NVO3 Working Group X. Min Internet-Draft G. Mirsky Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corp. Expires:May 5,November 22, 2020 S. Pallagatti VMwareNovember 2, 2019May 21, 2020 Performance Measurement for Genevedraft-xiao-nvo3-pm-geneve-00draft-xiao-nvo3-pm-geneve-01 Abstract This document describes the method to achieve Performance Measurement (PM) in point-to-point Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve) tunnelsthat formused to make up an overlay network. 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 onMay 5,November 22, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c)20192020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. PM Packet Transmission over Geneve Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. PM Encapsulation With Inner Ethernet/IP/UDPHeadersHeader . . . 3 3.2. PM Encapsulation With Inner IP/UDP Headers . . . . . . . 53.3. PM Encapsulation With Inner MPLS Header . . . . . . . . . 74. Reception of PM packet from Geneve Tunnel . . . . . . . . . .97 4.1. Demultiplexing of the PM packet . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 1. Introduction "Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation" (Geneve) [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] provides an encapsulation scheme that allows building an overlay network by decoupling the address space of the attached virtual hosts from that of the network. This document describes the use ofPacket Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks [RFC6374], as well asSimple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp],[RFC8762] to enable measuring the performance of the path between two Geneve tunnel endpoints.InAnalogous to [I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve], in this document, NVE (Network Virtualization Edge) representsathe Geneve tunnel endpoint, TS (Tenant System) representsathe physical or virtual device attached to a Geneve tunnelendpoint,endpoint from the outside, and VAP (Virtual Access Point) represents the NVE side of the interface between the NVE and the TS. 2. Conventions Used in This Document 2.1. TerminologyGAL: Generic Associated Channel Label G-ACh: Generic Associated ChannelGeneve: Generic Network Virtualization EncapsulationMPLS: Multiprotocol Label SwitchingNVE: Network Virtualization Edge PM: Performance Measurement STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol TS: Tenant System VAP: Virtual Access Point VNI: Virtual Network Identifier 2.2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 3. PM Packet Transmission over Geneve TunnelAnalogous to what's specified in Section 3PM session is originated and terminated at VAP of[I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve], thisan NVE, selection of the PM packet encapsulation is based on how the VAP encapsulates the data packets. This documentconsiders three optionsdefines two formats of PM packet encapsulation in Geneve: o with Ethernet and IP/UDP encapsulation; o with IP/UDPencapsulation; o with MPLSencapsulation. 3.1. PM Encapsulation With Inner Ethernet/IP/UDPHeadersHeader If theProtocol Type field (as defined in Section 3.4 of [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]) of data packets indicatesVAP thatan inner Ethernet header immediately followsoriginates theGeneve header, i.e., the Protocol Type equalsPM packets is used to0x6558 (Ethernet frame),encapsulate Ethernet data frames, then PM packets are encapsulated in Geneve as described below. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Outer Ethernet Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Outer IPvX Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Outer UDP Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Geneve Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Inner Ethernet Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Inner IPvX Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Inner UDP Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ STAMP Test Packet ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Outer Ethernet FCS | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Geneve Encapsulation of PMMessagePacket With the Inner Ethernet/IP/UDP Header The STAMP test packet MUST be carried inside the inner Ethernet frame of the Geneve packet, immediately after the inner IP/UDP headers. The inner Ethernet frame carrying the STAMP Test Packet has the following format: The Ethernet header and IP header are encoded asspecifieddefined in Section43.1 of[I-D.ietf-bfd-vxlan].[I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve]. The destination UDP port MUST be set the well-known port 862 as defined in[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp].[RFC8762]. The STAMP Test Packet SHOULD be unauthenticated STAMP Session-Sender test packet or unauthenticated STAMP Session-Reflector test packet. The STAMP Test Packet is encoded as specified in[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp][RFC8762] and [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv].IfWhen the PM packets are encapsulated in Geneveas described above,in this way, the values in the Geneve header are set asfollows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Ver| Opt Len |O|C| Rsvd. | Protocol Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Variable Length Options | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Geneve Header Opt Len field MUST be set to 0 to indicate that the header does not include any variable-length options. O bit MUST be set to 1, which indicates this packet contains a control message. C bit MUST be set to 0. Protocol Type field MUST be set to 0x6558 (Ethernet frame).specified in Section 3.1 of [I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve]. 3.2. PM Encapsulation With Inner IP/UDP Headers If theProtocol Type field (as defined in Section 3.4 of [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]) of data packets indicatesVAP thatan inner IP header immediately followsoriginates theGeneve header, i.e., the Protocol Type equalsPM packets is used to0x0800 (IPv4) or 0x86DD (IPv6),encapsulate IP data packets, then PM packets are encapsulated in Geneve as described below. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~OuterEthernet Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Outer IPvX Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Outer UDP Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Geneve Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Inner IPvX Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Inner UDP Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ STAMP Test Packet ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | FCS | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure3:2: Geneve Encapsulation of PM Message With the Inner IP/UDP Header A STAMP test packet MUST be carried inside the innerIP/UDPIP packet that immediately follows the Geneve header. Thevalues in theinner IP packet carrying the STAMP Test Packetare as follows:has the following format: The IP header is encoded asspecifieddefined in Section 3.2 of [I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve]. The destination UDP port MUST be set the well-known port 862 as defined in[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp].[RFC8762]. The STAMP Test Packet SHOULD be unauthenticated STAMP Session-Sender test packet or unauthenticated STAMP Session-Reflector test packet. The STAMP Test Packet is encoded as specified in[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp][RFC8762] and [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]. When the PM packets are encapsulated in Geneve in this way, theGeneve header follows the value set below. Opt Len field MUST be set to 0 to indicate there isn't any variable-length option. O bit MUST be set to 1, which indicates this packet contains a control message. C bit MUST be set to 0. Protocol Type field MUST be set to 0x0800 (IPv4) or 0x86DD (IPv6), depending on the address family of the inner IP packet. 3.3. PM Encapsulation With Inner MPLS Header If the Protocol Type field (as defined in Section 3.4 of [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]) of data packets indicates that an MPLS label stack immediately follows the Geneve header, i.e., the Protocol Type equals to 0x8847 (MPLS) or 0x8848 (MPLS with the upstream-assigned label), then PM packets are encapsulated in Geneve, as described below. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Outer Ethernet Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Outer IPvX Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Outer UDP Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Geneve Header ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MPLS Interface Context Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MPLS GAL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MPLS G-ACh | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Loss Measurement Message, | ~ Delay Measurement Message, or ~ | Combined Loss/Delay Measurement Message | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | FCS | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: Geneve Encapsulation of PM Message With the Inner MPLS GAL/ G-ACh The Loss Measurement Message, Delay Measurement Message, or Combined Loss/Delay Measurement Message MUST be carried inside the inner MPLS packet that immediately follows the Geneve header. Thevalues in theinner MPLS packet carrying the Loss Measurement Message, Delay Measurement Message, or Combined Loss/Delay Measurement Message are as follows: The MPLS Interface Context Label and the MPLS GAL (Generic Associated Channel Label)Geneve header areencodedset as specified in Section3.33.2 of [I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve].The MPLS G-ACh (Generic Associated Channel) is encoded as specified in [RFC5586], and the "Channel Type" field of MPLS G-ACh MUST be set to 0x000A, 0x000C or 0x000D requested by [RFC6374], respectively indicating "MPLS Direct Loss Measurement", "MPLS Delay Measurement" or "MPLS Direct Loss and Delay Measurement". The Loss Measurement Message, Delay Measurement Message, and Combined Loss/Delay Measurement Message are encoded as specified in Sections 3.1 through 3.3 of [RFC6374]. When the PM packets are encapsulated in Geneve in this way, the Geneve header follows the value set below. Opt Len field MUST be set to 0 to indicate there isn't any variable-length option. O bit MUST be set to 1, which indicates this packet contains a control message. C bit MUST be set to 0. Protocol Type field MUST be set to 0x8847 (MPLS).4. Reception of PM packet from Geneve Tunnel Once a packet is received, the NVE MUST validate the packet asdescribedspecified in[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] andSection 4 of[I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve].[I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve], except that the received STAMP test packet would be processed by STAMP Session-Sender or STAMP Session-Reflector, instead of BFD. 4.1. Demultiplexing of the PM packetSimilarAnalogous to BFD over Geneve, multiple PM sessions for the same VNI may be running between two NVEs, so there needs to be a mechanism for demultiplexing received PM packets to the proper session. If the PM packet is received with STAMP Session Identifiervalueequals to 0,for different PM encapsulation,the procedure for demultiplexing the received PM packetsis different, whichwould follow the procedure forademultiplexing the received BFDpacketpackets with Your Discriminator equals to 0,aswhich is specified in Section 4.1 of [I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve]. If the PM packet is received with a non-zero STAMP Session Identifier, then PM session MUST be demultiplexed only with STAMP Session Identifier as the key.With respect to PM for Geneve, the use of the specific VNI would follow the principle as specified in Section 4.1 of [I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve].5. Security Considerations This document does not raise any additional security issues beyond those of the specifications referred to in the list of normative references. 6. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA action requested. 7. Acknowledgements TBA. 8. Normative References[I-D.ietf-bfd-vxlan] Networks, J., Paragiri, S., Govindan, V., Mudigonda, M., and G. Mirsky, "BFD for VXLAN", draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan-07 (work in progress), May 2019. [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol", draft-ietf-ippm- stamp-09 (work in progress), October 2019.[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A., and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Optional Extensions", draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-02option-tlv-04 (work in progress),October 2019.March 2020. [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve] Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-14nvo3-geneve-16 (work in progress),September 2019.March 2020. [I-D.xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve] Xiao, M., Mirsky, G., and J. Networks, "BFD for Geneve",draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve-01draft-xiao-nvo3-bfd-geneve-02 (work in progress),October 2019.February 2020. [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>.[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>. [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>.[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>. [RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>. Authors' Addresses Xiao Min ZTE Corp. Nanjing China Phone: +86 25 88013062 Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Greg Mirsky ZTE Corp. USA Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Santosh Pallagatti VMware Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com