Network Working Group N. Sprecher Internet-Draft Y. Weingarten Intended status: Informational Nokia Siemens Networks Expires: December 25, 2011 K. Hong L. Fang Cisco Systems, Inc. June 23, 2011 Migration Considerations and Techniques for Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile based Networks and Services draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-migration-04.txt Abstract MPLS-TP defines a packet-based network architecture and a comprehensive set of tools that allow service providers to reliably deliver next generation services and applications, in a simple, scalable, and cost-effective way. Such services are BW-hungry based and require strict guaranteed SLA. Delivering next generation services over an MPLS-TP based network in an economic way, enables service providers to remain competitive while increasing their revenues. This document presents the motivations for migrating from different legacy transport networks and services to MPLS-TP, and discusses the considerations and strategies for the migration. The document also proposes specific activities and techniques needed to ensure a smooth migration path from the different transport networks and services to MPLS-TP. 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 http://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 December 25, 2011. Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 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. 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. Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Overview of MPLS-TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Motivations for Upgrading Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. General Considerations and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Migration models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.1. Island model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2. Phased model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1.3. Integrated model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. Migration strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. Migrating from TDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2. Migration Activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Migrating from ATM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Migrating from Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Migrating from MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.1. General note on migrating MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2. MPLS-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.2.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . 15 7.3. IP/MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.3.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.3.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Migrating from pre-standard MPLS-TP (T-MPLS) . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. Main motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. Migration activities and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 Editors' Note: This Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF Last Call. [RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published RFC has IETF Consensus.] 1. Introduction 1.1. Overview of MPLS-TP The Transport Profile for MPLS (MPLS-TP) is being specified in the IETF as part of a joint effort with the ITU-T to develop a definition of the MPLS network that will fulfill the strict requirements for transport networks that are accepted by the ITU-T. This profile will be based on the definitions of the MPLS, MPLS Traffic Engineering, and Multi-Segment Pseudo-Wire architectures defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3985], and [RFC5659]. The requirements for MPLS-TP are detailed in [RFC5654]. These requirements were developed in full cooperation between the IETF and ITU-T, and reflect the needs to adhere to the architecture of MPLS while including the enhanced level of service transparency, and Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functionality required for stable transport networks. The requirements for the OAM functionality are further developed and defined in [MPLS-TP-OAM], providing the list of OAM procedures to be supported by MPLS-TP. The architecture for MPLS-TP is defined in [RFC5921] and builds upon the experience of the MPLS architecture. The architecture is designed to allow MPLS-TP networks to operate whether the configuration was implemented by use of control-plane signaling or a management application. In addition, the MPLS-TP architecture is designed to support networks that may not be using IP forwarding and addressing. The framework defines the different service structures supported by MPLS-TP and the interworking between these service structures and existing MPLS services. Also defined are the characteristics of the profile that defines MPLS-TP. This synergy of architectures guarantees the service provider the ability to provide services with guaranteed and strict Service Level Agreements in a highly scalable robust network while reducing operational costs. A main focus of MPLS-TP is the definition of OAM functionality for MPLS data paths that support the transport services. MPLS-TP Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 provides a comprehensive set of OAM tools for fault management and performance monitoring, supporting the network and the services at different nested levels (i.e. at the end-to-end level, a segment of a path, and link level). The OAM tools may be used to monitor the network infrastructure, to enhance the general behavior, and performance level of the network. The tools may also be used to monitor the service level offered to the end customer, allowing verification of the SLA parameters, and enabling rapid response in the event of a failure or service degradation. The OAM tools help reduce OPEX, minimizing the overhead of trouble shooting, and enhancing customer satisfaction which, in turn, helps to enable the delivery of high-margin premium services. The architectural constructs and the methodology of the OAM functionality is defined by [MPLS-TP-OAM-Fwk]. This includes the definition of the transport entities that are monitored by the OAM procedures and detailed description of how the OAM procedures are applied to these transport entities. A central issue in MPLS-TP OAM is the independence of the OAM from the existence of an operational control plane in the network. This feature is supported by the creation of an in-band control channel that is used to transmit the OAM procedures across the transport paths. A cornerstone of the definition of the OAM procedures is to use existing IETF OAM tools as the basis of the MPLS-TP OAM procedures wherever possible, this principle is used as the underlying foundation for the definition of the OAM tools defined for MPLS-TP. Protection mechanisms for the MPLS-TP transport paths are described in [MPLS-TP-Surviv] and are conformed with different topological configurations of the network. 1.2. Motivations for Upgrading Networks The growth of packet traffic has significantly increased, driven by the high demand and penetration of new packet-based services and multimedia applications, across the access, aggregation and core networks and is expected to continue to increase. With the movement toward packet-based services, the transport network has to evolve to encompass the provision of packet-aware capabilities while enabling carriers to leverage their installed, as well as planned, transport infrastructure investments. Carriers are in need of technologies capable of efficiently supporting packet-based services and applications on their transport networks with guaranteed Service Level Agreements (SLAs). The need to increase their revenue while remaining competitive forces operators to look for the lowest network Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and as such requires investment in equipment and facilities Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 (Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) be minimized. There are a number of technology options for carriers to meet the challenge of increased service sophistication and transport efficiency, with increasing usage of hybrid packet-transport and circuit-transport technology solutions. To address this challenge, it is essential that packet-transport technology be available that can provide reliability, operational simplicity - preserving the look and feel to which service providers have accustomed, multi-layer operations, resiliency, control, and multi-technology management. Transport carriers require control and deterministic usage of network resources. They need end-to-end control to engineer network paths and to efficiently utilize network resources. They require capabilities to support static (management-plane-based) or dynamic (control-plane-based) provisioning of deterministic, protected, and secured services and their associated resources. For transport carriers, it is also important to ensure smooth interworking of the packet transport network with other existing/legacy packet networks, and provide mappings to enable packet transport carriage over a variety of transport network infrastructures. MPLS is a maturing packet technology and it is already playing an important role in transport networks and services. The development of MPLS-TP has proposed a set of compatible technology enhancements to existing MPLS standards to extent the definition of MPLS toward supporting traditional transport operational models. These enhancements inherit all the supporting QoS, recovery, control and data plane mechanisms already defined within standards. MPLS-TP will enable the deployment of packet-based transport networks that will efficiently scale to support packet services in a simple and cost- effective way. 2. Terminology and References 2.1. Acronyms This draft uses the following acronyms: MPLS-TP Multiprotocol Label Switching - Transport Protocol OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 3. General Considerations and Strategies A migration strategy is necessary for service providers to ensure the smooth migration process in a cost-efficient and scalable way. Smooth migration is required to enable service providers to maintain their existing investments in the installed base for as long as economically justifiable. Smooth migration is required to enable service providers to maintain their existing investments in the installed base for as long as economically justifiable. For service providers, smooth migration path and seamless interworking between the installed networks and the MPLS-TP based network, also eliminates the risks associated with fork-lifting a new-technology or implementation upgrade onto the whole network in one day. Such an approach allows service providers to ensure that the new implementations work as expected in live networks and that the customers' quality of experience is maintained and not affected. The migration should be a smooth and seamless transfer of technology while continuing to support the services that generate the revenues. This means that the migration strategy should address the following considerations: o Cost-effective - Minimize the number of migration steps, stay within budget for both operating (OPEX) and capital (CAPEX) expenses. o Service continuity - perform the switchover without a service break to existing customers and their services. Service performance, availability and subscriber experience should reaminremain unaffected. o Provide a reliable fall-back - don't burn your bridges until the new connections are secure and robust enough to maintain the service-level agreements. o Minimum switchover time - when everything is in place need to minimize the side-effects by minimizing the time needed to have the new service platform performing. o Aspects of data-plane, OAM and recovery mechanisms, control plane and management-plane Different migration models have been discussed in the literature, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. The most basic model, forklifting the new technology, in our case MPLS-TP, onto the Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 network involves simultaneously upgrading the entire network to work with the new technology. This type of migration is very risky if the new technology does not work as expected in the live network after disabling the legacy technology. In order to minimize the risk, it could be possible to install an entire parallel network based on MPLS-TP and then switch over from the legacy network to the MPLS-TP network. However, this would be very costly, i.e. purchasing equipment for two parallel networks, and again could not guarantee that the new technology network would work as planned. This, in turn, would cause a major disruption of services. Note that, theoretically, one could build an entire parallel network, switch the traffic over to the new network and then pull down the old network. It is complicated or even impossible to coordinate such an upgrade across the entire network. The forklift migration is neither practical nor recommended. However, it can be performed locally across a section of the network. In the following descriptions we concentrate on the following models: o Island model - introducing the MPLS-TP in separate sub-domains of the network. The transport paths may cross the different technology domains that are interconnected by gateways. See section 3.1 for more details. o Phased model - where the existing equipment is slowly upgraded with new MPLS-TP capabilities as needed. For more details see section 3.2. o Integrated model - network nodes are either legacy nodes or dual- mode nodes supporting both legacy and MPLS-TP capabilities. See section 3.3 for more details. It should be noted that not all of these models are relevant to migration from specific legacy technologies. The relevance for each technology of the particular migration model will be discussed in the sections below that discuss the specific technologies. 3.1. Migration models 3.1.1. Island model In this migration model presented previously in [RFC5145] the service provider introduces clusters of MPLS-TP nodes that are interconnected with the legacy clusters through border nodes. The border nodes act as gateways, that are responsible for the mapping or adaptation of protocol elements that may be transmitted between legacy and MPLS-TP Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 nodes. The island model is applicable when new pieces of network are introduced, or when a localized forklift is performed. End-to-end services may traverse between the islands. The configuration of the transport paths may be "balanced" or "unbalanced". In a balanced path configuration both endpoints of the path are nodes of the same technology, but the path may have crossed islands of the other technology in the middle of the path, see Figure 1. An unbalanced path configuration would be if the path starts at a node of one technology and ends at a node supporting the second technology, see Figure 1. +----+ +--+ +----+ +--+ +----+ +--+ +----+ |Lgcy| |LN| |Brdr| |TP| |Brdr| |LN| |Lgcy| | |==========| |==========| |=========| | ..|........Service...Transport...Path.................|... | |==========| |==========| |=========| | |Conn| | | |Gtwy| | | |Gtwy| | | |Conn| +----+ +--+ +----+ +--+ +----+ +--+ +----+ . . . . . . | Legacy | | MPLS-TP | | Legacy | |<----Island---->| |<---Island--->| |<---Island--->| LN - one or more Legacy Nodes TP - one or more MPLS-TP LSR Brdr Gtwy - Border node that acts as gateway Lgcy Conn - Legacy node that where service connects Figure 1: Balanced island path Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 +----+ +--+ +----+ +--+ +----+ |Lgcy| |LN| |Brdr| |TP| | TP | | |==========| |==========| | ....|...Service...Transport...Path.......|... | |==========| |==========| | |Conn| | | |Gtwy| | | |Conn| +----+ +--+ +----+ +--+ +----+ . . . . | Legacy | | MPLS-TP | |<----Island---->| |<---Island--->| LN - one or more Legacy Nodes TP - one or more MPLS-TP LSR Brdr Gtwy - Border node that acts as gateway Lgcy Conn - Legacy node that where service connects TP Conn - MPLS-TP LER Figure 2: Unbalanced island path The tools that may be used at the border, gateway nodes may be based on either layered networks or on an interworking or mapping between protocols. The layered network (which may be seen also as an overlay network) tools are applicable only in the case of Layered networks are used to separate the domains belonging to different technologies. MPLS-TP LSPs provide TE-links to carry legacy traffic. The gateways adapt the legacy traffic and multiplex it over the TE-links. When interconnection is based on interworking or mapping tools, service or network interworking is used between the islands through gateways which are responsible for mapping protocols&apos elements. This model is very useful when upgrading the network in stages, where new MPLS-TP equipment is upgraded in clusters that form an island. These islands can be slowly expanded and merged until they create a single MPLS-TP network. Whenever the islands are expanded or merged make-before-break procedures should be employed in order to keep services running. 3.1.2. Phased model In this model the existing equipment is upgraded with the features and functionality of the new technology. The new functionality is introduced as needed, while ensuring interoperability with the legacy technology. This is highly dependent upon the possibility to upgrade the equipment, either software or firmware, to support the new functionality and upon the support of equipment from different vendors for the same set of capabilities. The advantage of this model is that it allows the service provider to Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 quickly support enhanced capabilities on his existing equipment. However, this model is not applicable to all legacy technologies. For this to work the new capabilities need to be backward compatible with the legacy technology, and all of the vendors, involved in the migration, need to implement the new capabilities specified by the service provider. 3.1.3. Integrated model This model allows a network to have new "dual-mode" nodes, which support integrated MPLS-TP and legacy functionality, in the legacy networks, as is depicted in Figure 3. A mandatory requirement in this model is that the MPLS-TP and the legacy technologies can co-exist in the same network. There is no requirement for interworking. Existing services would be routed either through legacy nodes or through the new dual-mode nodes. New services would be routed through new dual-mode nodes. Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 11] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 ----------------------------------------- | --- --- --- --- | | | L |---| L |---| L |---| L | | | --- --- --- --- | | \ / | | \ / | | \ / | | \ --- / --- --- | | | L |---| L |---| L | | | /| T |...| T |...| T | | | / --- --- --- | | / : : | | --- / : : | | | L |/ --- --- | | | T |.....| T |...........| T | | | --- --- --- | | : : | | : : | | --- --- --- --- | | | T |....| T |....| T |...| T | | | --- --- --- --- | | | ----------------------------------------- Key: --- | L | Legacy Node --- --- | D | Dual-Stack Node --- --- | T | MPLS-TP Node --- --- Legacy MPLS LSP ... MPLS-TP OAM-capable LSP Figure 3: Integrated model network Gradual migration is supported by this model. The dual-mode nodes are either legacy nodes that are upgraded to support MPLS-TP functionality. Services can be switched gradually from the legacy Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 12] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 transport paths to the MPLS-TP paths as they become available, using make-before-break procedures. Eventually, as all the service paths are transferred to MPLS-TP the legacy technology cloud can be switched off. New devices will support MPLS-TP functionality only. 3.2. Migration strategies The migration process will be a gradual process and it should be tailored for each service provider&aposs network. Minimizing risks, controlling costs, and recognizing the impact on the end-customer are complicating factors that create a myriad of challenges to be addressed, monitored, measured and managed throughout the entire migration process. The network migration process, as well as the operation and management, and policy during the migration process needs to be planned. When selecting a migration model and defining the migration steps, issues such as the following need to be considered and evaluated: o Existing deployed networks and services. o Service provider&aposs network deployment plans and objectives (including the need for investment protection, window for the migration time, etc.). o Effects on the network operation, management costs. o Risks and reliable fallback. o End-customers&apos demand. o Security and operational policy 4. Migrating from TDM 4.1. Main motivation 4.2. Migration Activities and Techniques When considering the different strategies outlined in section 3 in relationship to migration from TDM-based networks, the service provider will need to realize that this type of migration involves a hardware upgrade for the network equipment. This indicates that it is not practical to plan a phased migration, that is based on upgrading the existing network elements. Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 13] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 An integrated model migration would be a good candidate for this type of migration. The plan would involve installing dual-mode TDM/MPLS nodes into the network. Continuing the support of voice and control (e.g. timing information) traffic over the TDM sub-network, while simultaneously using the MPLS-TP capabilities to support existing and new data services. Transferring the existing data services would use make-before-break procedures defined by MPLS. As more and more services are transferred to the MPLS-TP environment native MPLS-TP nodes can be supported Another candidate for implementing a graduated migration strategy would be based on the Island model. The service provider would install new MPLS-TP nodes in well defined clusters within the network. Dual-mode border nodes would be used to interconnect between the native TDM islands that would support existing services and the MPLS-TP islands. 5. Migrating from ATM 5.1. Main motivation 5.2. Migration activities and Techniques 6. Migrating from Ethernet 6.1. Main motivation 6.2. Migration activities and Techniques When considering the different strategies outlined in section 3 in relationship to migration from Ethernet-based networks, the service provider will need to realize that this type of migration involves a hardware upgrade for the network equipment. This indicates that it is not practical to plan a phased migration, that is based on upgrading the existing network elements. An integrated model migration would be a good candidate for this type of migration. Both Ethernet and MPLS-TP can exist side-by-side within the network. In addition, it is possible to install dual-mode nodes that can support both Ethernet services and MPLS over Ethernet services. Continuing the support of legacy services over the Ethernet sub-network, while simultaneously using the MPLS-TP capabilities to slowly encapsulate some of these existing legacy (over either PWs or L2VPN structures) and support new data services. Transferring the existing data services would use make-before-break procedures defined by MPLS. As more and more services are Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 14] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 transferred to the MPLS-TP environment native MPLS-TP nodes can be supported Another candidate for implementing a graduated migration strategy would be based on the Island model. The service provider would install new MPLS-TP nodes in well defined clusters within the network. Dual-mode border nodes would be used to interconnect between the native TDM islands that would support existing services and the MPLS-TP islands. 7. Migrating from MPLS 7.1. General note on migrating MPLS MPLS-TP is a profile of the general MPLS toolkit which supports all of the tools required to ensure scalable, quality transport. Data services in MPLS-TP use the same forwarding mechanisms supported by standard MPLS. Many of the capabilities provided by MPLS-TP are already provided by MPLS and GMPLS, and there is no preclusion of using any of these capabilities in an MPLS-TP network. 7.2. MPLS-TE 7.2.1. Main motivation 7.2.2. Migration activities and Techniques 7.3. IP/MPLS 7.3.1. Main motivation 7.3.2. Migration activities and Techniques As pointed out in the general note, MPLS-TP is a particular profile of the tools already supported by IP/MPLS. Therefore, for the most part, this migration is essentially a software upgrade of both the network equipment and possibly the management system. Any of the migration models presented in Section 3 are relevant candidates for implementing the migration plan from IP/MPLS to MPLS-TP. Gradually upgrading the MPLS network elements with the new MPLS-TP tools, by employing a phased migration plan, would enhance the general behavior of the network. This provides a very cost-effective switchover to the high-quality network service layer that is supported by the improved OAM tools of MPLS-TP. It is also possible to create islands of MPLS-TP nodes in order to Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 15] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 offload services from the current IP routers while continuing to provide high-quality service by managing the transport paths using the advanced OAM tools. The two systems can work side-by-side. However, it is important to realize that the new MPLS-TP capabailities are only available, for a transport path, if supported by all hops that the path traverses. 8. Migrating from pre-standard MPLS-TP (T-MPLS) 8.1. Main motivation 8.2. Migration activities and Techniques 9. Manageability Considerations 10. Security Considerations 11. IANA Considerations This informational document makes no requests for IANA action. 12. Acknowledgments 13. References 13.1. Normative References [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5317, February 2009. [MPLS-TP-OAM] Busi, I., Ed. and B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed., "Requirements for OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements, Work in Progress. [MPLS-TP-OAM-Fwk] Busi, I., Ed. and B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework, Work in Progress. [MPLS-TP-Surviv] Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 16] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 Sprecher, N. and A. Farrel, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile Survivability Framework", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk, Work in Progress. 13.2. Informative References [RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to- Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005. [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi- Segment Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659, October 2009. [RFC5145] Shiomoto, K., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration", RFC 5145, March 2008. [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, L., Ed., and L. Berger, Ed., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921. [RFC5920] Levrau, L., Ed., "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5920. Authors' Addresses Nurit Sprecher Nokia Siemens Networks 3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B Hod Hasharon, 45241 Israel Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com Yaacov Weingarten Nokia Siemens Networks 3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B Hod Hasharon, 45241 Israel Email: yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 17] Internet-Draft MPLS-TP migration June 2011 Kyung-Yeop Hong Cisco Systems, Inc. 300 Beaver Brook Road Boxborough, Massachusetts 01719 USA Email: hongk@cisco.com Luyuan Fang Cisco Systems, Inc. 300 Beaver Brook Road Boxborough, MA 01719 USA Email: lufang@cisco.com Sprecher, et al. Expires December 25, 2011 [Page 18]