SFC WG G. Mirsky Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Updates: 8300 (if approved) W. Meng Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation Expires: 5 December 2021 B. Khasnabish C. Wang Individual contributor 3 June 2021 Active OAM for Service Function Chaining draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-12 Abstract A set of requirements for active Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) of Service Function Chains (SFCs) in a network is presented in this document. Based on these requirements, an encapsulation of active OAM messages in SFC and a mechanism to detect and localize defects are described. This document updates RFC 8300. Particularly, it updates the definition of O (OAM) bit in the Network Service Header (NSH) and defines how an active OAM message is identified in the 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 5 December 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Requirements for Active OAM in SFC Network . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Active OAM Identification in the NSH . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Authentication in Echo Request/Reply . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3. SFC Echo Request Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4. SFC Echo Request Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.4.1. Errored TLVs TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.5. SFC Echo Reply Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.6. SFC Echo Reply Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.7. Tracing an SFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. SFC Active OAM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. SFC Active OAM Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.3. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters . . . . . . . . . 17 8.4. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types . . . . . . . . 17 8.5. SFC Echo Reply Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.6. SFC Echo Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.7. SFC TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8.8. SFC OAM UDP Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1. Introduction [RFC7665] defines data plane elements necessary to implement a Service Function Chaining (SFC). These include: Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 1. Classifiers that perform the classification of incoming packets. Such classification may result in associating a received packet to a service function chain. 2. Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) that are responsible for forwarding traffic to one or more connected Service Functions (SFs) according to the information carried in the SFC encapsulation and handling traffic coming back from the SFs and forwarding it to the next SFF. 3. SFs that are responsible for executing specific service treatment on received packets. There are different views from different levels of the SFC. One is the service function chain, an entirely abstract view, which defines an ordered set of SFs that must be applied to packets selected based on classification rules. But service function chain doesn't specify the exact mapping between SFFs and SFs. Thus, another logical construct used in SFC is a Service Function Path (SFP). According to [RFC7665], SFP is the instantiation of the SFC in the network and provides a level of indirection between the entirely abstract SFCs 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 referred to as Rendered Service Path (RSP). The main difference between SFP and RSP is that the former is the logical construct, while the latter is the realization of the SFP via the sequence of specific SFC data plane elements. This document defines how active Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM), per [RFC7799] definition of active OAM, is identified when Network Service Header (NSH) is used as the SFC encapsulation. Following the analysis of SFC OAM in [RFC8924], this document applies and, when necessary, extends requirements listed in Section 4 of [RFC8924] for the use of active OAM in an SFP supporting fault management and performance monitoring. Active OAM tools, conformant to the requirements listed in Section 3, improve, for example, troubleshooting efficiency and defect localization in SFP because they specifically address architectural principles of NSH. For that purpose, SFC Echo Request and Echo Reply are specified in the document. This mechanism enables on-demand Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification among other operations over SFC in networks, addresses functionalities discussed in Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of [RFC8924]. Also, this document updates Section 2.2 of [RFC8300] in part of the definition of O bit in the (NSH). Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 2. Terminology and Conventions The terminology defined in [RFC7665] is used extensively throughout this document. The reader is expected to be familiar with it. In this document, SFC OAM refers to an active OAM [RFC7799] in an SFC architecture. 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. Acronyms E2E: End-to-End FM: Fault Management NSH: Network Service Header OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance RSP: Rendered Service Path SF: Service Function SFC: Service Function Chain SFF: Service Function Forwarder SFP: Service Function Path MAC: Message Authentication Code 3. Requirements for Active OAM in SFC Network As discussed in [RFC8924], SFC-specific means are needed to perform the OAM task of fault management (FM) in an SFC architecture, including failure detection, defect characterization, and localization. This document defines the set of requirements for active FM OAM mechanisms to be used in an SFC architecture. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ |SFI11| |SFI12| |SFI21| |SFI22| |SFI31| |SFI32| +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ \ / \ / \ / +----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+ |Classifier|---|SFF1|---------|SFF2|----------|SFF3| +----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+ Figure 1: An Example of SFC Data Plane Regarding the reference model depicted in Figure 1, consider a service function chain that includes three distinct service functions. In this example, the SFP traverses SFF1, SFF2, and SFF3, each SFF being connected to two instances of the same service function. End-to-end (E2E) SFC OAM has the Classifier as the ingress, and SFF3 - as its egress. Segment SFC OAM is between two elements that are part of the same SFP. Following are the requirements for an FM SFC OAM, whether with the E2E or segment scope: REQ#1: Packets of active SFC OAM in SFC SHOULD be fate sharing with the monitored SFC data, in the forward direction from ingress toward egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test. The fate sharing, in the SFC environment, is achieved when a test packet traverses the same path and receives the same treatment in the transport layer as an SFC NSH packet. REQ#2: SFC OAM MUST support monitoring of the continuity of the SFP between any of its elements. A network failure might be declared when several consecutive test packets are not received within a pre-determined time. For example, in the E2E SFC OAM FM case, the egress, SFF3, in the example in Figure 1, could be the entity that detects the SFP's failure by monitoring a flow of periodic test packets. The ingress may be capable of recovering from the failure, e.g., using redundant SFC elements. Thus, it is beneficial for the egress to signal the new defect state to the ingress, which in this example is the Classifier. Hence the following requirement: REQ#3: SFC OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication notification by the egress to the ingress. REQ#4: SFC OAM MUST support connectivity verification of the SFP. Definition of the misconnection defect, entry and exit criteria are outside the scope of this document. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 Once the SFF1 detects the defect, the objective of the SFC OAM changes from the detection of a defect to defect characterization and localization. REQ#5: SFC OAM MUST support fault localization of the Loss of Continuity Check within an SFP. REQ#6: SFC OAM MUST support an SFP tracing to discover the RSP. In the example presented in Figure 1, two distinct instances of the same service function share the same SFF. In this example, the SFP can be realized over several RSPs that use different instances of SF of the same type. For example, RSP1(SFI11--SFI21--SFI31) and RSP2(SFI12--SFI22--SFI32). Available RSPs can be discovered using the trace function discussed in Section 4.3 [RFC8924]. REQ#7: SFC OAM MUST have the ability to discover and exercise all available RSPs in the network. The SFC OAM layer model described in [RFC8924] offers an approach for a defect localization within a service function chain. As the first step, the SFP's continuity for SFFs that are part of the same SFP could be verified. After the reachability of SFFs has already been verified, SFFs that serve an SF may be used as a test packet source. In such a case, SFF can act as a proxy for another element within the service function chain. REQ#8: SFC OAM MUST be able to trigger on-demand FM with responses being directed towards the initiator of such proxy request. 4. Active OAM Identification in the NSH The O bit in the NSH is defined in [RFC8300] as follows: O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM packet. This document updates that definition 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 is 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 Next Protocol field's value MUST be set to Active SFC OAM (TBA1) (Section 8.1). The rules for interpreting the values of the O bit and the Next Protocol field are as follows: Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 * 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: - a Fixed-Length Context Header or Variable-Length Context Header(s) contain an OAM command or data. - the type of payload is determined by the Next Protocol field. * O bit set and the Next Protocol value is one of identifying active or hybrid OAM protocol: - the payload that immediately follows the NSH MUST contain an OAM command or data. * O bit is clear: - no OAM in a Fixed-Length Context Header or Variable-Length Context Header(s). - the payload determined by the Next Protocol field's value MUST be present. * O bit is clear and the Next Protocol field's value identifies active or hybrid OAM protocol MUST be identified and reported as the erroneous combination. An implementation MAY have control to enable processing of the OAM payload. One conclusion from the above-listed rules of processing the O bit and the Next Protocol field's value is to avoid the combination of OAM in an NSH Context Header (Fixed-Length or Variable-Length) and the payload immediately following the NSH because there is no unambiguous way to identify such combination using the O bit and the Next Protocol field. As demonstrated in Section 4 [RFC8924] and Section 3 of this document, SFC OAM is required to perform multiple tasks. Several active OAM protocols could be used to address all the requirements. When IP/UDP encapsulation of an SFC OAM control message is used, protocols can be demultiplexed using the Destination UDP port number. But extra IP/UDP headers, especially in an IPv6 network, add noticeable overhead. This document defines Active OAM Header (Figure 2) to demultiplex active OAM protocols on an SFC. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 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-bit-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 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection. 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. 5. Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC Echo Request/Reply is a well-known active OAM mechanism that is extensively used to verify a path's continuity, detect inconsistencies between a state in control and the data planes, and localize defects in the data plane. ICMP ([RFC0792] for IPv4 and [RFC4443] for IPv6 networks respectively) and [RFC8029] are examples of broadly used active OAM protocols based on Echo Request/Reply principle. The SFC NSH Echo Request/Reply defined in this document addresses several requirements listed in Section 3. Specifically, as defined in this specification, it can be used to check the continuity of an SFP, trace an SFP, localize the failure of the SFP. The SFC NSH Echo Request/Reply control message format is presented in Figure 3. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 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 | Reserved | Global Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Type | Reply mode | Return Code |Return Subcode | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender's Handle | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ TLVs ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: SFC Echo Request/Reply Format The interpretation of the fields is as follows: Version (V) is a two-bit field that indicates the current version of the SFC Echo Request/Reply. The current value is 0. 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. Reserved - fourteen-bit field. It MUST be zeroed on transmission and ignored on receipt. The Global Flags is a two-octet bit vector field. The Message Type is a one-octet field that reflects the packet type. Value TBA3 identifies Echo Request and TBA4 - Echo Reply. The Reply Mode is a one-octet field. It defines the type of the return path requested by the sender of the Echo Request. Return Codes and Subcodes are one-octet fields each. These can be used to inform the sender about the result of processing its request. Initial Return Code values are according to Table 1. For all Return Code values defined in this document, the value of the Return Subcode field MUST be set to zero. The Sender's Handle is a four-octet field. It is filled in by the sender of the Echo Request and returned unchanged by the Echo Reply sender. The sender of the Echo Request MAY use a pseudo- random number generator to set the value of the Sender's Handle field. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 The Sequence Number is a four-octet field. It 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. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Reserved | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Value ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: SFC Echo Request/Reply TLV Format TLV is a variable-length field. Multiple TLVs MAY be placed in an SFC Echo Request/Reply packet. Additional TLVs may be enclosed within a given TLV, subject to the semantics of the (outer) TLV in question. If more than one TLV is to be included, the value of the Type field of the outmost outer TLV MUST be set to Multiple TLVs Used (TBA12), as assigned by IANA according to Section 8.7. Figure 4 presents the format of an SFC Echo Request/Reply TLV, where fields are defined as the following: Type - a one-octet-long field that characterizes the interpretation of the Value field. Type values allocated according to Section 8.7. Reserved - one-octet-long field. The value of the Type field determines its interpretation and encoding. Length - two-octet-long field equal to the Value field's length in octets. Value - a variable-length field. The value of the Type field determines its interpretation and encoding. 5.1. Return Codes The value of the Return Code field is set to zero by the sender of an Echo Request. The receiver of said Echo Request can set it to one of the values listed in Table 1 in the corresponding Echo Reply that it generates. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 +=======+============================================+ | Value | Description | +=======+============================================+ | 0 | No Return Code | +-------+--------------------------------------------+ | 1 | Malformed Echo Request received | +-------+--------------------------------------------+ | 2 | One or more of the TLVs was not understood | +-------+--------------------------------------------+ | 3 | Authentication failed | +-------+--------------------------------------------+ Table 1: SFC Echo Return Codes 5.2. Authentication in Echo Request/Reply Authentication can be used to protect the integrity of the information in SFC Echo Request and/or Echo Reply. In the [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity] a variable-length Context Header has been defined to protect the integrity of the NSH and the payload. The header can also be used for the optional encryption of the sensitive metadata. MAC#1 Context Header is more suitable for the integrity protection of active SFC OAM, particularly of the defined in this document SFC Echo Request and Echo Reply. On the other hand, using MAC#2 Context Header allows the detection of mishandling of the O-bit by a transient SFC element. 5.3. SFC Echo Request Transmission SFC Echo Request control packet MUST use the appropriate transport encapsulation of the monitored SFP. If the NSH is used, Echo Request MUST set O bit, as defined in [RFC8300]. NSH MUST be immediately followed by the SFC Active OAM Header defined in Section 4. The Message Type field's value 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: * 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. Note that ways of learning the identy of that node is otside the scope of this specification. * Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet (TBA6) value likely will be the most used. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 * Reply via Application Level Control Channel (TBA7) value if the SFP may have bi-directional paths. * Reply via Specified Path (TBA8) 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. [I-D.ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified] provides an example of the defining a specific path for the Echo Reply. 5.4. SFC Echo Request Reception Sending an SFC Echo Request to the control plane is triggered by one of the following packet processing exceptions: NSH TTL expiration, NSH Service Index (SI) expiration, or the receiver is the terminal SFF for an SFP. Firstly, if the SFC Echo Request is authenticated, the receiving SFF MUST verify the authentication. If the verification fails, the receiver SFF MUST send an SFC Echo Reply with the Return Code set to "Authentication failed" and the Subcode set to zero. Then, the SFF that has received an SFC Echo Request verifies the received packet's general sanity. If the packet is not well-formed, the receiver SFF SHOULD send an SFC Echo Reply with the Return Code set to "Malformed Echo Request received" and the Subcode set to zero. If there are any TLVs that SFF does not understand, the SFF MUST send an SFC Echo Reply with the Return Code set to 2 ("One or more TLVs was not understood") and set the Subcode to zero. In the latter case, the SFF MAY include an Errored TLVs TLV (Section 5.4.1) that, as sub- TLVs, contains only the misunderstood TLVs. The header field's Sender's Handle, Sequence Number are not examined but are included in the SFC Echo Reply message. If the sanity check of the received Echo Request succeeded, then the SFF at the end of the SFP MUST set the Return Code value to 5 ("End of the SFP") and the Subcode set to zero. If the SFF is not at theend of the SFP and the TTL value is 1, the value of the Return Code MUST be set to 4 ("TTL Exceeded") and the Subcode set to zero. 5.4.1. Errored TLVs TLV If the Return Code for the Echo Reply is determined as 2 ("One or more TLVs was not understood"), then the Errored TLVs TLV MAY be included in an Echo Reply. The use of this TLV allows informing the sender of an Echo Request of mandatory TLVs either not supported by an implementation or parsed and found to be in error. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Errored TLVs | Reserved | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value | . . . . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: Errored TLVs TLV where The Errored TLVs Type MUST be set to TBA14 Section 8.7. Reserved - one-octet-long field. Length - two-octet-long field equal to the length of the Value field in octets. The Value field contains the TLVs, encoded as sub-TLVs, that were not understood or failed to be parsed correctly. 5.5. 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. [I-D.ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified] provides an example of a TLV that can be used to specify the path of the Echo Reply. Value TBA3 is referred to as the "Do not reply" mode and suppresses the Echo Reply packet transmission. 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. 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 the NSH does not identify the ingress node that generated 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 6. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source ID | Reserved | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: SFC Source TLV where Source ID Type is a one-octet-long field and has the value of TBA13 Section 8.7. Reserved - one-octet-long field. Length is a 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 TBA15 will be allocated by IANA Section 8.8. 5.6. SFC Echo Reply Reception An SFF SHOULD NOT accept SFC Echo Reply unless the received passes the following checks: * the received SFC Echo Reply is well-formed; * it has an outstanding SFC Echo Request sent from the UDP port that matches destination UDP port number of the received packet; * if the matching to the Echo Request found, the value of the Sender's Handle in the Echo Request sent is equal to the value of Sender's Handle in the Echo Reply received; * if all checks passed, the SFF checks if the Sequence Number in the Echo Request sent matches to the Sequence Number in the Echo Reply received. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 5.7. Tracing an SFP SFC Echo Request/Reply can be used to isolate a defect detected in the SFP and trace an RSP. As for ICMP echo request/reply [RFC0792] and MPLS echo request/reply [RFC8029], this mode is referred to as "traceroute". In the traceroute mode, the sender transmits a sequence of SFC Echo Request messages starting with the NSH TTL value set to 1 and is incremented by 1 in each next Echo Request packet. The sender stops transmitting SFC Echo Request packets when the Return Code in the received Echo Reply equals 5 ("End of the SFP"). Suppose a specialized information element (e.g., IPv6 Flow Label [RFC6437] or Flow ID [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv]) is used for distributing the load across Equal Cost Multi-Path or Link Aggregation Group paths. In that case, such an element MAY also be used for the SFC OAM traffic. Doing so is meant to control whether the SFC Echo Request follows the same RSP as the monitored flow. 6. Security Considerations When the integrity protection for SFC active OAM, and SFC Echo Request/Reply in particular, is required, it is RECOMMENDED to use one of Context Headers defined in [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity]. MAC#1 (Message Authentication Code) Context Header could be more suitable for active SFC OAM because it does not require re- calculation of the MAC when the value of the NSH Base Header's TTL field is changed. The integrity protection for SFC active OAM can also be achieved using mechanisms in the underlay data plane. For example, if the underlay is an IPv6 network, IP Authentication Header [RFC4302] or IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC4303] can be used to provide integrity protection. Confidentiality for the SFC Echo Request/Reply exchanges can be achieved using the IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC4303]. 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 to attacking a node in the overlay network using the mechanisms defined in the document. One is a Denial-of-Service attack, sending an SFC Echo Request to overload an element of the SFC. The second may use spoofing, hijacking, replying, or otherwise tampering with SFC Echo Requests and/or replies to misrepresent, alter the 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. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 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 to 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, Dirk von Hugo, and Mohamed Boucadair. 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 2: 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 specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points to be allocated according to Table 3: Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 +===============+=============+=========================+ | 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 3: SFC Active OAM Message Type IANA is requested to assign a new type from the SFC Active OAM Message Type registry as follows: +=======+=============================+===============+ | Value | Description | Reference | +=======+=============================+===============+ | TBA2 | SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply | This document | +-------+-----------------------------+---------------+ Table 4: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Type 8.3. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters IANA is requested to create a 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 175 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points are allocated according to Table 5: as specified in Table 5. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 +===========+==============+===============+ | Value | Description | Reference | +===========+==============+===============+ | 0 | Reserved | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 1- 175 | Unassigned | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 176 - 239 | Unassigned | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 255 | Reserved | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ Table 5: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types IANA is requested to assign values as listed in Table 6. +=======+==================+===============+ | Value | Description | Reference | +=======+==================+===============+ | TBA3 | SFC Echo Request | This document | +-------+------------------+---------------+ | TBA4 | SFC Echo Reply | This document | +-------+------------------+---------------+ Table 6: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types Values 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 Mode. All code points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points are allocated according to Table 7: as specified in Table 7. Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 +===========+==============+===============+ | Value | Description | Reference | +===========+==============+===============+ | 0 | Reserved | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 1- 175 | Unassigned | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 176 - 239 | Unassigned | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 255 | Reserved | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ Table 7: SFC Echo Reply Mode All code points in the range 1 through 191 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126] and assign values as listed in Table 8. +=======+====================================+===============+ | Value | Description | Reference | +=======+====================================+===============+ | 0 | Reserved | | +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+ | TBA5 | Do Not Reply | This document | +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+ | TBA6 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet | This document | +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+ | TBA7 | Reply via Application Level | This document | | | Control Channel | | +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+ | TBA8 | Reply via Specified Path | This document | +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+ | TBA9 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet | This document | | | with the data integrity protection | | +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+ | TBA10 | Reply via Application Level | This document | | | Control Channel with the data | | | | integrity protection | | +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+ | TBA11 | Reply via Specified Path with the | This document | | | data integrity protection | | +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+ Table 8: SFC Echo Reply Mode Values Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 8.6. SFC Echo Return Codes IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters registry the new sub-registry Return Codes as described in Table 9. +=========+=============+=========================+ | Value | Description | Reference | +=========+=============+=========================+ | 0-191 | Unassigned | IETF Review | +---------+-------------+-------------------------+ | 192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First Served | +---------+-------------+-------------------------+ | 252-254 | Unassigned | Private Use | +---------+-------------+-------------------------+ | 255 | Reserved | | +---------+-------------+-------------------------+ Table 9: SFC Echo Return Codes Values defined for the Return Codes sub-registry are listed in Table 10. +=======+=================================+===============+ | Value | Description | Reference | +=======+=================================+===============+ | 0 | No Return Code | This document | +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ | 1 | Malformed Echo Request received | This document | +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ | 2 | One or more of the TLVs was not | This document | | | understood | | +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ | 3 | Authentication failed | This document | +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ | 4 | TTL Exceeded | This document | +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ | 5 | End of the SFP | This document | +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ Table 10: SFC Echo Return Codes Values Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 8.7. SFC TLV Type IANA is requested to create the SFC OAM TLV Type registry. All code points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points are allocated according to Table 11: +===========+==============+===============+ | Value | Description | Reference | +===========+==============+===============+ | 0 | Reserved | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 1- 175 | Unassigned | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 176 - 239 | Unassigned | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ | 255 | Reserved | This document | +-----------+--------------+---------------+ Table 11: SFC OAM TLV Type Registry This document defines the following new values in SFC OAM TLV Type registry: +=======+====================+===============+ | Value | Description | Reference | +=======+====================+===============+ | TBA12 | Multiple TLVs Used | This document | +-------+--------------------+---------------+ | TBA13 | Source ID TLV | This document | +-------+--------------------+---------------+ | TBA14 | Errored TLVs | This document | +-------+--------------------+---------------+ Table 12: SFC OAM Type Values 8.8. SFC OAM UDP Port IANA is requested to allocate UDP port number according to Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 +=============+============+===================+============+=====================+=============+ |Service Name |Port Number |Transport Protocol |Description |Semantics Definition |Reference | +=============+============+===================+============+=====================+=============+ |SFC OAM |TBA15 |UDP |SFC OAM Echo|Section 5.5 |This document| | | | |Reply | | | +-------------+------------+-------------------+------------+---------------------+-------------+ Table 13: SFC OAM Port 9. References 9.1. 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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, . 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified] Mirsky, G., Ao, T., Chen, Z., and G. Mishra, "Controlled Return Path for Service Function Chain (SFC) OAM", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path- specified-09, 30 March 2021, . [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity] Boucadair, M., Reddy, T., and D. Wing, "Integrity Protection for the Network Service Header (NSH) and Encryption of Sensitive Context Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-05, 23 March 2021, . Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv] Wei, Y. (., Elzur, U., Majee, S., and C. Pignataro, "Network Service Header Metadata Type 2 Variable-Length Context Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-06, 12 May 2021, . [RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981, . [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005, . [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, . [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, . [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011, . [RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015, . [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, May 2016, . [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, . Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021 [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, . [RFC8924] Aldrin, S., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., Ed., Krishnan, R., and A. Ghanwani, "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Framework", RFC 8924, DOI 10.17487/RFC8924, October 2020, . Authors' Addresses Greg Mirsky ZTE Corp. Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com, gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com Wei Meng ZTE Corporation No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District Nanjing, China Email: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn Bhumip Khasnabish Individual contributor Email: vumip1@gmail.com Cui Wang Individual contributor Email: lindawangjoy@gmail.com Mirsky, et al. Expires 5 December 2021 [Page 24]