Routing Area Working Group | G. Mirsky |
Internet-Draft | Ericsson |
Intended status: Standards Track | E. Nordmark |
Expires: January 9, 2017 | Arista Networks |
C. Pignataro | |
N. Kumar | |
D. Kumar | |
Cisco Systems, Inc. | |
M. Chen | |
Y. Li | |
Huawei Technologies | |
D. Mozes | |
Mellanox Technologies Ltd. | |
I. Bagdonas | |
July 8, 2016 |
On-demand Continuity Check (CC) and Connectivity Verification(CV) for Overlay Networks
draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv-00
This document defines Overlay Echo Request and Echo Reply that enable on-demand Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification among other operations in overlay networks.
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 http://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 January 9, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://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.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset provides methods for fault management and performance monitoring in each layer of the network, in order to improve their ability to support services with guaranteed and strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs) while reducing operational costs.
Term "Overlay OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for Overlay networks".
CC Continuity Check
CV Connectivity Verification
FM Fault Management
G-ACh Generic Associated Channel
Geneve Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation
GUE Generic UDP Encapsulation
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
NVO3 Network Virtualization Overlays
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
SFC Service Function Chaining
SFP Service Function Path
VxLAN Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network
VxLAN-GPE Generic Protocol Extension for VxLAN
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 [RFC2119].
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version Number | Global Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Type | Reply mode | Return Code | Return S.code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender's Handle | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ TLVs ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Overlay OAM Ping format
The format of the control packet to support ping and traceroute functionality in overlay networks Figure 1 is similar to the format of MPLS LSP Ping [RFC4379].
The interpretation of the fields is
The Reply Mode field directs whether and how the echo reply message should be sent. The sender of the echo request MAY use TLVs to request that corresponding echo reply be sent using the specified path. Value TBA3 is referred as "Do not reply" mode and suppresses transmission of echo reply packet. Default value (TBA4) for the Reply mode field requests the responder to send the echo reply packet out-of-band as IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet. [Selection of destination and source IP addresses and UDP port numbers to be provided in the next update.]
IANA is requested to assign new type from the Overlay OAM Protocol Types registry as follows:
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
TBA1 | Overlay Ping | This document |
IANA is requested to create new Overlay Ping Parameters registry.
IANA is requested to create in the Overlay Ping Parameters registry the new sub-registry Message Types. All code points in the range 1 through 191 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC5226] and assign values as follows:
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Reserved | |
TBA1 | Overlay Echo Request | This document |
TBA2 | Overlay Echo Reply | This document |
192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First Served |
252-254 | Reserved | Private Use |
255 | Reserved |
IANA is requested to create in the Overlay Ping Parameters registry the new sub-registry Reply Modes All code points in the range 1 through 191 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC5226] and assign values as follows:
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Reserved | |
TBA3 | Do not reply | This document |
TBA4 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet | This document |
192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First Served |
252-254 | Reserved | Private Use |
255 | Reserved |
TBD
TBD
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
[RFC4379] | Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006. |
[RFC5226] | Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008. |