Time Expired). In turn, U-PE
declares the PW is down in its transmit direction, setting the State
to Down with Diagnostic code 3 (Neighbor signaled session down) in
its control messages to D-PE. U-PE enters the "PW transmit defect"
state for this PW. How it further processes this error condition,
and potentially conveys this status to the attachment circuits, is
out of the scope of this specification, and is defined in
[OAM-MSG-MAP].
3.2. BFD Encapsulation
The VCCV message comprises a BFD Control packet [RFC5880]
encapsulated as specified by the CV Type. There are two ways in
which a BFD connectivity verification packet may be encapsulated over
the VCCV control channel. This document defines four BFD CV Types
(see Section 3), which can be grouped into two pairs of BFD CV Types
from an encapsulation point of view. See Table 1 in Section 3, which
summarizes the BFD CV Types.
o IP/UDP BFD Encapsulation (BFD with IP/UDP Headers)
In the first method, the VCCV encapsulation of BFD includes the
IP/UDP headers as defined in Section 4 of [RFC5881]. BFD Control
packets are therefore transmitted in UDP with destination port
3784 and source port within the range 49152 through 65535. The IP
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
Protocol Number and UDP Port numbers discriminate among the
possible VCCV payloads (i.e., differentiate among ICMP Ping and
LSP Ping defined in [RFC5085] and BFD).
The IP version (IPv4 or IPv6) MUST match the IP version used for
signaling for dynamically established pseudowires or MUST be
configured for statically provisioned pseudowires. The source IP
address is an address of the sender. The destination IP address
is a (randomly chosen) IPv4 address from the range 127/8 or IPv6
address from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127.0.0.0/104. The
rationale is explained in Section 2.1 of [RFC4379]. The Time to
Live/Hop Limit and Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM)
procedures from Section 5 of [RFC5881] apply to this
encapsulation, and hence the TTL/Hop Limit is set to 255.
If the PW is established by signaling, then the BFD CV Type used
for this encapsulation is either 0x04 or 0x08.
o PW-ACH BFD Encapsulation (BFD without IP/UDP Headers)
In the second method, a BFD Control packet (format defined in
Section 4 of [RFC5880]) is encapsulated directly in the VCCV
control channel (see Sections 6 and 8 of [RFC5882]) and the IP/UDP
headers are omitted from the BFD encapsulation. Therefore, to
utilize this encapsulation, a pseudowire MUST use the PW
Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) Control Word format (see
[RFC5586]) for its Control Word (CW) or L2-Specific Sublayer
(L2SS, used in L2TPv3).
In this encapsulation, a "raw" BFD Control packet (i.e., a BFD
Control packet as defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC5880] without IP/
UDP headers) follows directly the PW-ACH. The PW-ACH Channel Type
indicates that the Associated Channel carries "raw" BFD. The PW
Associated Channel (PWAC) is defined in Section 5 of [RFC4385],
and its Channel Type field is used to discriminate the VCCV
payload types.
The usage of the PW-ACH on different VCCV CC Types is specified
for CC Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 respectively in Sections 5.1.1,
5.1.2, and 5.1.3 of [RFC5085], and in all cases requires the use
of a CW (see Section 7 of [RFC4385]). When VCCV carries PW-ACH-
encapsulated BFD (i.e., "raw" BFD), the PW-ACH (pseudowire CW's or
L2SS') Channel Type MUST be set to 0x0007 to indicate "BFD
Control, PW-ACH-encapsulated" (i.e., BFD without IP/UDP headers;
see Section 5.2). This is to allow the identification of the
encased BFD payload when demultiplexing the VCCV control channel.
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
If the PW is established by signaling, then the BFD CV Type used
for this encapsulation is either 0x10 or 0x20.
In summary, for the IP/UDP encapsulation of BFD (BFD with IP/UDP
headers), if a PW Associated Channel Header is used, the Channel Type
MUST indicate either IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057). For the PW-ACH
encapsulation of BFD (BFD without IP/UDP headers), the PW Associated
Channel Header MUST be used and the Channel Type MUST indicate BFD
Control packet (0x0007).
3.3. CV Types for BFD
The CV Type is defined as a bitmask field used to indicate the
specific CV Type or Types (i.e., none, one, or more) of VCCV packets
that may be sent on the VCCV control channel. The CV Types shown in
the table below augment those already defined in [RFC5085]. Their
values shown in parentheses represent the numerical value
corresponding to the actual bit being set in the CV Type bitfield.
BFD CV Types:
The defined values for the different BFD CV Types for MPLS and
L2TPv3 PWs are:
Bit (Value) Description
============ ====================================================
Bit 2 (0x04) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 3 (0x08) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
Bit 4 (0x10) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 5 (0x20) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
It should be noted that four BFD CV Types have been defined by
combining two types of encapsulation with two types of functionality;
see Table 1 in Section 3.
Given the bidirectional nature of BFD, before selecting a given BFD
CV Type capability to be used in dynamically established pseudowires,
there MUST be common CV Types in the VCCV capability advertised and
received. That is, only BFD CV Types that were both advertised and
received are available to be selected. Additionally, only one BFD CV
Type can be used (selecting a BFD CV Type excludes all the remaining
BFD CV Types).
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
The following list enumerates rules, restrictions, and clarifications
on the usage of BFD CV Types:
1. BFD CV Types used for fault detection and status signaling (i.e.,
CV Types 0x08 and 0x20) SHOULD NOT be used when a control
protocol such as LDP [RFC4447] or L2TPV3 [RFC3931] is available
that can signal the AC/PW status to the remote endpoint of the
PW. More details can be found in [OAM-MSG-MAP].
2. BFD CV Types used for fault detection only (i.e., CV Types 0x04
and 0x10) can be used whether or not a protocol that can signal
AC/PW status is available. This includes both statically
provisioned and dynamically signaled pseudowires.
2.1. In this case, BFD is used exclusively to detect faults on
the PW; if it is desired to convey AC/PW fault status, some
means other than BFD are to be used. Examples include
using LDP status messages when using MPLS as a transport
(see Section 5.4 of [RFC4447]), and the Circuit Status
Attribute Value Pair (AVP) in an L2TPv3 SLI message for
L2TPv3 (see Section 5.4.5 of [RFC3931]).
3. Pseudowires that do not use a CW or L2SS using the PW Associated
Channel Header MUST NOT use the BFD CV Types 0x10 or 0x20 (i.e.,
PW-ACH encapsulation of BFD, without IP/UDP headers).
3.1. PWs that use a PW-ACH include CC Type 1 (for both MPLS and
L2TPv3 as defined in Sections 5.1.1 and 6.1 of [RFC5085]),
and MPLS CC Types 2 and 3 when using a Control Word (as
specified in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of [RFC5085]). This
restriction stems from the fact that the encapsulation uses
the Channel Type in the PW-ACH.
3.2. PWs that do not use a PW-ACH can use the VCCV BFD
encapsulation with IP/UDP headers, as the only VCCV BFD
encapsulation supported. Using the IP/UDP encapsulated BFD
CV Types allows for the concurrent use of other VCCV CV
Types that use an encapsulation with IP headers (e.g., ICMP
Ping or LSP Ping defined in [RFC5085]).
4. Only a single BFD CV Type can be selected and used. All BFD CV
Types are mutually exclusive. After selecting a BFD CV Type, a
node MUST NOT use any of the other three BFD CV Types.
5. Once a PE has chosen a single BFD CV Type to use, it MUST
continue using it until when the PW is re-signaled. In order to
change the negotiated and selected BFD CV Type, the PW must be
torn down and re-established.
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
4. Capability Selection
The precedence rules for selection of various CC and CV Types is
clearly outlined in Section 7 of [RFC5085]. This section augments
these rules when the BFD CV Types defined herein are supported. The
selection of a specific BFD CV Type to use out of the four available
CV Types defined is tied to multiple factors, as described in
Section 3.3. Given that BFD is bidirectional in nature, only CV
Types that are both received and sent in VCCV capability signaling
advertisement can be selected.
When multiple BFD CV Types are advertised, and after applying the
rules in Section 3.3, the set that both ends of the pseudowire have
in common is determined. If the two ends have more than one BFD CV
Type in common, the following list of BFD CV Types is considered in
the order of the lowest list number CV Type to the highest list
number CV Type, and the CV Type with the lowest list number is used:
1. 0x20 - BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated (without IP/UDP headers), for PW
Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
2. 0x10 - BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated (without IP/UDP headers), for PW
Fault Detection only
3. 0x08 - BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW
Fault Status Signaling
4. 0x04 - BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV
The VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV codepoint is defined in
[RFC4446], and the VCCV CV Types registry is defined in [RFC5085].
This section lists the new BFD CV Types.
IANA has augmented the "VCCV Connectivity Verification (CV) Types"
registry in the Pseudowire Name Spaces reachable from [IANA]. These
are bitfield values. CV Type values 0x04, 0x08, 0x10, and 0x20 are
specified in Section 3 of this document.
MPLS Connectivity Verification (CV) Types:
Bit (Value) Description
============ ====================================================
Bit 2 (0x04) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 3 (0x08) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
Bit 4 (0x10) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 5 (0x20) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
5.2. PW Associated Channel Type
The PW Associated Channel Types used by VCCV rely on previously
allocated numbers from the Pseudowire Associated Channel Types
Registry [RFC4385] in the Pseudowire Name Spaces reachable from
[IANA].
IANA has reserved a new Pseudowire Associated Channel Type value as
follows:
Registry:
TLV
Value Description Follows Reference
------ ---------------------------------- ------- ---------------
0x0007 BFD Control, PW-ACH encapsulation No [This document]
(without IP/UDP Headers)
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
5.3. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP
This section lists the new BFD CV Types to be added to the existing
"VCCV Capability AVP" registry in the L2TP name spaces. The Layer
Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP" Name Spaces are reachable from [IANA].
IANA has reserved the following L2TPv3 Connectivity Verification (CV)
Types in the VCCV Capability AVP Values registry.
VCCV Capability AVP (Attribute Type 96) Values
----------------------------------------------
L2TPv3 Connectivity Verification (CV) Types:
Bit (Value) Description
============ ====================================================
Bit 2 (0x04) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 3 (0x08) BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
Bit 4 (0x10) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only
Bit 5 (0x20) BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection and
AC/PW Fault Status Signaling
6. Congestion Considerations
The congestion considerations that apply to [RFC5085] apply to this
mode of operation as well. This section describes explicitly how
they apply.
BFD as a VCCV application is required to provide details on
congestion and bandwidth considerations. BFD provides with a desired
minimum transmit interval and a required minimum receive interval,
negotiates the transmission interval using these configurable fields,
and has a packet of fixed size (setting the transmission rate).
Therefore, it results in a configuration limited bandwidth
utilization. As stated in [RFC5085], this is sufficient protection
against congestion as long as BFD's configured maximum bit-rate is
minimal compared to the bit-rate of the pseudowire the VCCV channel
is associated with. If the pseudowire bit-rate can't be guaranteed
to be minimal, like potentially for highly variable bit-rate and/or
congestion responsive pseudowires, BFD will be required to operate
using an adaptive congestion control mechanism (for example,
including a throttled transmission rate on "congestion detected"
situations, and a slow-start after shutdown due to congestion and
until basic connectivity is verified).
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
Since the bandwidth utilized by BFD is configuration-limited, the
VCCV channel MUST NOT be rate-limited below this maximum configurable
bandwidth or BFD will not operate correctly. The VCCV channel could
provide rate-limiting above the maximum BFD rate, to protect from a
misbehaving BFD application, so that it does not conflict and can
coexist. Additionally, the VCCV channel SHOULD NOT use any
additional congestion control loop that would interfere or negatively
interact with that of BFD. There are no additional congestion
considerations.
7. Security Considerations
Routers that implement the additional CV Types defined herein are
subject to the same security considerations as defined in [RFC5085],
[RFC5880], and [RFC5881]. This specification does not raise any
additional security issues beyond these. The IP/UDP-encapsulated BFD
makes use of the TTL/Hop Limit procedures described in Section 5 of
[RFC5881], including the use of the Generalized TTL Security
Mechanism (GTSM) as a security mechanism.
8. Acknowledgements
This work forks from a previous revision of the PWE3 WG document that
resulted in [RFC5085], to which a number of people contributed,
including Rahul Aggarwal, Peter B. Busschbach, Yuichi Ikejiri, Kenji
Kumaki, Luca Martini, Monique Morrow, George Swallow, and others.
Mustapha Aissaoui, Sam Aldrin, Stewart Bryant, Peter B. Busschbach,
Annamaria Fulignoli, Vishwas Manral, Luca Martini, Dave McDysan, Ben
Niven-Jenkins, Pankil Shah, Yaakov Stein, and George Swallow provided
useful feedback and valuable comments and suggestions improving newer
versions of this document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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,
February 2006.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", RFC 5880, June 2010.
[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)",
RFC 5881, June 2010.
[RFC5882] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,
June 2010.
9.2. Informative References
[IANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Protocol
Registries", <http://www.iana.org>.
[OAM-MSG-MAP] Aissaoui, M., Busschbach, P., Morrow, M., Martini, L.,
Stein, Y., Allan, D., and T. Nadeau, "Pseudowire (PW)
OAM Message Mapping", Work in Progress, March 2010.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two
Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931,
March 2005.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to
Edge Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447,
April 2006.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5885 BFD VCCV June 2010
Authors' Addresses
Thomas D. Nadeau (editor)
BT
BT Centre
81 Newgate Street
London EC1A 7AJ
United Kingdom
EMail: tom.nadeau@bt.com
Carlos Pignataro (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road
PO Box 14987
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
Nadeau & Pignataro Standards Track [Page 14]