| SFC | F. Brockners, Ed. |
| Internet-Draft | S. Bhandari, Ed. |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Cisco |
| Expires: September 20, 2020 | March 19, 2020 |
Network Service Header (NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data
draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-03
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) 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 September 20, 2020.
Copyright (c) 2020 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), as defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], 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) [RFC8300] encapsulation for the Service Function Chaining (SFC) [RFC7665]. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Abbreviations used in this document:
The NSH is defined in [RFC8300]. IOAM-Data-Fields are carried in NSH using a next protocol header which follows the NSH MD context headers. An IOAM header is added containing the different IOAM-Data-Fields defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. In an administrative domain where IOAM is used, insertion of the IOAM header in NSH is enabled at the NSH tunnel endpoints, which also serve as IOAM encapsulating/decapsulating nodes by means of configuration.
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|U| TTL | Length |U|U|U|U|MD Type| NP = TBD_IOAM | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ N | Service Path Identifier | Service Index | S +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ H | ... | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ | IOAM-Type | IOAM HDR len | Reserved | Next Protocol | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I ! | O ! | A ~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ | | | | | Payload + Padding (L2/L3/ESP/...) | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The NSH header and fields are defined in [RFC8300]. The "NSH Next Protocol" value (referred to as "NP" in the diagram above) is TBD_IOAM.
The IOAM related fields in NSH are defined as follows:
Multiple IOAM-Option-Types MAY be included within the NSH encapsulation. For example, if a NSH encapsulation contains two IOAM-Option-Types before a data payload, the Next Protocol field of the first IOAM option will contain the value of TBD_IOAM, while the Next Protocol field of the second IOAM-Option-Type will contain the "NSH Next Protocol" number indicating the type of the data payload.
This section summarizes a set of considerations on the overall approach taken for IOAM data encapsulation in NSH, as well as deployment considerations.
This section discusses several approaches for encapsulating IOAM-Data-Fields in NSH and presents the rationale for the approach chosen in this document.
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.
Hardware and software friendly implementation: Hardware forwarders benefit from an encapsulation that minimizes iterative look-ups of fields within the packet: Any operation which looks up the value of a field within the packet, based on which another lookup is performed, consumes additional gates and time in an implementation - both of which are desired to be kept to a minimum. This means that flat TLV structures are to be preferred over nested TLV structures. IOAM-Data-Fields are grouped into several categories, including trace, proof-of-transit, and edge-to-edge. Each of these options defines a TLV structure. A hardware-friendly encapsulation approach avoids grouping these three option categories into yet another TLV structure, but would rather carry the options as a serial sequence.
Total length of the IOAM-Data-Fields: The total length of IOAM-Data-Fields can grow quite large in case multiple different IOAM-Data-Fields are used and large path-lengths need to be considered. If for example an operator would consider using the IOAM Trace Option-Type and capture node-id, app_data, egress/ingress interface-id, timestamp seconds, timestamps nanoseconds at every hop, then a total of 20 octets would be added to the packet at every hop. In case this particular deployment would have a maximum path length of 15 hops in the IOAM domain, then a maximum of 300 octets were to be encapsulated in the packet.
Different approaches for encapsulating IOAM-Data-Fields in NSH could be considered:
The third option has been chosen here. This option avoids the additional layer of TLV nesting that the use of NSH MD Type 2 would result in. In addition, this option does not constrain IOAM data to a maximum of 256 octets, thus allowing support for very large deployments.
[RFC8300] defines an "O bit" for OAM packets. Per [RFC8300] the O bit must be set for OAM packets and must not be set for non-OAM packets. Packets with IOAM data included MUST follow this definition, i.e. the O bit MUST NOT be set for regular customer traffic which also carries IOAM data and the O bit MUST be set for OAM packets which carry only IOAM data without any regular data payload.
IANA is requested to allocate protocol numbers for the following "NSH Next Protocol" related to IOAM:
+---------------+-------------+---------------+
| Next Protocol | Description | Reference |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+
| x | TBD_IOAM | 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. For additional IOAM related security considerations, see Section 8 in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
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.
In addition to editors listed on the title page, the following people have contributed to this document:
Vengada Prasad Govindan Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: venggovi@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems, Inc. 7200-11 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 United States Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Hannes Gredler RtBrick Inc. Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
John Leddy Email: john@leddy.net
Stephen Youell JP Morgan Chase 25 Bank Street London E14 5JP United Kingdom Email: stephen.youell@jpmorgan.com
Tal Mizrahi Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab Israel Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
David Mozes Email: mosesster@gmail.com
Petr Lapukhov Facebook 1 Hacker Way Menlo Park, CA 94025 US Email: petr@fb.com
Remy Chang Barefoot Networks 2185 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, CA 94306 US
| [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] | Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov, P., remy@barefootnetworks.com, r., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d. and J. Lemon, "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-08, October 2019. |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC8174] | Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017. |
| [RFC8300] | Quinn, P., Elzur, U. and C. Pignataro, "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018. |
| [FD.io] | "Fast Data Project: FD.io" |
| [RFC7665] | Halpern, J. and C. Pignataro, "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015. |