Refer to the exhibit. A service provider has a requirement to use Ethernet OAM to detect end-to-end connectivity failures between SP-SW1 and SP-SW2. Which two ways to design this solution are true? (Choose two)
A.
Enable unicast heartbeat messages to be periodically exchanged between MEPs
B.
Enable Connectivity Fault Management on the SP switches
C.
Use upward maintenance endpoints on the SP switches
In service provider Ethernet transport environments such as VPLS, Ethernet OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) is used to provide fault detection, monitoring, and troubleshooting capabilities. The two relevant components here are:
A (Unicast heartbeat messages between MEPs): Maintenance End Points (MEPs) are configured at the edges of the OAM domain (SP-SW1 and SP-SW2). Heartbeat messages can be used to proactively monitor and detect loss of continuity between the endpoints.
B (Enable Connectivity Fault Management): CFM (IEEE 802.1ag) provides end-to-end fault detection, continuity check messages (CCMs), loopback, and link trace mechanisms that operate between MEPs at Layer 2. CFM enables proactive detection of failures and service-level assurance across the provider’s Ethernet segment.
Other options explained:
C: Upward MEPs are not applicable here since these are typically used for customer-facing or hierarchical maintenance domains.
D: E-LMI (Ethernet Local Management Interface) operates between CE and PE for service activation—not applicable for SP-SW to SP-SW fault detection across VPLS.
E: LLDP (Link Layer Discovery Protocol) is for neighbor discovery on directly connected interfaces—not suitable for end-to-end fault detection across a VPLS domain.
This design solution aligns fully with CCDE v3.1 principles for service provider Layer 2 VPN design and Ethernet OAM integration.
Contribute your Thoughts:
Chosen Answer:
This is a voting comment (?). You can switch to a simple comment. It is better to Upvote an existing comment if you don't have anything to add.
Submit