sfc | F. Brockners |
Internet-Draft | S. Bhandari |
Intended status: Standards Track | V. Govindan |
Expires: May 3, 2018 | C. Pignataro |
Cisco | |
H. Gredler | |
RtBrick Inc. | |
J. Leddy | |
Comcast | |
S. Youell | |
JMPC | |
T. Mizrahi | |
Marvell | |
D. Mozes | |
Mellanox Technologies Ltd. | |
P. Lapukhov | |
R. Chang | |
Barefoot Networks | |
October 30, 2017 |
NSH Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data
draft-brockners-sfc-ioam-nsh-00
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) records operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet traverses a path between two points in the network. This document outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in the Network Service Header (NSH).
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 https://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 May 3, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://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.
In-situ OAM (IOAM) records OAM information within the packet while the packet traverses a particular network domain. The term "in-situ" refers to the fact that the OAM data is added to the data packets rather than is being sent within packets specifically dedicated to OAM. This document defines how IOAM data fields are transported as part of the Network Service Header (NSH) [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]) encapsulation. The IOAM data fields are defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. An implementation of IOAM which leverages NSH to carry the IOAM data is available from the FD.io open source software project [FD.io].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Abbreviations used in this document:
IOAM data fields are carried within the NSH header following NSH MDx metadata TLVs.
IOAM tracing data represents data that is inserted at nodes that a packet traverses. To allow for optimal implementations in both software as well as hardware forwarders, two different ways to encapsulate IOAM data are defined: "Pre-allocated" and "incremental". See [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] for details on IOAM tracing and the pre-allocated and incremental IOAM trace options.
The packet formats of the pre-allocated IOAM trace and incremental IOAM trace when transported in NSH are defined as below.
Note that in Service Function Chaining (SFC) [RFC7665], the Network Service Header (NSH) [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] already includes path tracing capabilities [I-D.penno-sfc-trace]. IOAM data fields for tracing complement the capabilities in NSH, in that IOAM data fields carry information complementary to information in NSH and benefit from the fact, that IOAM data fields use their own namespace. This allows intermediate nodes, which are not NSH hops to also process and update the IOAM data fields if configured to do so.
IOAM Trace header following NSH MDx header (Pre-allocated IOAM trace): 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ |Ver|O|C|R|R|R|R|R|R| Length | MD Type | NP=IOAM_Trace | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ N | Service Path Identifer | Service Index | S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ H | ... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ | Type | IOAM HDR len| Reserved | Next Protocol | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IOAM | IOAM-Trace-Type |NodeLen| Flags | Octets-left | Trace +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ | | | | node data list [0] | IOAM | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ D | | a | node data list [1] | t | | a +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ... ~ S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ p | | a | node data list [n-1] | c | | e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | node data list [n] | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-<--+ | | | | | Payload + Padding (L2/L3/ESP/...) | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Data MUST be 4-octet aligned:
IOAM Trace header following NSH MDx header (Incremental IOAM trace): 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ |Ver|O|C|R|R|R|R|R|R| Length | MD Type | NP=IOAM_Trace | N +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ S | Service Path Identifer | Service Index | H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ | Type | IOAM HDR len | Reserved | Next Protocol | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IOAM | IOAM-Trace-Type |NodeLen| Flags | Max Length | Trace +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ | | | | node data list [0] | IOAM | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ D | | a | node data list [1] | t | | a +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ... ~ S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ p | | a | node data list [n-1] | c | | e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | node data list [n] | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-<--+ | | | | | Payload + Padding (L2/L3/ESP/...) | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IOAM Incremental Trace Option Data MUST be 4-octet aligned:
IOAM proof of transit (POT, see [I-D.brockners-proof-of-transit]) offers a means to verify that a packet has traversed a defined set of nodes. In an administrative domain where IOAM is used, insertion of the IOAM data into the NSH header is enabled at the required nodes (i.e. at the IOAM encapsulating/decapsulating nodes) by means of configuration.
IOAM POT data fields are added as a TLV following NSH MDx metadata:
IOAM POT header following NSH MDx header: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ |Ver|O|C|R|R|R|R|R|R| Length | MD Type | NP = IOAM_POT | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ N | Service Path Identifer | Service Index | S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ H | ... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ |IOAM_POT Type|P| IOAM HDR len| Reserved | Next Protocol | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Random | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ P | Random(contd.) | O +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ T | Cumulative | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Cumulative (contd.) | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
The IOAM edge-to-edge option is to carry data that is added by the IOAM encapsulating node and interpreted by the IOAM decapsulating node. The "Edge-to-Edge" capabilities (see [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements]) of IOAM can be leveraged within NSH. In an administrative domain where IOAM is used, insertion of the IOAM data into the NSH header is enabled at the required nodes (i.e. at the IOAM encapsulating/decapsulating nodes) by means of configuration.
IOAM Edge-to-Edge data fields are added as a TLV following NSH MDx metadata:
IOAM E2E header following NSH MDx header: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ |Ver|O|C|R|R|R|R|R|R| Length | MD Type | NP = IOAM_E2E | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ N | Service Path Identifer | Service Index | S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ H | ... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ |IOAM_E2E_Type | IOAM HDR len| Reserved | Next Protocol | IOAM +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ E2E | E2E Option data field determined by IOAM-E2E-Type | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
This section is to support the working group discussion in selecting the most appropriate approach for encapsulating IOAM data fields in NSH.
An encapsulation of IOAM data fields in NSH should be friendly to an implementation in both hardware as well as software forwarders and support a wide range of deployment cases, including large networks that desire to leverage multiple IOAM data fields at the same time.
Two approaches for encapsulating IOAM data fields in NSH could be considered:
The second option has been chosen here, because it avoids the additional layer of TLV nesting that the use of NSH MD Type 2 would result in. In addition, the second option does not constrain IOAM data to a maximum of 256 octets, thus allowing support for very large deployments.
IANA is requested to allocate protocol numbers for the following NSH "Next Protocols" related to IOAM:
+---------------+-------------+---------------+ | Next Protocol | Description | Reference | +---------------+-------------+---------------+ | x | IOAM_Trace | This document | | y | IOAM_POT | This document | | z | IOAM_E2E | This document | +---------------+-------------+---------------+
IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where one or several operators decide on leveraging and configuring IOAM according to their needs. Still, operators need to properly secure the IOAM domain to avoid malicious configuration and use, which could include injecting malicious IOAM packets into a domain.
The authors would like to thank Eric Vyncke, Nalini Elkins, Srihari Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra Babu, Akshaya Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik Nordmark, LJ Wobker, and Andrew Yourtchenko for the comments and advice.
[FD.io] | "Fast Data Project: FD.io" |
[I-D.brockners-proof-of-transit] | Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Dara, S., Pignataro, C., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mozes, D. and T. Mizrahi, "Proof of Transit", Internet-Draft draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-03, March 2017. |
[I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option] | Elkins, N., Hamilton, R. and m. mackermann@bcbsm.com, "IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-13, June 2017. |
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S. and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13, October 2017. |
[I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route] | Kitamura, H., "Record Route for IPv6 (PR6) Hop-by-Hop Option Extension", Internet-Draft draft-kitamura-ipv6-record-route-00, November 2000. |
[I-D.penno-sfc-trace] | Penno, R., Quinn, P., Pignataro, C. and D. Zhou, "Services Function Chaining Traceroute", Internet-Draft draft-penno-sfc-trace-03, September 2015. |
[RFC7665] | Halpern, J. and C. Pignataro, "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015. |