RFC 6427: MPLS Fault Management Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document specifies Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) messages to indicate service disruptive conditions for MPLS-based transport network Label Switched Paths. The notification mechanism employs a generic method for a service disruptive condition to be communicated to a Maintenance Entity Group End Point. This document defines an MPLS OAM channel, along with messages to communicate various types of service disruptive conditions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6427
- Published
- November 2011
- Authors
- G. Swallow; A. Fulignoli; M. Vigoureux; S. Boutros; D. Ward
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 17
- Also known as
- —
- Updated by:
- RFC 7214
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6428Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport ProfileUpdated
November 2011
- RFC 6426MPLS On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route TracingCurrent
November 2011
- RFC 6425Detecting Data-Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP PingCurrent
November 2011
- RFC 6424Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS TunnelsObsoleted
November 2011
- RFC 6423Using the Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowire in the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)Current
November 2011
- RFC 6420PIM Multi-Topology ID (MT-ID) Join AttributeCurrent
November 2011
- RFC 6435MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and Loopback FunctionsCurrent
November 2011
- RFC 6439Routing Bridges (RBridges): Appointed ForwardersObsoleted
November 2011
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?