Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Frost, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6375 S. Bryant, Ed.
Category: Informational Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2011
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Frost, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6375 S. Bryant, Ed.
Category: Informational Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2011
A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks
基于MPLS的传输网络丢包和时延测量模型
Abstract
摘要
Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable efficient and accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput in MPLS networks are defined in RFC 6374.
RFC 6374中定义了在MPLS网络中有效和准确测量数据包丢失、延迟和吞吐量的程序和协议机制。
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet-switched transport networks.
MPLS传输配置文件（MPLS-TP）是一组适用于分组交换传输网络的构建和运行的MPLS协议功能。
This document describes a profile of the general MPLS loss, delay, and throughput measurement techniques that suffices to meet the specific requirements of MPLS-TP.
本文档描述了一般MPLS丢失、延迟和吞吐量测量技术的概况，这些技术足以满足MPLS-TP的特定要求。
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.
本文件是联合互联网工程任务组（IETF）/国际电信联盟电信标准化部门（ITU-T）努力的成果，旨在将MPLS传输配置文件纳入IETF MPLS和伪线仿真边到边（PWE3）中支持ITU-T定义的分组传输网络的能力和功能的体系结构。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
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). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
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/rfc6375.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6375.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2011 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Procedures for the measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput in MPLS networks are defined in [RFC6374]. This document describes a profile, i.e., a simplified subset, of these procedures that suffices to meet the specific requirements of MPLS-based transport networks [RFC5921] as defined in [RFC5860]. This profile is presented for the convenience of implementors who are concerned exclusively with the transport network context.
[RFC6374]中定义了MPLS网络中数据包丢失、延迟和吞吐量的测量程序。本文件描述了这些程序的概要文件，即简化的子集，足以满足[RFC5860]中定义的基于MPLS的传输网络[RFC5921]的特定要求。此概要文件是为了方便专门关注传输网络上下文的实现者而提供的。
The use of the profile specified in this document is purely optional. Implementors wishing to provide enhanced functionality that is within the scope of [RFC6374] but outside the scope of this profile may do so, whether or not the implementation is restricted to the transport network context.
本文档中指定的配置文件的使用完全是可选的。希望提供在[RFC6374]范围内但不在本概要文件范围内的增强功能的实施者可以这样做，无论实施是否限于传输网络上下文。
The assumption of this profile is that the devices involved in a measurement operation are configured for measurement by a means external to the measurement protocols themselves, for example, via a Network Management System (NMS) or separate configuration protocol. The manageability considerations in [RFC6374] apply, and further information on MPLS-TP network management can be found in [RFC5950].
该配置文件的假设是，测量操作中涉及的设备通过测量协议本身之外的方式（例如，通过网络管理系统（NMS）或单独的配置协议）进行测量配置。[RFC6374]中的可管理性注意事项适用，有关MPLS-TP网络管理的更多信息可在[RFC5950]中找到。
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.
本文件是联合互联网工程任务组（IETF）/国际电信联盟电信标准化部门（ITU-T）努力的成果，旨在将MPLS传输配置文件纳入IETF MPLS和伪线仿真边到边（PWE3）中支持ITU-T定义的分组传输网络的能力和功能的体系结构。
The measurement considerations discussed in Section 2.9 of [RFC6374] apply also in the context of MPLS-TP, except for the following, which pertain to topologies excluded from MPLS-TP:
[RFC6374]第2.9节中讨论的测量注意事项也适用于MPLS-TP，以下情况除外，这些情况与MPLS-TP中排除的拓扑有关：
o Equal Cost Multipath considerations (Section 2.9.4 of [RFC6374])
o 同等成本多路径考虑（RFC6374第2.9.4节）
o Considerations for direct Loss Measurement (LM) in the presence of Label Switched Paths constructed via the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) or utilizing Penultimate Hop Popping (Section 2.9.8 of [RFC6374])
o 存在通过标签分发协议（LDP）或使用倒数第二跳弹出的标签交换路径时的直接损耗测量（LM）注意事项（RFC6374第2.9.8节）
When an LM session is externally configured, the values of several protocol parameters can be fixed in advance at the endpoints involved in the session, so that negotiation of these parameters is not required. These parameters, and their default values as specified by this profile, are as follows:
在外部配置LM会话时，可以在会话中涉及的端点处预先固定多个协议参数的值，因此不需要协商这些参数。这些参数及其在此配置文件中指定的默认值如下所示：
Parameter Default Value
----------------------------------------- --------------------------
Query control code In-band Response Requested
Byte/packet Count (B) Flag Packet count
Traffic-class-specific (T) Flag Traffic-class-scoped
Origin Timestamp Format (OTF) Truncated IEEE 1588v2
Parameter Default Value
----------------------------------------- --------------------------
Query control code In-band Response Requested
Byte/packet Count (B) Flag Packet count
Traffic-class-specific (T) Flag Traffic-class-scoped
Origin Timestamp Format (OTF) Truncated IEEE 1588v2
A simple implementation may assume that external configuration will ensure that both ends of the communication are using the default values for these parameters. However, implementations are strongly advised to validate the values of these parameters in received messages so that configuration inconsistencies can be detected and reported.
一个简单的实现可能假设外部配置将确保通信的两端都使用这些参数的默认值。但是，强烈建议实现验证接收到的消息中这些参数的值，以便可以检测和报告配置不一致。
LM message rates (and test message rates, when inferred LM is used) should be configurable by the network operator on a per-channel basis. The following intervals should be supported:
LM消息速率（以及使用推断LM时的测试消息速率）应由网络运营商根据每个信道进行配置。应支持以下间隔：
Message Type Supported Intervals
-------------- ------------------------------------------------------
LM Message 100 milliseconds, 1 second, 10 seconds, 1 minute, 10
minutes
Test Message 10 milliseconds, 100 milliseconds, 1 second, 10
seconds, 1 minute
Message Type Supported Intervals
-------------- ------------------------------------------------------
LM Message 100 milliseconds, 1 second, 10 seconds, 1 minute, 10
minutes
Test Message 10 milliseconds, 100 milliseconds, 1 second, 10
seconds, 1 minute
When a DM session is externally configured, the values of several protocol parameters can be fixed in advance at the endpoints involved in the session, so that negotiation of these parameters is not required. These parameters, and their default values as specified by this profile, are as follows:
当外部配置DM会话时，可以在会话中涉及的端点处预先固定多个协议参数的值，因此不需要协商这些参数。这些参数及其在此配置文件中指定的默认值如下所示：
Parameter Default Value
------------------------------------------ --------------------------
Query control code In-band Response Requested
Querier Timestamp Format (QTF) Truncated IEEE 1588v2
Responder Timestamp Format (RTF) Truncated IEEE 1588v2
Responder's Preferred Timestamp Format Truncated IEEE 1588v2
(RPTF)
Parameter Default Value
------------------------------------------ --------------------------
Query control code In-band Response Requested
Querier Timestamp Format (QTF) Truncated IEEE 1588v2
Responder Timestamp Format (RTF) Truncated IEEE 1588v2
Responder's Preferred Timestamp Format Truncated IEEE 1588v2
(RPTF)
A simple implementation may assume that external configuration will ensure that both ends of the communication are using the default values for these parameters. However, implementations are strongly advised to validate the values of these parameters in received messages so that configuration inconsistencies can be detected and reported.
一个简单的实现可能假设外部配置将确保通信的两端都使用这些参数的默认值。但是，强烈建议实现验证接收到的消息中这些参数的值，以便可以检测和报告配置不一致。
DM message rates should be configurable by the network operator on a per-channel basis. The following message intervals should be supported: 1 second, 10 seconds, 1 minute, 10 minutes.
DM消息速率应由网络运营商根据每个信道进行配置。应支持以下消息间隔：1秒、10秒、1分钟、10分钟。
This document delineates a subset of the procedures specified in [RFC6374], and as such introduces no new security considerations in itself. The security considerations discussed in [RFC6374] also apply to the profile presented in this document. General considerations for MPLS-TP network security can be found in [SECURITY-FRAMEWORK].
本文件描述了[RFC6374]中规定的程序子集，因此，本文件本身没有引入新的安全注意事项。[RFC6374]中讨论的安全注意事项也适用于本文档中提供的概要文件。MPLS-TP网络安全的一般注意事项可在[security-FRAMEWORK]中找到。
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
[RFC5860]Vigoureux，M.，Ward，D.，和M.Betts，“MPLS传输网络中的操作、管理和维护（OAM）要求”，RFC 5860，2010年5月。
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.
[RFC6374]Frost，D.和S.Bryant，“MPLS网络的数据包丢失和延迟测量”，RFC 63742011年9月。
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010.
[RFC5921]Bocci，M.，Bryant，S.，Frost，D.，Levrau，L.，和L.Berger，“传输网络中MPLS的框架”，RFC 59212010年7月。
[RFC5950] Mansfield, S., Gray, E., and K. Lam, "Network Management Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks", RFC 5950, September 2010.
[RFC5950]Mansfield，S.，Gray，E.和K.Lam，“基于MPLS的传输网络的网络管理框架”，RFC 59502010年9月。
[SECURITY-FRAMEWORK] Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., and S. Mansfield, "MPLS-TP Security Framework", Work in Progress, May 2011.
[SECURITY-FRAMEWORK]Fang，L.，Niven Jenkins，B.，和S.Mansfield，“MPLS-TP安全框架”，正在进行的工作，2011年5月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Dan Frost (editor) Cisco Systems
Dan Frost（编辑）思科系统公司
EMail: danfrost@cisco.com
EMail: danfrost@cisco.com
Stewart Bryant (editor) Cisco Systems
斯图尔特·布莱恩特（编辑）思科系统
EMail: stbryant@cisco.com
EMail: stbryant@cisco.com