Internet DRAFT - draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header
draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header
NVO3 Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track N. Kumar
Expires: September 19, 2018 D. Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Chen
Y. Li
Huawei Technologies
D. Dolson
Sandvine
March 18, 2018
OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks
draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-04
Abstract
This document introduces Overlay Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OOAM) Header to be used in overlay networks to create
Overlay Associated Channel (OAC) to ensure that OOAM control packets
are in-band with user traffic and de-multiplex OOAM protocols.
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 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 19, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. General Requirements to OAM Protocols in Overlay Networks . . 3
3. Associated Channel in Overlay Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Overlay OAM Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Use of OOAM Header in Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Use of OOAM Header in Hybrid OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. OOAM Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. OOAM Header Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
New protocols that support overlay networks like VxLAN-GPE
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe], GUE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue], Geneve
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve], BIER [RFC8296], and NSH [RFC8300] support
multi-protocol payload, e.g. Ethernet, IPv4/IPv6, and recognize
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) as one of distinct
types. That ensures that Overlay OAM (OOAM)packets are sharing fate
with Overlay data packet traversing the underlay.
This document introduces generic requirements to OAM protocols used
in overlay networks and defines OOAM Header to be used in overlay
networks to de-multiplex OOAM protocols.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
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".
NTP Network Time Protocol
OAC Overlay Associated Channel
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
OOAM Overlay OAM
PTP Precision Time Protocol
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. General Requirements to OAM Protocols in Overlay Networks
OAM protocols, whether it is part of fault management or performance
monitoring, intended to provide reliable information that can be used
to identify defect, localize it and apply corrective actions. One of
the main challenges that network operators may encounter is
interpretations of reports of the defect or service degradation and
correlation to affected services. In order to improve reliability of
the correlation process we set forth the following requirements:
REQ#1: Overlay OAM packets SHOULD be fate sharing with data
traffic, i.e. in-band with the monitored traffic, i.e. follow
exactly the same overlay and transport path as data plane traffic,
in forward direction, i.e. from ingress toward egress end point(s)
of the OAM test.
REQ#2: Encapsulation of OAM control message and data packets in
underlay network MUST be indistinguishable from underlay network
forwarding point of view.
REQ#3: Presence of OAM control message in overlay packet MUST be
unambiguously identifiable.
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
REQ#4: It MUST be possible to express entropy for underlay Equal
Cost Multipath in overlay encapsulation in order to avoid using
data packet content by underlay transient nodes.
3. Associated Channel in Overlay Networks
Associated channel in the overlay network is the channel that, by
using the same encapsulation as user traffic, follows the same path
through the underlay network as user traffic. In other words, the
associated channel is in-band with user traffic. Creating notion of
the overlay associated channel (OAC) in the overlay network ensures
that control packets of active OAM protocols carried in the OAC are
in-band with user traffic. Additionally, OAC allows development of
OAM tools that, from operational point of view, function in
essentially the same manner in any type of overlay.
4. Overlay OAM Header
OOAM Header immediately follows the header of the overlay and
identifies OAC. The format of the OOAM Header is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| V | Msg Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved | Next Prot |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ OOAM control message ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Overlay OAM Header format
The OAM Header consists of the following fields:
o V - two bits long field indicates the current version of the
Overlay OAM Header. The current value is 0;
o Msg Type - 14 bits long field identifies OAM protocol, e.g. Echo
Request/Reply, BFD, Performance Measurement;
o Length - two octets long field that is length of the OOAM control
packet in octets;
o Flags -two octets long field carries bit flags that define
optional capability and thus processing of the OOAM control
packet;
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
o Reserved - one octet field that MUST be zeroed on transmit and
ignored on receipt;
o Next Prot - one octet long field that defines optional payload
that is present after the OOAM Control Packet.
The format of the Flags field is:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|T| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Flags field format
where:
o T - Timestap block flag.
o Reserved - must be set to all zeroes on transmission and ignored
on receipt.
The OOAM header may be followed by the Timestamp control block
Figure 3 and then by OOAM Control Packet identified by the Msg Type
field.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| QTF | RTF | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp 1 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp 4 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Timestamp block format
where:
QTF - Querier timestamp format
RTF - Responder timestamp format
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
Timestamp 1-4 - 64-bit timestamp values
Network Time Protocol (NTP), described in [RFC5905], is widely used
and has long history of deployment. But it is the IEEE 1588
Precision Time Protocol (PTP) [IEEE.1588.2008] that is being broadly
used to achieve high-quality clock synchronization. Converging
between NTP and PTP time formats is possible but is not trivial and
does come with cost, particularly when it is required to be performed
in real time without loss of accuracy. And recently protocols that
supported only NTP time format, like One-Way Active Measurement
Protocol [RFC4656] and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol [RFC5357],
have been enhanced to support the PTP time format as well [RFC8186].
This document proposes to select PTP time format as default time
format for Overlay OAM performance measurement. Hence QTF, RTF
fields MUST be set to 0 if querier or responder use PTP time format
respectively. If the querier or responder use the NTP time format,
then QTF and/or RTF MUST be set to 1. Use of other values MUST be
considered as error and MAY be reported.
4.1. Use of OOAM Header in Active OAM
Active OAM methods, whether used for fault management or performance
monitoring, generate dedicated test packets [RFC7799]. Format of an
OAM test packet in overlay network presented in Figure 4.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Underlay network encapsulation ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Overlay network encapsulation ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ OOAM Header +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |NextProt = None|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ OOAM control message ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Overlay OAM Header in Active OAM Control Packet
Because active OAM method uses only OAM protocol value of Next Prot
field in the OOAM header is set to None indicating that there's no
content from other protocol immediately after OOAM control message in
the packet.
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
4.2. Use of OOAM Header in Hybrid OAM
Hybrid OAM Type I methods, whether used for fault management or
performance monitoring, modify user data packets [RFC7799]. Format
of such modified packet in overlay network presented in Figure 5.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Underlay network encapsulation ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Overlay network encapsulation ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ OOAM Header +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |NextProt = Data|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ OOAM control message ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ User data ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Overlay OAM Header in Hybrid OAM Control Packet
In case when OOAM header used for Hybrid Type I OAM method value of
the Next Prot field is set to the value associated with the protocol
of the user data.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create new registry called "Overlay OAM".
5.1. OOAM Message Types
IANA is requested to create new sub-registry called "Overlay OAM
Protocol Types" in the "Overlay OAM" registry. All code points in
the range 1 through 15615 in this registry shall be allocated
according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126] .
Remaining code points are allocated according to the Table 1:
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
+---------------+--------------+-------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+---------------+--------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | |
| 1 - 15615 | Unassigned | IETF Review |
| 15616 - 16127 | Unassigned | First Come First Served |
| 16128 - 16143 | Experimental | This document |
| 16144 - 16382 | Private Use | This document |
| 16383 | Reserved | This document |
+---------------+--------------+-------------------------+
Table 1: Overlay OAM Protocol type
5.2. OOAM Header Flags
IANA is requested to create sub-registry "Overlay OAM Header Flags"
in "Overlay OAM" registry. Two flags are defined in this document.
New values are assigned via Standards Action [RFC8126].
+-----------+-----------------+---------------+
| Flags bit | Description | Reference |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------+
| Bit 0 | Timestamp field | This document |
| Bit 1-15 | Unassigned | |
+-----------+-----------------+---------------+
Table 2: Overlay OAM Flags
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. Contributors
Work on this documented started by Overlay OAM Design Team with
contributions from:
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
cpignata@cisco.com
Erik Nordmark
Arista Networks
nordmark@acm.org
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
Ignas Bagdonas
ibagdona@gmail.com
David Mozes
Mellanox Technologies Ltd.
davidm@mellanox.com
8. Acknowledgement
TBD
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[IEEE.1588.2008]
"Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol
for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE Standard 1588, July 2008.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]
Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic
Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf-
nvo3-geneve-06 (work in progress), March 2018.
[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.
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-05 (work
in progress), October 2017.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8186] Mirsky, G. and I. Meilik, "Support of the IEEE 1588
Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 8186, DOI 10.17487/RFC8186, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8186>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires September 19, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAM Header for use in Overlay Networks March 2018
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 19, 2018 [Page 11]
