rfc9974v1.txt   rfc9974.txt 
skipping to change at line 184 skipping to change at line 184
[RFC7799]. [RFC7799].
7. BIER OAM MUST support passive performance measurement methods 7. BIER OAM MUST support passive performance measurement methods
[RFC7799]. [RFC7799].
8. BIER OAM MUST support the ability of any BFR in the given BIER 8. BIER OAM MUST support the ability of any BFR in the given BIER
domain to proactively monitor Bit-Forwarding Egress Router domain to proactively monitor Bit-Forwarding Egress Router
(BFER) availability. (BFER) availability.
This requirement provides helpful clarification to the This requirement provides helpful clarification to the
combination of Requirements 2 and 4. The P2MP BFD with active combination of Requirements 2 and 4. The Point-to-Multipoint
tail support [RFC9780] is an example of a protocol that provides (P2MP) BFD with active tail support [RFC9780] is an example of a
notifications about the loss of connectivity in a multicast protocol that provides notifications about the loss of
distribution tree. connectivity in a multicast distribution tree.
9. BIER OAM MUST support downstream path continuity checking. 9. BIER OAM MUST support downstream path continuity checking.
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC8562] is an example Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC8562] is an example
of a protocol that monitors the continuity of a multicast of a protocol that monitors the continuity of a multicast
distribution tree. distribution tree.
10. BIER OAM MUST support downstream performance measurement. 10. BIER OAM MUST support downstream performance measurement.
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is
skipping to change at line 227 skipping to change at line 227
verification (e.g., BFD). verification (e.g., BFD).
12. BIER OAM MUST support bidirectional OAM methods. In the 12. BIER OAM MUST support bidirectional OAM methods. In the
downstream direction, these methods of monitoring or measurement downstream direction, these methods of monitoring or measurement
MUST conform to Requirement 11. In the reverse direction (i.e., MUST conform to Requirement 11. In the reverse direction (i.e.,
from the egress toward the ingress endpoint of the BIER OAM test from the egress toward the ingress endpoint of the BIER OAM test
session), BIER OAM packets MAY deviate from traversing the same session), BIER OAM packets MAY deviate from traversing the same
set of nodes and links, or receive a different forwarding set of nodes and links, or receive a different forwarding
treatment (including QoS) as the monitored BIER flow. treatment (including QoS) as the monitored BIER flow.
Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) BFD with active tail [RFC9780] is an The P2MP BFD with active tail [RFC9780] is an example of the
example of the bidirectional mechanism of continuity checking. bidirectional mechanism of continuity checking.
13. BIER OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery 13. BIER OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery
(PMTUD). (PMTUD).
The PMTUD using ICMP [RFC1191] is an example of the mechanism. The PMTUD using ICMP [RFC1191] is an example of the mechanism.
14. BIER OAM MUST support an RDI mechanism to notify the BFR, the 14. BIER OAM MUST support an RDI mechanism to notify the BFR, the
source of the continuity checking by BFERs. source of the continuity checking by BFERs.
The Diagnostic field in P2MP BFD with active tail support, as The Diagnostic field in P2MP BFD with active tail support, as
skipping to change at line 283 skipping to change at line 283
This document has no IANA actions. This document has no IANA actions.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document lists the OAM requirements for a BIER-enabled domain This document lists the OAM requirements for a BIER-enabled domain
and it thus inherits the security considerations discussed in and it thus inherits the security considerations discussed in
[RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. Another general security aspect results [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. Another general security aspect results
from using active OAM protocols [RFC7799] in a multicast network. from using active OAM protocols [RFC7799] in a multicast network.
Active OAM protocols inject specially constructed test packets. Some Active OAM protocols inject specially constructed test packets. Some
active OAM protocols are based on the echo request/reply principle of active OAM protocols exchange echo requests/replies using test
using those test packets. In the multicast network, test packets are packets, e.g., ICMPv6 [RFC4443] and LSP Ping [RFC8029]. In the
replicated as data packets, thus creating a possible amplification multicast network, test packets are replicated as data packets, thus
effect of multiple echo replies being transmitted to the sender of creating a possible amplification effect of multiple echo replies
the echo request. Therefore, the following security-related being transmitted to the sender of the echo request. Therefore, the
requirements are defined for BIER OAM: following security-related requirements are defined for BIER OAM:
* A BIER OAM solution MUST protect the control plane by controlling * A BIER OAM solution MUST protect the control plane by controlling
the rate of echo request transmission. the rate of echo request transmission.
* A BIER OAM solution MUST provide control of the number of BIER OAM * A BIER OAM solution MUST provide control of the number of BIER OAM
messages sent to the control plane. messages sent to the control plane.
5. References 5. References
5.1. Normative References 5.1. Normative References
skipping to change at line 336 skipping to change at line 336
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
5.2. Informative References 5.2. Informative References
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990, DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed., [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and M. Betts, Ed.,
"Requirements for Operations, Administration, and "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5860, May 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5860, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5860>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5860>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu, [RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM" D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291, Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
skipping to change at line 371 skipping to change at line 377
and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport
Profile", RFC 6428, DOI 10.17487/RFC6428, November 2011, Profile", RFC 6428, DOI 10.17487/RFC6428, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6428>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6428>.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y. [RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration, Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276, and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8562] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky, [RFC8562] Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562, Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>. April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple [RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 24 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.