Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Frost
Request for Comments: 7167 Blue Sun
Category: Informational S. Bryant
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
M. Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent
L. Berger
LabN Consulting
April 2014
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Frost
Request for Comments: 7167 Blue Sun
Category: Informational S. Bryant
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
M. Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent
L. Berger
LabN Consulting
April 2014
A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks
传输网络中点对多点MPLS的一种框架
Abstract
摘要
The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the common set of MPLS protocol functions defined to enable the construction and operation of packet transport networks. The MPLS-TP supports both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transport paths. This document defines the elements and functions of the MPLS-TP architecture that are applicable specifically to supporting point-to-multipoint transport paths.
多协议标签交换传输配置文件（MPLS-TP）是一组常见的MPLS协议功能，用于构建和运行分组传输网络。MPLS-TP支持点对点和点对多点传输路径。本文档定义了MPLS-TP体系结构的元素和功能，这些元素和功能特别适用于支持点到多点传输路径。
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/rfc7167.
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/rfc7167.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2014 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。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. MPLS-TP P2MP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. MPLS-TP Encapsulation and Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. P2MP LSP Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. P2MP PW Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Survivability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. MPLS-TP P2MP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. MPLS-TP Encapsulation and Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. P2MP LSP Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. P2MP PW Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Survivability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the common set of MPLS protocol functions defined to meet the requirements specified in [RFC5654]. The MPLS-TP Framework [RFC5921] provides an overall introduction to the MPLS-TP and defines the general architecture of the Transport Profile, as well as the aspects specific to point-to-point transport paths. The purpose of this document is to define the elements and functions of the MPLS-TP architecture applicable specifically to supporting point-to-multipoint transport paths.
多协议标签交换传输配置文件（MPLS-TP）是为满足[RFC5654]中规定的要求而定义的一组通用MPLS协议功能。MPLS-TP框架[RFC5921]全面介绍了MPLS-TP，并定义了传输配置文件的一般架构，以及特定于点到点传输路径的方面。本文档旨在定义MPLS-TP体系结构的元素和功能，该体系结构特别适用于支持点对多点传输路径。
This document defines the elements and functions of the MPLS-TP architecture related to supporting point-to-multipoint transport paths. The reader is referred to [RFC5921] for the aspects of the MPLS-TP architecture that are generic or are concerned specifically with point-to-point transport paths.
本文档定义了与支持点到多点传输路径相关的MPLS-TP体系结构的要素和功能。读者可参考[RFC5921]了解MPLS-TP体系结构的通用方面或具体涉及点到点传输路径的方面。
Term Definition
------- ---------------------------------------------------
CE Customer Edge
LSP Label Switched Path
LSR Label Switching Router
MEG Maintenance Entity Group
MEP Maintenance Entity Group End Point
MIP Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point
MPLS-TE MPLS Traffic Engineering
MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
OTN Optical Transport Network
P2MP Point-to-multipoint
PW Pseudowire
RSVP-TE Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
SDH Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
tLDP Targeted LDP
Term Definition
------- ---------------------------------------------------
CE Customer Edge
LSP Label Switched Path
LSR Label Switching Router
MEG Maintenance Entity Group
MEP Maintenance Entity Group End Point
MIP Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point
MPLS-TE MPLS Traffic Engineering
MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
OTN Optical Transport Network
P2MP Point-to-multipoint
PW Pseudowire
RSVP-TE Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
SDH Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
tLDP Targeted LDP
Detailed definitions and additional terminology may be found in [RFC5921] and [RFC5654].
详细定义和附加术语可参见[RFC5921]和[RFC5654]。
The point-to-multipoint connectivity provided by an MPLS-TP network is based on the point-to-multipoint connectivity provided by MPLS networks. Traffic Engineered P2MP LSP support is discussed in [RFC4875] and [RFC5332], and P2MP PW support is being developed based on [P2MP-PW-REQS] and [VPMS-FRMWK-REQS]. MPLS-TP point-to-multipoint connectivity is analogous to that provided by traditional transport technologies such as Optical Transport Network point-to-multipoint [G.798] and drop-and-continue [G.780], and thus supports the same class of traditional applications, e.g., video distribution.
MPLS-TP网络提供的点对多点连接基于MPLS网络提供的点对多点连接。[RFC4875]和[RFC5332]中讨论了流量工程P2MP LSP支持，并且正在基于[P2MP-PW-REQS]和[VPMS-FRMWK-REQS]开发P2MP PW支持。MPLS-TP点对多点连接类似于传统传输技术提供的连接，如光传输网络点对多点[G.798]和丢弃并继续[G.780]，因此支持相同类别的传统应用，例如视频分发。
The scope of this document is limited to point-to-multipoint functions and it does not discuss multipoint-to-multipoint support.
本文档的范围仅限于点对多点功能，不讨论多点对多点的支持。
The requirements for MPLS-TP are specified in [RFC5654], [RFC5860], and [RFC5951]. This section provides a brief summary of point-to-multipoint transport requirements as set out in those documents; the reader is referred to the documents themselves for the definitive and complete list of requirements. This summary does not include the RFC 2119 [BCP14] conformance language used in the original documents as this document is not authoritative.
[RFC5654]、[RFC5860]和[RFC5951]中规定了MPLS-TP的要求。本节简要概述了这些文件中规定的点对多点运输要求；读者可参考文件本身，以获得最终完整的要求列表。本摘要不包括原始文件中使用的RFC 2119[BCP14]合规性语言，因为本文件不具有权威性。
From [RFC5654]:
从[RFC5654]：
o MPLS-TP must support traffic-engineered point-to-multipoint transport paths.
o MPLS-TP必须支持流量工程的点到多点传输路径。
o MPLS-TP must support unidirectional point-to-multipoint transport paths.
o MPLS-TP必须支持单向点对多点传输路径。
o MPLS-TP must be capable of using P2MP server (sub)layer capabilities as well as P2P server (sub)layer capabilities when supporting P2MP MPLS-TP transport paths.
o 在支持P2MP MPLS-TP传输路径时，MPLS-TP必须能够使用P2MP服务器（子）层功能以及P2P服务器（子）层功能。
o The MPLS-TP control plane must support establishing all the connectivity patterns defined for the MPLS-TP data plane (i.e., unidirectional P2P, associated bidirectional P2P, co-routed bidirectional P2P, unidirectional P2MP) including configuration of protection functions and any associated maintenance functions.
o MPLS-TP控制平面必须支持建立为MPLS-TP数据平面定义的所有连接模式（即单向P2P、相关双向P2P、共路由双向P2P、单向P2MP），包括保护功能和任何相关维护功能的配置。
o Recovery techniques used for P2P and P2MP should be identical to simplify implementation and operation.
o 用于P2P和P2MP的恢复技术应该相同，以简化实现和操作。
o Unidirectional 1+1 and 1:n protection for P2MP connectivity must be supported.
o 必须支持P2MP连接的单向1+1和1:n保护。
o MPLS-TP recovery in a ring must protect unidirectional P2MP transport paths.
o 环中的MPLS-TP恢复必须保护单向P2MP传输路径。
From [RFC5860]:
从[RFC5860]：
o The protocol solution(s) developed to perform the following OAM functions must also apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point unidirectional LSPs, and point-to-multipoint LSPs:
o 为执行以下OAM功能而开发的协议解决方案也必须适用于点对点关联的双向LSP、点对点单向LSP和点对多点LSP：
* Continuity Check
* 连续性检查
* Connectivity Verification, proactive
* 连接验证，主动式
* Lock Instruct
* 锁定指令
* Lock Reporting
* 锁定报告
* Alarm Reporting
* 报警报告
* Client Failure Indication
* 客户端故障指示
* Packet Loss Measurement
* 丢包测量
* Packet Delay Measurement
* 包延迟测量
o The protocol solution(s) developed to perform the following OAM functions may also apply to point-to-point associated bidirectional LSPs, point-to-point unidirectional LSPs, and point-to-multipoint LSPs:
o 为执行以下OAM功能而开发的协议解决方案也可应用于点对点关联的双向LSP、点对点单向LSP和点对多点LSP：
* Connectivity Verification, on-demand
* 按需连接验证
* Route Tracing
* 路线追踪
* Diagnostic Tests
* 诊断测试
* Remote Defect Indication
* 远程缺陷指示
From [RFC5951]:
从[RFC5951]：
o For unidirectional (P2P and point-to-multipoint (P2MP)) connection, proactive measurement of packet loss and loss ratio is required.
o 对于单向（P2P和点对多点（P2MP））连接，需要主动测量数据包丢失和丢失率。
o For a unidirectional (P2P and P2MP) connection, on-demand measurement of delay measurement is required.
o 对于单向（P2P和P2MP）连接，需要按需测量延迟测量。
The overall architecture of the MPLS-TP is defined in [RFC5921]. The architecture for point-to-multipoint MPLS-TP comprises the following additional elements and functions:
MPLS-TP的总体架构在[RFC5921]中定义。点对多点MPLS-TP的体系结构包括以下附加元素和功能：
o Unidirectional point-to-multipoint LSPs
o 单向点对多点LSP
o Unidirectional point-to-multipoint PWs
o 单向点对多点PWs
o Optional point-to-multipoint LSP and PW control planes
o 可选点对多点LSP和PW控制平面
o Survivability, network management, and Operations, Administration, and Maintenance functions for point-to-multipoint PWs and LSPs.
o 点对多点PWs和LSP的生存能力、网络管理以及操作、管理和维护功能。
The following subsection summarises the encapsulation and forwarding of point-to-multipoint traffic within an MPLS-TP network, and the encapsulation options for delivery of traffic to and from MPLS-TP CE devices when the network is providing a packet transport service.
以下小节总结了MPLS-TP网络内点对多点流量的封装和转发，以及当网络提供分组传输服务时，用于向MPLS-TP CE设备和从MPLS-TP CE设备传递流量的封装选项。
Packet encapsulation and forwarding for MPLS-TP point-to-multipoint LSPs is identical to that for MPLS-TE point-to-multipoint LSPs. MPLS-TE point-to-multipoint LSPs were introduced in [RFC4875] and the related data-plane behaviour was further clarified in [RFC5332]. MPLS-TP allows for both upstream-assigned and downstream-assigned labels for use with point-to-multipoint LSPs.
MPLS-TP点对多点LSP的包封装和转发与MPLS-TE点对多点LSP的包封装和转发相同。[RFC4875]中介绍了MPLS-TE点对多点LSP，并在[RFC5332]中进一步阐明了相关的数据平面行为。MPLS-TP允许上游分配和下游分配标签与点对多点LSP一起使用。
Packet encapsulation and forwarding for point-to-multipoint PWs has been discussed within the PWE3 Working Group [P2MP-PW-ENCAPS], but such definition is for further study.
点对多点PWs的数据包封装和转发已在PWE3工作组[P2MP-PW-ENCAPS]中讨论，但此类定义有待进一步研究。
The requirements for MPLS-TP OAM are specified in [RFC5860]. The overall OAM architecture for MPLS-TP is defined in [RFC6371], and P2MP OAM design considerations are described in Section 3.7 of that RFC.
[RFC5860]中规定了MPLS-TP OAM的要求。MPLS-TP的总体OAM体系结构在[RFC6371]中定义，P2MP OAM设计注意事项在该RFC的第3.7节中描述。
All the traffic sent over a P2MP transport path, including OAM packets generated by a MEP, is sent (multicast) from the root towards all the leaves, and thus may be processed by all the MIPs and MEPs associated with a P2MP MEG. If an OAM packet is to be processed by only a specific leaf, it requires information to indicate to all other leaves that the packet must be discarded. To address a packet to an intermediate node in the tree, Time-to-Live-based addressing is used to set the radius and additional information in the OAM payload
通过P2MP传输路径发送的所有业务，包括由MEP生成的OAM分组，从根向所有叶发送（多播），并且因此可以由与P2MP MEG相关联的所有mip和MEP处理。如果一个OAM数据包仅由一个特定的叶处理，它需要信息来向所有其他叶指示必须丢弃该数据包。为了将数据包寻址到树中的中间节点，使用基于生存时间的寻址来设置OAM负载中的半径和附加信息
is used to identify the specific destination. It is worth noting that a MIP and MEP may be instantiated on a single node when it is both a branch and leaf node.
用于标识特定目的地。值得注意的是，当MIP和MEP都是分支节点和叶节点时，它们可以在单个节点上实例化。
P2MP paths are unidirectional; therefore, any return path to an originating MEP for on-demand transactions will be out of band. Out-of-band return paths are discussed in Section 3.8 of [RFC5921].
P2MP路径是单向的；因此，对于按需事务，任何到原始MEP的返回路径都将是带外的。[RFC5921]第3.8节讨论了带外返回路径。
A more detailed discussion of P2MP OAM considerations can be found in [MPLS-TP-P2MP-OAM].
[MPLS-TP-P2MP-OAM]中对P2MP OAM注意事项进行了更详细的讨论。
The framework for the MPLS-TP control plane is provided in [RFC6373]. This document reviews MPLS-TP control-plane requirements as well as provides details on how the MPLS-TP control plane satisfies these requirements. Most of the requirements identified in [RFC6373] apply equally to P2P and P2MP transport paths. The key P2MP-specific control-plane requirements are:
[RFC6373]中提供了MPLS-TP控制平面的框架。本文件审查了MPLS-TP控制平面要求，并提供了有关MPLS-TP控制平面如何满足这些要求的详细信息。[RFC6373]中确定的大多数要求同样适用于P2P和P2MP传输路径。P2MP特定控制平面的关键要求是：
o requirement 6 (P2MP transport paths),
o 要求6（P2MP传输路径），
o requirement 34 (use P2P sub-layers),
o 要求34（使用P2P子层），
o requirement 49 (common recovery solutions for P2P and P2MP),
o 要求49（P2P和P2MP的通用恢复解决方案），
o requirement 59 (1+1 protection),
o 要求59（1+1保护），
o requirement 62 (1:n protection), and
o 要求62（1:n保护），以及
o requirement 65 (1:n shared mesh recovery).
o 要求65（1:n共享网格恢复）。
[RFC6373] defines the control-plane approach used to support MPLS-TP transport paths. It identifies GMPLS as the control plane for MPLS-TP LSPs and tLDP as the control plane for PWs. MPLS-TP allows that either, or both, LSPs and PWs to be provisioned statically or via a control plane. Quoting from [RFC6373]:
[RFC6373]定义了用于支持MPLS-TP传输路径的控制平面方法。它将GMPLS标识为MPLS-TP LSP的控制平面，将tLDP标识为PWs的控制平面。MPLS-TP允许以静态方式或通过控制平面提供LSP和PWs中的一个或两个。引用自[RFC6373]：
The PW and LSP control planes, collectively, must satisfy the MPLS-TP control-plane requirements. As with P2P services, when P2MP client services are provided directly via LSPs, all requirements must be satisfied by the LSP control plane. When client services are provided via PWs, the PW and LSP control planes can operate in combination, and some functions may be satisfied via the PW control plane while others are provided to PWs by the LSP control plane. This is particularly noteworthy for P2MP recovery.
PW和LSP控制平面必须共同满足MPLS-TP控制平面要求。与P2P服务一样，当P2MP客户端服务直接通过LSP提供时，LSP控制平面必须满足所有要求。当通过PWs提供客户服务时，PW和LSP控制平面可以组合运行，一些功能可以通过PW控制平面满足，而其他功能则由LSP控制平面提供给PWs。这对于P2MP恢复尤其值得注意。
The MPLS-TP control plane for P2MP LSPs uses GMPLS and is based on RSVP-TE for P2MP LSPs as defined in [RFC4875]. A detailed listing of how GMPLS satisfies MPLS-TP control-plane requirements is provided in [RFC6373].
P2MP LSP的MPLS-TP控制平面使用GMPLS，并基于[RFC4875]中定义的P2MP LSP的RSVP-TE。[RFC6373]中提供了GMPLS如何满足MPLS-TP控制平面要求的详细列表。
[RFC6373] notes that recovery techniques for traffic engineered P2MP LSPs are not formally defined, and that such a definition is needed. A formal definition will be based on existing RFCs and may not require any new protocol mechanisms but, nonetheless, should be documented. GMPLS recovery is defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873]. Protection of P2MP LSPs is also discussed in [RFC6372] Section 4.7.3.
[RFC6373]注意到，流量工程P2MP LSP的恢复技术没有正式定义，需要这样的定义。正式定义将基于现有的RFC，可能不需要任何新的协议机制，但应记录在案。[RFC4872]和[RFC4873]中定义了GMPLS恢复。[RFC6372]第4.7.3节还讨论了P2MP LSP的保护。
The MPLS-TP control plane for P2MP PWs should be based on the LDP control protocol used for point-to-point PWs [RFC4447], with updates as required for P2MP applications. A detailed specification of the control plane for P2MP PWs is for further study.
P2MP PWs的MPLS-TP控制平面应基于用于点对点PWs的LDP控制协议[RFC4447]，并根据P2MP应用的需要进行更新。P2MP PWs控制平面的详细规范有待进一步研究。
The overall survivability architecture for MPLS-TP is defined in [RFC6372], and Section 4.7.3 of that RFC in particular describes the application of linear protection to unidirectional P2MP entities using 1+1 and 1:1 protection architecture. For 1+1, the approach is for the root of the P2MP tree to bridge the user traffic to both the working and protection entities. Each sink/leaf MPLS-TP node selects the traffic from one entity according to some predetermined criteria. For 1:1, the source/root MPLS-TP node needs to identify the existence of a fault condition impacting delivery to any of the leaves. Fault notification happens from the node identifying the fault to the root node via an out-of-band path. The root then selects the protection transport path for traffic transfer. More sophisticated survivability approaches such as partial tree protection and 1:n protection are for further study.
MPLS-TP的总体生存性架构在[RFC6372]中定义，RFC第4.7.3节特别描述了使用1+1和1:1保护架构对单向P2MP实体的线性保护应用。对于1+1，方法是P2MP树的根将用户流量桥接到工作实体和保护实体。每个接收器/叶MPLS-TP节点根据一些预定标准从一个实体选择流量。对于1:1，源/根MPLS-TP节点需要确定是否存在影响向任何叶子传送的故障条件。故障通知通过带外路径从识别故障的节点发送到根节点。然后，根用户选择用于流量传输的保护传输路径。更复杂的生存能力方法，如部分树保护和1:n保护有待进一步研究。
The IETF has no experience with P2MP PW survivability as yet; therefore, it is proposed that the P2MP PW survivability will initially rely on the LSP survivability. Further work is needed on this subject, particularly if a requirement emerges to provide survivability for P2MP PWs in an MPLS-TP context.
IETF还没有P2MP PW生存能力方面的经验；因此，建议P2MP PW生存能力将首先依赖于LSP生存能力。在这个问题上需要进一步的工作，特别是如果出现了在MPLS-TP环境中为P2MP PWs提供生存能力的需求。
An overview of network management considerations for MPLS-TP can be found in Section 3.14 of [RFC5921]. The provided description applies equally to P2MP transport paths.
有关MPLS-TP网络管理注意事项的概述，请参见[RFC5921]的第3.14节。所提供的描述同样适用于P2MP传输路径。
The network management architecture and requirements for MPLS-TP are specified in [RFC5951]. They derive from the generic specifications described in ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701 [G.7710] for transport technologies. They also incorporate the OAM requirements for MPLS networks [RFC4377] and MPLS-TP networks [RFC5860] and expand on those requirements to cover the modifications necessary for fault, configuration, performance, and security in a transport network. [RFC5951] covers all MPLS-TP connection types, including P2MP.
[RFC5951]中规定了MPLS-TP的网络管理架构和要求。它们源自ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701[G.7710]中描述的传输技术通用规范。它们还结合了MPLS网络[RFC4377]和MPLS-TP网络[RFC5860]的OAM要求，并对这些要求进行了扩展，以涵盖传输网络中故障、配置、性能和安全性所需的修改。[RFC5951]涵盖所有MPLS-TP连接类型，包括P2MP。
[RFC6639] provides the MIB-based architecture for MPLS-TP. It reviews the interrelationships between different MIB modules that are not MPLS-TP specific and that can be leveraged for MPLS-TP network management, and identifies areas where additional MIB modules are required. While the document does not consider P2MP transport paths, it does provide a foundation for an analysis of areas where MIB-module modification and addition may be needed to fully support P2MP transport paths. There has also been work in the MPLS working group on a P2MP specific MIB, [MPLS-TE-P2MP-MIB].
[RFC6639]为MPLS-TP提供了基于MIB的体系结构。它审查了不同MIB模块之间的相互关系，这些模块不是MPLS-TP特定的，可以用于MPLS-TP网络管理，并确定了需要额外MIB模块的领域。虽然文档不考虑2MP传输路径，但它确实为MIB模块修改和添加可能需要完全支持2MP传输路径的区域的分析提供了基础。MPLS工作组也在研究P2MP特定MIB[MPLS-TE-P2MP-MIB]。
General security considerations for MPLS-TP are covered in [RFC5921]. Additional security considerations for P2MP LSPs are provided in [RFC4875]. This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those covered in those documents.
[RFC5921]中介绍了MPLS-TP的一般安全注意事项。[RFC4875]中提供了P2MP LSP的其他安全注意事项。除这些文件中涉及的安全注意事项外，本文件未引入任何新的安全注意事项。
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007.
[RFC4872]Lang，J.，Rekhter，Y.，和D.Papadimitriou，“支持端到端通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）恢复的RSVP-TE扩展”，RFC 4872，2007年5月。
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC4873]Berger，L.，Bryskin，I.，Papadimitriou，D.，和A.Farrel，“GMPLS段恢复”，RFC 4873，2007年5月。
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa, "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC4875]Aggarwal，R.，Papadimitriou，D.，和S.Yasukawa，“资源预留协议的扩展-点对多点TE标签交换路径（LSP）的流量工程（RSVP-TE）”，RFC 4875，2007年5月。
[RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.
[RFC5332]Eckert，T.，Rosen，E.，Aggarwal，R.，和Y.Rekhter，“MPLS多播封装”，RFC 5332，2008年8月。
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC5654]Niven Jenkins，B.，Brungard，D.，Betts，M.，Sprecher，N.，和S.Ueno，“MPLS传输配置文件的要求”，RFC 56542009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。
[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[BCP14]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[G.7710] ITU-T, "Common equipment management function requirements", ITU-T G.7710/Y.1701, July 2007.
[G.7710]ITU-T，“通用设备管理功能要求”，ITU-T G.7710/Y.17012007年7月。
[G.780] ITU-T, "Terms and definitions for synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH) networks", ITU-T G.780/Y.1351, July 2010.
[G.780]ITU-T，“同步数字体系（SDH）网络的术语和定义”，ITU-T G.780/Y.13512010年7月。
[G.798] ITU-T, "Characteristics of optical transport network hierarchy equipment functional blocks", ITU-T G.798, December 2012.
[G.798]ITU-T，“光传输网络层次结构设备功能块的特征”，ITU-T G.798，2012年12月。
[MPLS-TE-P2MP-MIB] Farrel, A., Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB) module", Work in Progress, April 2009.
[MPLS-TE-P2MP-MIB]Farrel，A.，Yasukawa，S.，和T.Nadeau，“点对多点多协议标签交换（MPLS）流量工程（TE）管理信息库（MIB）模块”，正在进行的工作，2009年4月。
[MPLS-TP-P2MP-OAM] Arai, K., Koike, Y., Hamano, T., and M. Namiki, "Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TP OAM", Work in Progress, January 2014.
[MPLS-TP-P2MP-OAM]Arai，K.，Koike，Y.，Hamano，T.，和M.Namiki，“点对多点MPLS-TP OAM框架”，正在进行的工作，2014年1月。
[P2MP-PW-ENCAPS] Aggarwal, R. and F. Jounay, "Point-to-Multipoint Pseudo-Wire Encapsulation", Work in Progress, March 2010.
[P2MP-PW-ENCAPS]Aggarwal，R.和F.Jounay，“点对多点伪导线封装”，正在进行的工作，2010年3月。
[P2MP-PW-REQS] Jounay, F., Kamite, Y., Heron, G., and M. Bocci, "Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over MPLS PSNs", Work in Progress, February 2014.
[P2MP-PW-REQS]Jounay，F.，Kamite，Y.，Heron，G.，和M.Bocci，“MPLS PSN上点对多点伪线的要求和框架”，正在进行的工作，2014年2月。
[RFC4377] Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and S. Matsushima, "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006.
[RFC4377]Nadeau，T.，Morrow，M.，Swallow，G.，Allan，D.，和S.Matsushima，“多协议标签交换（MPLS）网络的运营和管理（OAM）要求”，RFC 4377，2006年2月。
[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.
[RFC4447]Martini，L.，Rosen，E.，El Aawar，N.，Smith，T.，和G.Heron，“使用标签分发协议（LDP）的伪线设置和维护”，RFC 4447，2006年4月。
[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。
[RFC5951] Lam, K., Mansfield, S., and E. Gray, "Network Management Requirements for MPLS-based Transport Networks", RFC 5951, September 2010.
[RFC5951]Lam，K.，Mansfield，S.，和E.Gray，“基于MPLS的传输网络的网络管理要求”，RFC 59512010年9月。
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6371]Busi，I.和D.Allan，“基于MPLS的传输网络的运营、管理和维护框架”，RFC 6371，2011年9月。
[RFC6372] Sprecher, N. and A. Farrel, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372, September 2011.
[RFC6372]Sprecher，N.和A.Farrel，“MPLS传输配置文件（MPLS-TP）生存能力框架”，RFC 63722011年9月。
[RFC6373] Andersson, L., Berger, L., Fang, L., Bitar, N., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Control Plane Framework", RFC 6373, September 2011.
[RFC6373]Andersson，L.，Berger，L.，Fang，L.，Bitar，N.，和E.Gray，“MPLS传输配置文件（MPLS-TP）控制平面框架”，RFC 63732011年9月。
[RFC6639] King, D. and M. Venkatesan, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-Based Management Overview", RFC 6639, June 2012.
[RFC6639]King，D.和M.Venkatesan，“多协议标签交换传输配置文件（MPLS-TP）基于MIB的管理概述”，RFC 66392012年6月。
[VPMS-FRMWK-REQS] Kamite, Y., Jounay, F., Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., and L. Jin, "Framework and Requirements for Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS)", Work in Progress, October 2012.
[VPMS-FRMWK-REQS]Kamite，Y.，Jounay，F.，Niven Jenkins，B.，Brungard，D.，和L.Jin，“虚拟专用多播服务（VPMS）的框架和要求”，正在进行的工作，2012年10月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Dan Frost Blue Sun
丹弗罗斯特蓝色太阳
EMail: frost@mm.st
EMail: frost@mm.st
Stewart Bryant Cisco Systems
思科系统公司
EMail: stbryant@cisco.com
EMail: stbryant@cisco.com
Matthew Bocci Alcatel-Lucent Voyager Place, Shoppenhangers Road Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2PJ United Kingdom
Matthew Bocci Alcatel-Lucent Voyager Place，英国伯克斯市梅登黑德Shoppenivers路SL6 2PJ
EMail: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
EMail: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
Lou Berger LabN Consulting
Lou Berger LabN咨询公司
Phone: +1-301-468-9228
EMail: lberger@labn.net
Phone: +1-301-468-9228
EMail: lberger@labn.net