ippm,6man | S. Bhandari |
Internet-Draft | F. Brockners |
Intended status: Standards Track | Cisco |
Expires: March 29, 2020 | T. Mizrahi |
Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab | |
A. Kfir | |
B. Gafni | |
Mellanox Technologies, Inc. | |
M. Spiegel | |
Barefoot Networks | |
S. Krishnan | |
Kaloom | |
M. Smith | |
September 26, 2019 |
Deployment Considerations for In-situ OAM with IPv6 Options
draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment-02
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 can be enabled in an IPv6 network.
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 March 29, 2020.
Copyright (c) 2019 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 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. [I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options] defines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in the IPv6 [RFC8200]. This document discusses deployment options for networks which leverage IOAM data fields encapsulated in the IPv6 protocol.
Deployment considerations differ, whether the IOAM domain starts and ends on hosts or whether the IOAM encapsulating and decapsulating nodes are network devices that forward traffic, such as routers.
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:
IOAM deployment in an IPv6 network should take the following considerations and requirements into account:
For deployments where the IOAM domain is bounded by hosts, hosts will perform the operation of IOAM data field encapsulation and decapsulation. IOAM data is carried in IPv6 packets as Hop-by-Hop or Destination options, see [I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options].
For deployments where the IOAM domain is bounded by network devices, network devices such as routers form the edge of an IOAM domain. Network devices will perform the operation of IOAM data field encapsulation and decapsulation.
This section lists out possible deployment options that can be employed to meet the requirements listed in Section 3.
Leverage an IPv6-in-IPv6 approach: Preserve the original IP packet and add an IPv6 header including IOAM data fields in an extension header in front of it, to forward traffic within and across the IOAM domain. The overlay network formed by the additional IPv6 header with the IOAM data fields included in an extension header is referred to as IOAM Overlay Network (ION) in this document.
The "IP-in-IPv6 encapsulation with ULA" [RFC4193] approach can be used to apply IOAM to an IPv6 as well as an IPv4 network. In addition, it fulfills requirement C4 (avoid leaks) by using ULA for the ION. Similar to the IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation approach above, the original IP packet is preserved. An IPv6 header including IOAM data fields in an extension header is added in front of it, to forward traffic within and across the IOAM domain. IPv6 addresses for the ION, i.e. the outer IPv6 addresses are assigned from the ULA space. Addressing and routing in the ION are to be configured so that the IP-in-IPv6 encapsulated packets follow the same path as the original, non-encapsulated packet would have taken. This would create an internal IPv6 forwarding topology using the IOAM domain's interior ULA address space which is parallel with the forwarding topology that exists with the non-IOAM address space (the topology and address space that would be followed by packets that do not have supplemental IOAM information). Establishment and maintenance of the parallel IOAM ULA forwarding topology could be automated, e.g. similar to how LDP [RFC5036] is used in MPLS to establish and maintain an LSP forwarding topology that is parallel to the network's IGP forwarding topology.
Transit across the ION could leverage the transit approach for traffic between BGP border routers, as described in [RFC1772], "A.2.3 Encapsulation". Assuming that the operational guidelines specified in Section 4 of [RFC4193] are properly followed, the probability of leaks in this approach will be almost close to zero. If the packets do leak through IOAM egress device misconfiguration or partial IOAM egress device failure, the packets' ULA destination address is invalid outside of the IOAM domain. There is no exterior destination to be reached, and the packets will be dropped when they encounter either a router external to the IOAM domain that has a packet filter that drops packets with ULA destinations, or a router that does not have a default route.
In some cases it is desirable to monitor a domain that uses an overlay network that is deployed independently of the need for IOAM, e.g., an overlay network that runs Geneve-in-IPv6, or VXLAN-in-IPv6. In this case IOAM can be encapsulated in as an extension header in the tunnel (outer) IPv6 header. Thus, the tunnel encapsulating node is also the IOAM encapsulating node, and the tunnel end point is also the IOAM decapsulating node.
This document discusses the deployment of IOAM with IPv6 options. Security considerations of the specific IOAM data fields are described in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
There are no IANA considerations that apply to this document.
The authors would like to thank Mark Smith, Tom Herbert, 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. For the IPv6 encapsulation, this document leverages concepts described in [I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route]. The authors would like to acknowledge the work done by the author Hiroshi Kitamura and people involved in writing it.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] | Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov, P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d. and J. Lemon, "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-04, October 2018. |
[I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options] | Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., Spiegel, M. and S. Krishnan, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", Internet-Draft draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-01, October 2018. |
[RFC1772] | Rekhter, Y. and P. Gross, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet", RFC 1772, DOI 10.17487/RFC1772, March 1995. |
[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. |
[I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-header-handling] | Baker, F. and R. Bonica, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Extension Header", March 2016. |
[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. |
[RFC4193] | Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005. |
[RFC5036] | Andersson, L., Minei, I. and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, October 2007. |
[RFC8200] | Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017. |
[RFC8250] | Elkins, N., Hamilton, R. and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017. |