Internet DRAFT - draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv
draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv
NVO3 Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track N. Kumar
Expires: September 11, 2017 D. Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Chen
Y. Li
Huawei Technologies
D. Dolson
Sandvine
March 10, 2017
Echo Request and Echo Reply for Overlay Networks
draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv-03
Abstract
This document defines Overlay Echo Request and Echo Reply that enable
on-demand Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification among other
operations in overlay networks.
Status of This Memo
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 September 11, 2017.
Copyright Notice
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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification . . 3
2.1. Requirements Towards On-demand CC/CV OAM . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Overlay Echo Request Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Overlay Echo Request Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Overlay Echo Reply Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Overlay Echo Reply Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Type . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Overlay Ping Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types . . . . . . 6
3.4. Overlay Echo Reply Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
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.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
1.1.1. Terminology
Term "Overlay OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer
version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for Overlay
networks". And "Overlay ping" is used interchangeably with longer
version Overlay Echo Request/Reply.
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
CC Continuity Check
CV Connectivity Verification
ECMP Equal Cost Multipath
FM Fault Management
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
1.1.2. Requirements Language
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].
2. On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
2.1. Requirements Towards On-demand CC/CV OAM
Availability, not as performance metric, is understood as ability to
reach the node, i.e. the fact that path between ingress and egress
does exist. Such OAM mechanism also referred as Continuity Check
(CC). Connectivity Verification (CV) extends Continuity Check
functionality in order to provide confirmation that the desired
source is connected to the desired sink.
Echo Request/Reply OAM mechanism enables detection of the loss of
continuity defect, its localization and collection information in
order to discover root cause. These are requirements considered:
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
REQ#1: MUST support fault localization of Loss of Continuity check
at Overlay layer.
REQ#2: MAY support fault localization of Loss of Continuity check
at transport layer.
REQ#3: MUST support tracing path in overlay network through the
overlay nodes.
REQ#4: MAY support tracing path in underlay network connecting
overlay border nodes.
REQ#5: MAY support verification of the mapping between its data
plane state and client layer services.
REQ#6: MUST have the ability to discover and exercise equal cost
multipath (ECMP) paths in its underlay network.
REQ#7: MUST be able to trigger on-demand FM with responses being
directed towards initiator of such proxy request.
2.2. Proposed Solution
The format of the Echo Request/Echo Reply control packet is to
support ping and traceroute functionality in overlay networks
Figure 1 resembles the format of MPLS LSP Ping [RFC4379] with some
exceptions.
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 interpretation of the fields is as following:
The Version reflects the current version. The version number is
to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
ability of an implementation to correctly parse or process control
packet.
The Global Flags is a bit vector field
The Message Type filed reflects the type of the packet. Value
TBA2 identifies Echo Request and TBA3 - Echo Reply
The Reply Mode defines the type of the return path requested by
the sender of the Echo Request.
Return Codes and Subcodes can be used to inform the sender about
result of processing its request.
The Sender's Handle is filled in by the sender, and returned
unchanged by the receiver in the Echo Reply.
The Sequence Number is assigned by the sender and can be (for
example) used to detect missed replies.
TLVs (Type-Length-Value tuples) have the two octets long Type
field, two octets long Length field that is length of the Value
field in octets.
2.3. Overlay Echo Request Transmission
Overlay Echo Request control packet MUST use the appropriate
encapsulation of the monitored overlay network. Overlay network
encapsulation MUST identify Echo Request as OAM packet. Overlay
encapsulation uses different methods to identify OAM payload
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe], [I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue],
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve],
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh],[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]. Overlay
network's header MUST be immediately followed by the Overlay OAM
Header [I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header]. Message Type field in the
Overlay OAM Header MUST be set to Overlay Echo Request value (TBA2).
Value of the Reply Mode field MAY be set to:
o Do Not Reply (TBA4) if one-way monitoring is desired. If Echo
Request is used to measure synthetic packet loss, the receiver MAY
report loss measurement results to a remote node.
o Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet (TBA5) value likely will be the
most used.
o Reply via Application Level Control Channel (TBA6) value if the
overlay network MAY have bi-directional paths.
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
o Reply via Specified Path (TBA7) value in order to enforce use of
the particular return path specified in the included TLV to verify
bi-directional continuity and also increase robustness of the
monitoring by selecting more stable path.
2.4. Overlay Echo Request Reception
2.5. Overlay Echo Reply Transmission
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 (TBA5) 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.]
2.6. Overlay Echo Reply Reception
3. IANA Considerations
3.1. Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Type
IANA is requested to assign new type from the Overlay OAM Protocol
Types registry as follows:
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA1 | Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply | This document |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Type
3.2. Overlay Ping Parameters
IANA is requested to create new Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply
Parameters registry.
3.3. Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types
IANA is requested to create in the Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply
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:
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
+------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | |
| TBA2 | Overlay Echo Request | This document |
| TBA3 | Overlay Echo Reply | This document |
| TBA3+1-191 | Unassigned | IETF Review |
| 192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First Served |
| 252-254 | Unassigned | Private Use |
| 255 | Reserved | |
+------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
Table 2: Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types
3.4. Overlay Echo Reply Modes
IANA is requested to create in the Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply
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 | |
| TBA4 | Do Not Reply | This document |
| TBA5 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP | This document |
| | Packet | |
| TBA6 | Reply via Application Level | This document |
| | Control Channel | |
| TBA7 | Reply via Specified Path | This document |
| TBA7+1-191 | Unassigned | IETF Review |
| 192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First |
| | | Served |
| 252-254 | Unassigned | Private Use |
| 255 | Reserved | |
+------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+
Table 3: Overlay Echo Reply Modes
4. Security Considerations
Overlay Echo Request/Reply operates within the domain of the overlay
network and thus inherits any security considerations that apply to
the use of that overlay technology and, consequently, underlay data
plane. Also, the security needs for Overlay Echo Request/Reply are
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
similar to those of ICMP ping [RFC0792], [RFC4443] and MPLS LSP ping
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis].
There are at least three approaches of attacking a node in the
overlay network using the mechanisms defined in the document. One is
a Denial-of-Service attack, by sending Overlay ping to overload a
node in the overlay network. The second may use spoofing, hijacking,
replying, or otherwise tampering with Overlay Echo Requests and/or
Replies to misrepresent, alter operator's view of the state of the
overlay network. The third is an unauthorized source using an
Overlay Echo Request/Reply to obtain information about the overlay
and/or underlay network.
To mitigate potential Denial-of-Service attacks, it is RECOMMENDED
that implementations throttle the Overlay ping traffic going to the
control plane.
Reply and spoofing attacks involving faking or replying Overlay Echo
Reply messages would have to match the Sender's Handle and Sequence
Number of an outstanding Overlay Echo Request message which is highly
unlikely. Thus the non-matching reply would be discarded. But since
"even a broken clock is right twice a day" implementations MAY use
Timestamp control block [I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header] to validate
the TimeStamp Sent by requiring an exact match on this field.
To protect against unauthorized sources trying to obtain information
about the overlay and/or underlay an implementation MAY check that
the source of the Echo Request is indeed part of the overlay domain.
5. Contributors
Work on this documented started by Overlay OAM Design Team with
contributions from:
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
cpignata@cisco.com
Santosh Pallagatti
santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
Erik Nordmark
Arista Networks
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
nordmark@acm.org
Ignas Bagdonas
ibagdona@gmail.com
David Mozes
Mellanox Technologies Ltd.
davidm@mellanox.com
6. Acknowledgment
TBD
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J.,
Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index
Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06 (work in progress),
December 2016.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]
Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic
Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf-
nvo3-geneve-03 (work in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue]
Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-05 (work in progress),
October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-03 (work
in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]
Quinn, P. and U. Elzur, "Network Service Header", draft-
ietf-sfc-nsh-12 (work in progress), February 2017.
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
[I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header]
Mirsky, G., Kumar, N., Kumar, D., Chen, M., Yizhou, L.,
Mozes, D., and D. Dolson, "OAM Header for use in Overlay
Networks", draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-02 (work in
progress), February 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis]
Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", draft-ietf-mpls-
rfc4379bis-09 (work in progress), October 2016.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks March 2017
Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Deepak Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: dekumar@cisco.com
Mach Chen
Huawei Technologies
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Yizhou Li
Huawei Technologies
Email: liyizhou@huawei.com
David Dolson
Sandvine
Email: ddolson@sandvine.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 11, 2017 [Page 11]
