Internet DRAFT - draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam
draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam
SFC WG G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Updates: 8300 (if approved) W. Meng
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: April 10, 2019 B. Khasnabish
ZTE TX, Inc.
C. Wang
October 7, 2018
Active OAM for Service Function Chains in Networks
draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-12
Abstract
A set of requirements for active Operation, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) of Service Function Chains (SFCs) in networks is
presented. Based on these requirements an encapsulation of active
OAM message in SFC and a mechanism to detect and localize defects
described. Also, this document updates RFC 8300 in the definition of
O (OAM) bit in the Network Service Header (NSH) and defines how the
active OAM message identified in SFC NSH.
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 April 10, 2019.
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 April 10, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 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
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements for Active OAM in SFC Network . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Active OAM Identification in SFC NSH . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC in Networks . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. SFC Echo Request Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. SFC Echo Request Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. SFC Echo Reply Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Overlay Echo Reply Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. SFC Active OAM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. SFC Active OAM Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.3. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters . . . . . . . . . 11
8.4. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types . . . . . . . . 11
8.5. SFC Echo Reply Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.6. SFC TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.7. SFC OAM UDP Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
[RFC7665] defines components necessary to implement Service Function
Chain (SFC). These include a classifier which performs the
classification of incoming packets. A Service Function Forwarder
(SFF) is responsible for forwarding traffic to one or more connected
Service Functions (SFs) according to the information carried in the
SFC encapsulation. SFF also handles traffic coming back from the SF
and transports the data packets to the next SFF. And the SFF serves
as termination element of the Service Function Path (SFP). SF is
responsible for the specific treatment of received packets.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
Resulting from that SFC is constructed by a number of these
components, there are different views from different levels of the
SFC. One is the SFC, entirely abstract entity, which defines an
ordered set of SFs that must be applied to packets selected as a
result of classification. But SFC doesn't specify the exact mapping
between SFFs and SFs. Thus there exists another semi-abstract entity
referred to as SFP. SFP is the instantiation of the SFC in the
network and provides a level of indirection between the entirely
abstract SFC and a fully specified ordered list of SFFs and SFs
identities that the packet will visit when it traverses the SFC. The
latter entity is being referred to as Rendered Service Path (RSP).
The main difference between SFP and RSP is that in the former the
authority to select the SFF/SF has been delegated to the network.
This document defines how active Operation, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM), per [RFC7799] definition of active OAM, identified
in Network Service Header (NSH) SFC, lists requirements to improve
the troubleshooting efficiency, and defines SFC Echo request and Echo
reply that enables on-demand Continuity Check, Connectivity
Verification among other operations over SFC in networks. Also, this
document updates Section 2.2 of [RFC8300] in part of the definition
of O bit in the (NSH).
2. Conventions
2.1. 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.
2.2. Terminology
Unless explicitly specified in this document, active OAM in SFC and
SFC OAM are being used interchangeably.
e2e: End-to-End
FM: Fault Management
NSH: Network Service Header
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
PRNG: Pseudorandom number generator
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
RDI: Remote Defect Indication
RSP: Rendered Service Path
SF: Service Function
SFC: Service Function Chain
SFF: Service Function Forwarder
SFP: Service Function Path
3. Requirements for Active OAM in SFC Network
To perform the OAM task of fault management (FM) in an SFC, that
includes failure detection, defect characterization and localization,
this document defines the set of requirements for active OAM
mechanisms to be used on an SFC.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|SF1| |SF2| |SF3| |SF4| |SF5| |SF6|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
\ / \ / \ /
+----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|Classifier|-------|SFF1|---------|SFF2|--------|SFF3|
+----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Figure 1: SFC reference model
In the example presented in Figure 1, the service SFP1 may be
realized through two RSPs, RSP1(SF1--SF3--SF5) and RSP2(SF2--SF4--
SF5). To perform end-to-end (e2e) FM SFC OAM:
REQ#1: Packets of active OAM in SFC SHOULD be fate sharing with
data traffic, i.e., in-band with the monitored traffic follow the
same RSP, in the forward direction from ingress toward egress
endpoint(s) of the OAM test.
REQ#2: SFC OAM MUST support pro-active monitoring of any element
in the SFC availability.
The egress, SFF3 in the example in Figure 1, is the entity that
detects the failure of the SFC. It must be able to signal the new
defect state to the ingress SFF1. Hence the following requirement:
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
REQ#3: SFC OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication (RDI)
notification by the egress to the ingress.
REQ#4: SFC OAM MUST support connectivity verification. Definition
of the misconnection defect, entry and exit criteria are outside
the scope of this document.
Once the SFF1 detects the defect objective of OAM switches from
failure detection to defect characterization and localization.
REQ#5: SFC OAM MUST support fault localization of Loss of
Continuity check in the SFC.
REQ#6: SFC OAM MUST support tracing an SFP to realize the RSP.
It is practical, as presented in Figure 1, that several SFs share the
same SFF. In such case, SFP1 may be realized over two RSPs,
RSP1(SF1--SF3--SF5) and RSP2(SF2--SF4--SF6).
REQ#7: SFC OAM MUST have the ability to discover and exercise all
available RSPs in the transport network.
In the process of localizing the SFC failure, separating SFC OAM
layers is an efficient approach. To achieve that continuity among
SFFs that are part of the same SFP should be verified. Once SFFs
reachability along the particular SFP has been confirmed task of
defect localization may focus on SF reachability verification.
Because reachability of SFFs has already verified, SFF local to the
SF may be used as a source of the test packets.
REQ#8: SFC OAM MUST be able to trigger on-demand FM with responses
being directed towards initiator of such proxy request.
4. Active OAM Identification in SFC NSH
The interpretation of O bit flag in the NSH header is defined in
[RFC8300] as:
O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM packet.
This document updates the definition of O bit as follows:
O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM command and/or data in
the NSH Context Header or packet payload
Active SFC OAM defined as a combination of OAM commands and/or data
included in a message that immediately follows the NSH. To identify
the active OAM message the value on the Next Protocol field MUST be
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
set to Active SFC OAM (TBA1) according to Section 8.1. The rules of
interpreting the values of O bit and the Next Protocol field are as
follows:
o O bit set and the Next Protocol value is not one of identifying
active or hybrid OAM protocol (per [RFC7799] definitions), e.g.,
defined in this specification Active SFC OAM - TLVs contain OAM
command or data, and the type of payload determined by the Next
Protocol field;
o O bit set and the Next Protocol value is one of identifying active
or hybrid OAM protocol - the payload that immediately follows SFC
NSH contains OAM command or data;
o O bit is clear - no OAM in TLV and the payload determined by the
value of the Next Protocol field.
Several active OAM protocols will be needed to address all the
requirements listed in Section 3. Destination UDP port number may
identify protocols if IP/UDP encapsulation used. But extra IP/UDP
headers, especially in the case of IPv6, add noticeable overhead.
This document defines Active OAM Header Figure 2 to demultiplex
active OAM protocols on an SFC.
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 | Flags | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SFC Active OAM Control Packet ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: SFC Active OAM Header
V - two bits long field indicates the current version of the SFC
active OAM header. The current value is 0.
Msg Type - six bits long field identifies OAM protocol, e.g., Echo
Request/Reply or BFD.
Flags - eight bits long field carries bit flags that define
optional capability and thus processing of the SFC active OAM
control packet, e.g., optional timestamping.
Length - two octets long field that is the length of the SFC
active OAM control packet in octets.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
5. Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC in Networks
Echo Request/Reply is a well-known active OAM mechanism that is
extensively used to detect inconsistencies between a state in control
and the data planes, localize defects in the data plane. The format
of the Echo request/Echo reply control packet is to support ping and
traceroute functionality in SFC in networks Figure 3 resembles the
format of MPLS LSP Ping [RFC8029] 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 3: SFC Echo Request/Reply format
The interpretation of the fields is as follows:
The Version reflects the current version. The version number is
to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the
ability of an implementation to parse or process control packet
correctly.
The Global Flags is a bit vector field.
The Message Type filed reflects the type of the packet. Value
TBA3 identifies echo request and TBA4 - 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
the 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 sender MAY use a
pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) to set the value of the
Sender's Handle field. The value of the Sender's Handle field
SHOULD NOT be changed in the course of the test session.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
The Sequence Number is assigned by the sender and can be (for
example) used to detect missed replies. The value of the Sequence
Number field SHOULD be monotonically increasing in the course of
the test session.
TLVs (Type-Length-Value tuples) have the two octets long Type
field, two octets long Length field that is the length of the
Value field in octets.
5.1. SFC Echo Request Transmission
SFC echo request control packet MUST use the appropriate
encapsulation of the monitored SFP. If Network Service Header (NSH)
is used, echo request MUST set O bit, as defined in [RFC8300]. SFC
NSH MUST be immediately followed by the SFC Active OAM Header defined
in Section 4. Message Type field in the SFC Active OAM Header MUST
be set to SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply value (TBA2) per Section 8.2.
Value of the Reply Mode field MAY be set to:
o Do Not Reply (TBA5) if one-way monitoring is desired. If the 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 (TBA6) value likely will be the
most used.
o Reply via Application Level Control Channel (TBA7) value if the
SFP may have bi-directional paths.
o Reply via Specified Path (TBA7) value to enforce the use of the
particular return path specified in the included TLV to verify bi-
directional continuity and also increase the robustness of the
monitoring by selecting a more stable path.
5.2. SFC Echo Request Reception
5.3. SFC 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 the corresponding echo reply is transmitted over the
specified path. Value TBA3 is referred to as "Do not reply" mode and
suppresses transmission of echo reply packet. The default value
(TBA6) for the Reply mode field requests the responder to send the
echo reply packet out-of-band as IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
Responder to the SFC echo request sends the echo reply over IP
network if the Reply mode is Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet.
Because SFC NSH does not identify the ingress of the SFP the echo
request, the source ID MUST be included in the message and used as
the IP destination address for IP/UDP encapsulation of the SFC echo
reply. The sender of the SFC echo request MUST include SFC Source
TLV 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFC OAM Source ID Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SFC Source TLV
where
SFC OAM Source Id Type is two octets in length and has the value
of TBA9 Section 8.6.
Length is two octets long field, and the value equals the length
of the Value field in octets.
Value field contains the IP address of the sender of the SFC OAM
control message, IPv4 or IPv6.
The UDP destination port for SFC Echo Reply TBA10 will be allocated
by IANA Section 8.7.
5.4. Overlay Echo Reply Reception
6. 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 SFC echo request/reply are
similar to those of ICMP ping [RFC0792], [RFC4443] and MPLS LSP ping
[RFC8029].
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 SFC ping to overload an
element of the SFC. The second may use spoofing, hijacking,
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
replying, or otherwise tampering with SFC echo requests and/or
replies to misrepresent, alter operator's view of the state of the
SFC. The third is an unauthorized source using an SFC echo request/
reply to obtain information about the SFC and/or its elements, e.g.
SFF or SF.
It is RECOMMENDED that implementations throttle the SFC ping traffic
going to the control plane to mitigate potential Denial-of-Service
attacks.
Reply and spoofing attacks involving faking or replying SFC echo
reply messages would have to match the Sender's Handle and Sequence
Number of an outstanding SFC echo request message which is highly
unlikely. Thus the non-matching reply would be discarded.
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 SFP.
7. Acknowledgments
Authors greatly appreciate thorough review and the most helpful
comments from Dan Wing.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. SFC Active OAM Protocol
IANA is requested to assign a new type from the SFC Next Protocol
registry as follows:
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
| TBA1 | SFC Active OAM | This document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
Table 1: SFC Active OAM Protocol
8.2. SFC Active OAM Message Type
IANA is requested to create a new registry called "SFC Active OAM
Message Type". All code points in the range 1 through 32767 in this
registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure
as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code points to be allocated
according to the table Table 2:
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
+---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | |
| 1 - 32767 | Reserved | IETF Consensus |
| 32768 - 65530 | Reserved | First Come First Served |
| 65531 - 65534 | Reserved | Private Use |
| 65535 | Reserved | |
+---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
Table 2: SFC Active OAM Message Type
IANA is requested to assign new type from the SFC Active OAM Message
Type registry as follows:
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| TBA2 | SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply | This document |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
Table 3: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Type
8.3. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters
IANA is requested to create new SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Parameters registry.
8.4. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types
IANA is requested to create in the SFC 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 [RFC8126]
and assign values as follows:
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
+------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+------------+------------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | |
| TBA3 | SFC Echo Request | This document |
| TBA4 | SFC Echo Reply | This document |
| TBA4+1-191 | Unassigned | IETF Review |
| 192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First Served |
| 252-254 | Unassigned | Private Use |
| 255 | Reserved | |
+------------+------------------+-------------------------+
Table 4: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types
8.5. SFC Echo Reply Modes
IANA is requested to create in the SFC 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 [RFC8126]
and assign values as follows:
+------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | |
| TBA5 | Do Not Reply | This document |
| TBA6 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP | This document |
| | Packet | |
| TBA7 | Reply via Application Level | This document |
| | Control Channel | |
| TBA8 | Reply via Specified Path | This document |
| TBA8+1-191 | Unassigned | IETF Review |
| 192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First |
| | | Served |
| 252-254 | Unassigned | Private Use |
| 255 | Reserved | |
+------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+
Table 5: SFC Echo Reply Modes
8.6. SFC TLV Type
IANA is requested to create SFC OAM TLV Type registry. All code
points in the range 1 through 32759 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in
[RFC8126]. Code points in the range 32760 through 65279 in this
registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come First
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code points
are allocated according to the Table 6:
+---------------+--------------+-------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+---------------+--------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1- 32759 | Unassigned | IETF Review |
| 32760 - 65279 | Unassigned | First Come First Served |
| 65280 - 65519 | Experimental | This document |
| 65520 - 65534 | Private Use | This document |
| 65535 | Reserved | This document |
+---------------+--------------+-------------------------+
Table 6: SFC TLV Type Registry
This document defines the following new value in SFC OAM TLV Type
registry:
+-------+-------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------------+---------------+
| TBA9 | Source IP Address | This document |
+-------+-------------------+---------------+
Table 7: SFC OAM Source IP Address Type
8.7. SFC OAM UDP Port
IANA is requested to allocate UDP port number according to
+---------+--------+------------+---------+--------------+----------+
| Service | Port | Transport | Descrip | Semantics | Referenc |
| Name | Number | Protocol | tion | Definition | e |
+---------+--------+------------+---------+--------------+----------+
| SFC OAM | TBA10 | UDP | SFC OAM | Section 5.3 | This |
| | | | | | document |
+---------+--------+------------+---------+--------------+----------+
Table 8: SFC OAM Port
9. References
9.1. Normative References
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
[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>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[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>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[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>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC October 2018
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Wei Meng
ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing
China
Email: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn,vally.meng@gmail.com
Bhumip Khasnabish
ZTE TX, Inc.
55 Madison Avenue, Suite 160
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
USA
Email: bhumip.khasnabish@ztetx.com
Cui Wang
Email: lindawangjoy@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2019 [Page 15]
