Internet DRAFT - draft-tpmb-detnet-oam-framework
draft-tpmb-detnet-oam-framework
DetNet G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track F. Theoleyre
Expires: 1 October 2021 CNRS
G.Z. Papadopoulos
IMT Atlantique
CJ. Bernardos
UC3M
30 March 2021
Framework of Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for
Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
draft-tpmb-detnet-oam-framework-01
Abstract
Deterministic Networking (DetNet), as defined in RFC 8655, is aimed
to provide a bounded end-to-end latency on top of the network
infrastructure, comprising both Layer 2 bridged and Layer 3 routed
segments. This document's primary purpose is to detail the specific
requirements of the Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
recommended to maintain a deterministic network. With the
implementation of the OAM framework in DetNet, an operator will have
a real-time view of the network infrastructure regarding the
network's ability to respect the Service Level Objective, such as
packet delay, delay variation, and packet loss ratio, assigned to
each data flow.
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 1 October 2021.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Role of OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Continuity Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Connectivity Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Route Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Fault Verification/detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Fault Isolation/identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.7. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Collection of metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Worst-case metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Replication / Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Resource Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Soft transition after reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) [RFC8655] has proposed to provide a
bounded end-to-end latency on top of the network infrastructure,
comprising both Layer 2 bridged and Layer 3 routed segments. Their
work encompasses the data plane, OAM, time synchronization,
management, control, and security aspects.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Tools are of
primary importance for IP networks [RFC7276]. DetNet OAM should
provide a toolset for fault detection, localization, and performance
measurement.
This document's primary purpose is to detail the specific
requirements of the OAM features recommended to maintain a
deterministic/reliable network. Specifically, it investigates the
requirements for a deterministic network, supporting critical flows.
In this document, the term OAM will be used according to its
definition specified in [RFC6291]. DetNet expects to implement an
OAM framework to maintain a real-time view of the network
infrastructure, and its ability to respect the Service Level
Objectives (SLO), such as packet delay, delay variation, and packet
loss ratio, assigned to each data flow.
This document lists the functional requirements toward OAM for DetNet
domain. The list can further be used for gap analysis of available
OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing or whether
new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on-demand path
monitoring and service validation.
1.1. Terminology
The following terms are used througout this document as defined
below:
* OAM entity: a data flow to be monitored for defects and/or its
performance metrics measured.
* Maintenance End Point (MEP): OAM systems traversed by a data flow
when entering/exiting the network. In DetNet, it corresponds with
the source and destination of a data flow. OAM messages can be
exchanged between two MEPs.
* Maintenance Intermediate endPoint (MIP): an OAM system along the
flow; a MIP MAY respond to an OAM message generated by the MEP.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
* Control and management plane: the control and management planes
are used to configure and control the network (long-term).
Relative to a data flow, the control and/or management plane can
be out-of-band.
* Active measurement methods (as defined in [RFC7799]) modify a
normal data flow by inserting novel fields, injecting specially
constructed test packets [RFC2544]). It is critical for the
quality of information obtained using an active method that
generated test packets are in-band with the monitored data flow.
In other words, a test packet is required to cross the same
network nodes and links and receive the same Quality of Service
(QoS) treatment as a data packet.
* Passive measurement methods [RFC7799] infer information by
observing unmodified existing flows.
* Hybrid measurement methods [RFC7799] is the combination of
elements of both active and passive measurement methods.
1.2. Acronyms
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
DetNet: Deterministic Networking
SLO: Service Level Objective
QoS: Quality of Service
SNMP: Simple Network Management Protocol
SDN: Software Defined Network
<TODO> we need here an exhaustive list, to be completed after the
document has evolved.
1.3. 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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
2. Role of OAM in DetNet
DetNet networks expect to provide communications with predictable low
packet delay and packet loss. Most critical applications will define
an SLO to be required for the data flows it generates.
To respect strict guarantees, DetNet can use an orchestrator able to
monitor and maintain the network. Typically, a Software-Defined
Network (SDN) controller places DetNet flows in the deployed network
based on their the SLO. Thus, resources have to be provisioned a
priori for the regular operation of the network. OAM represents the
essential elements of the network operation and necessary for OAM
resources that need to be accounted for to maintain the network
operational.
Fault-tolerance also assumes that multiple paths could be provisioned
so that an end-to-end circuit is maintained by adapting to the
existing conditions. The central controller/orchestrator typically
controls the Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
(PREOF) on a node. OAM is expected to support monitoring and
troubleshooting PREOF on a particular node and within the domain.
Note that PREOF can also be controlled by a set of distributed
controllers, in those scenarios where DetNet solutions involve more
than one single central controller.
3. Operation
OAM features will enable DetNet with robust operation both for
forwarding and routing purposes.
3.1. Information Collection
Information about the state of the network can be collected using
several mechanisms. Some protocols, e.g., Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP), send queries. Others, e.g., YANG-based data models,
generate notifications based on the publish-subscribe method. In
either way, information about the state of the network being
collected and sent to the controller.
Also, we can characterize methods of transporting OAM information
relative to the path of data. For instance, OAM information may be
transported out-of-band or in-band with the data flow.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
3.2. Continuity Check
Continuity check is used to monitor the continuity of a path, i.e.,
that there exists a way to deliver the packets between two endpoints
A and B.
3.3. Connectivity Verification
In addition to the Continuity Check, DetNet solutions have to verify
the connectivity. This verification considers additional
constraints, i.e., the absence of misconnection.
In particular, resources have to be reserved for a given flow, so
they are booked for use without being impacted by other flows.
Similarly, the destination does not receive packets from different
flows through its interface.
It is worth noting that the test and data packets MUST follow the
same path, i.e., the connectivity verification has to be conducted
in-band without impacting the data traffic. Test packets MUST share
fate with the monitored data traffic without introducing congestion
in normal network conditions.
3.4. Route Tracing
Ping and traceroute are two ubiquitous tools that help localize and
characterize a failure in the network. They help to identify a
subset of the list of routers in the route. However, to be
predictable, resources are reserved per flow in DetNet. Thus, DetNet
needs to define route tracing tools able to track the route for a
specific flow.
DetNet with IP data plane is NOT RECOMMENDED to use multiple paths or
links, i.e., Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) [RFC8939]. As the result,
OAM in IP ECMP environment is outside the scope of this document.
3.5. Fault Verification/detection
DetNet expects to operate fault-tolerant networks. Thus, mechanisms
able to detect faults before they impact the network performance are
needed.
The network has to detect when a fault occurred, i.e., the network
has deviated from its expected behavior. While the network must
report an alarm, the cause may not be identified precisely. For
instance, the end-to-end reliability has decreased significantly, or
a buffer overflow occurs.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
DetNet OAM mechanisms SHOULD allow a fault detection in real time.
They MAY, when possible, predict faults based on current network
conditions. They MAY also identify and report the cause of the
actual/predicted network failure.
3.6. Fault Isolation/identification
The network has isolated and identified the cause of the fault. For
instance, the replication process behaves not as expected to a
specific intermediary router.
3.7. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet
Hybrid OAM methods are used in performance monitoring and defined in
[RFC7799] as:
Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination
of Active Methods and Passive Methods.
A hybrid measurement method may produce metrics as close to passive,
but it still alters something in a data packet even if that is the
value of a designated field in the packet encapsulation. One example
of such a hybrid measurement method is the Alternate Marking method
(AMM) described in [RFC8321]. One of the advantages of the use of
AMM in a DetNet domain with the IP data plane is that the marking is
applied to a data flow, thus ensuring that measured metrics are
directly applicable to the DetNet flow.
4. Administration
The network SHOULD expose a collection of metrics to support an
operator making proper decisions, including:
* Queuing Delay: the time elapsed between a packet enqueued and its
transmission to the next hop.
* Buffer occupancy: the number of packets present in the buffer, for
each of the existing flows.
The following metrics SHOULD be collected:
* per virtual circuit to measure the end-to-end performance for a
given flow. Each of the paths has to be isolated in multipath
routing strategies.
* per path to detect misbehaving path when multiple paths are
applied.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
* per device to detect misbehaving node, when it relays the packets
of several flows.
4.1. Collection of metrics
DetNet OAM SHOULD optimize the number of statistics / measurements to
collected, frequency of collecting. Distributed and centralized
mechanisms MAY be used in combination. Periodic and event-triggered
collection information characterizing the state of a network MAY be
used.
4.2. Worst-case metrics
DetNet aims to enable real-time communications on top of a
heterogeneous multi-hop architecture. To make correct decisions, the
controller needs to know the distribution of packet losses/delays for
each flow, and each hop of the paths. In other words, the average
end-to-end statistics are not enough. The collected information must
be sufficient to allow the controller to predict the worst-case.
5. Maintenance
DetNet needs to implement a self-healing and self-optimization
approach. The controller MUST be able to continuously retrieve the
state of the network, to evaluate conditions and trends about the
relevance of a reconfiguration, quantifying:
the cost of the sub-optimality: resources may not be used
optimally (e.g., a better path exists).
the reconfiguration cost: the controller needs to trigger some
reconfigurations. For this transient period, resources may be
twice reserved, and control packets have to be transmitted.
Thus, reconfiguration may only be triggered if the gain is
significant.
5.1. Replication / Elimination
When multiple paths are reserved between two maintenance endpoints,
packet replication may be used to introduce redundancy and alleviate
transmission errors and collisions. For instance, in Figure 1, the
source node S is transmitting the packet to both parents, nodes A and
B. Each maintenance endpoint will decide to trigger the packet
replication, elimination or the ordering process when a set of
metrics passes a threshold value.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
===> (A) => (C) => (E) ===
// \\// \\// \\
source (S) //\\ //\\ (R) (root)
\\ // \\ // \\ //
===> (B) => (D) => (F) ===
Figure 1: Packet Replication: S transmits twice the same data
packet, to DP(A) and AP (B).
5.2. Resource Reservation
Because the QoS criteria associated with a path may degrade, the
network has to provision additional resources along the path. We
need to provide mechanisms to patch the network configuration.
5.3. Soft transition after reconfiguration
Since DetNet expects to support real-time flows, DetNet OAM MUST
support soft-reconfiguration, where the novel resources are reserved
before the ancient ones are released. Some mechanisms have to be
proposed so that packets are forwarded through the novel track only
when the resources are ready to be used, while maintaining the global
state consistent (no packet reordering, duplication, etc.)
6. Requirements
This section lists requirements for OAM in DetNet domain with MPLS
data plane:
1. It MUST be possible to initiate DetNet OAM session from any
DetNet node towards another DetNet node(s) within given domain.
2. It SHOULD be possible to initialize DetNet OAM session from a
centralized controller.
3. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring
and measurement methods.
4. DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the
same path as DetNet data plane traffic.
5. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, continuity
check, connectivity verification, and performance measurement.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
6. DetNet OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such OAM
methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the
forward direction and out-of-bound notification in the reverse
direction, i.e., from egress to ingress end point of the OAM
test session.
7. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of a DetNet node
availability in the given DetNet domain.
8. DetNet OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit
discovery.
9. DetNet OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication (RDI)
notification to the DetNet node performing continuity checking.
10. DetNet OAM MUST support performance measurement methods.
11. DetNet OAM MAY support hybrid performance measurement methods.
12. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement
methods. Calculated performance metrics MUST include but are
not limited to throughput, packet loss, delay and delay
variation metrics. [RFC6374] provides excellent details on
performance measurement and performance metrics.
13. DetNet OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like
Alarm Indication Signal. Any DetNet node in the given DetNet
domain MAY originate a defect notification addressed to any
subset of nodes within the domain.
14. DetNet OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of the
DetNet domain. These recovery methods MAY use protection
switching and restoration.
15. DetNet OAM MUST support the discovery of Packet Replication,
Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions locations in
the domain.
16. DetNet OAM MUST support testing of Packet Replication,
Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions in the domain.
17. DetNet OAM MUST support monitoring any sub-set of paths
traversed through the DetNet domain by the DetNet flow.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actionable requirements for IANA. This section
can be removed before the publication.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
8. Security Considerations
This document lists the OAM requirements for a DetNet domain and does
not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common
to networking and those specific to a DetNet discussed in
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security].
9. Acknowledgments
TBD
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Grossman, E., Mizrahi, T., and A. J. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-detnet-security-16, 2 March 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-security-
16>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[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>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RFC8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com, gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
Fabrice Theoleyre
CNRS
300 boulevard Sebastien Brant - CS 10413
67400 Illkirch - Strasbourg
France
Phone: +33 368 85 45 33
Email: theoleyre@unistra.fr
URI: http://www.theoleyre.eu
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet March 2021
Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 102A
2 Rue de la Châtaigneraie
35510 Cesson-Sévigné - Rennes
France
Phone: +33 299 12 70 04
Email: georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 13]
