idnits 2.17.1 draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 3, 2018) is 2240 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'ETYPES' is defined on line 278, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2784' is defined on line 299, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3232' is defined on line 304, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.brockners-proof-of-transit' is defined on line 312, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7665' is defined on line 318, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ETYPES' == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-05 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe (ref. 'I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe') ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3232 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-04 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ippm F. Brockners 3 Internet-Draft S. Bhandari 4 Intended status: Standards Track V. Govindan 5 Expires: September 4, 2018 C. Pignataro 6 Cisco 7 H. Gredler 8 RtBrick Inc. 9 J. Leddy 10 Comcast 11 S. Youell 12 JMPC 13 T. Mizrahi 14 Marvell 15 A. Kfir 16 B. Gafni 17 Mellanox Technologies, Inc. 18 P. Lapukhov 19 Facebook 20 M. Spiegel 21 Barefoot Networks 22 March 3, 2018 24 VXLAN-GPE Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data 25 draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-00 27 Abstract 29 In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records 30 operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet 31 traverses a path between two points in the network. This document 32 outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in VXLAN-GPE. 34 Status of This Memo 36 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 37 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 39 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 40 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 41 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 42 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 44 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 45 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 46 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 47 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2018. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 68 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 2.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 3. IOAM Data Field Encapsulation in VXLAN-GPE . . . . . . . . . 3 72 4. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 4.1. Discussion of the encapsulation approach . . . . . . . . 5 74 4.2. IOAM and the use of the VXLAN O-bit . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 79 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 83 1. Introduction 85 In-situ OAM (IOAM) records OAM information within the packet while 86 the packet traverses a particular network domain. The term "in-situ" 87 refers to the fact that the IOAM data fields are added to the data 88 packets rather than being sent within packets specifically dedicated 89 to OAM. This document defines how IOAM data fields are transported 90 as part of the VXLAN-GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] encapsulation. 91 The IOAM data fields are defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. An 92 implementation of IOAM which leverages VXLAN-GPE to carry the IOAM 93 data is available from the FD.io open source software project 94 [FD.io]. 96 2. Conventions 98 2.1. Requirement Language 100 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 101 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 102 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 104 2.2. Abbreviations 106 Abbreviations used in this document: 108 IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance 110 OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance 112 VXLAN-GPE: Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network, Generic Protocol 113 Extension 115 3. IOAM Data Field Encapsulation in VXLAN-GPE 117 VXLAN-GPE is defined in [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]. IOAM data fields 118 are carried in VXLAN-GPE using a next protocol value of TBD_IOAM. An 119 IOAM header is added containing the different IOAM data fields 120 defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. In an administrative domain 121 where IOAM is used, insertion of the IOAM header in VXLAN-GPE is 122 enabled at the VXLAN-GPE tunnel endpoints, which also serve as IOAM 123 encapsulating/decapsulating nodes by means of configuration. 125 0 1 2 3 126 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 1 127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 128 | Outer Ethernet Header | 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 130 | Outer IP Header | 131 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 132 | Outer UDP Header | 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+ 134 |R|R|Ver|I|P|R|O| Reserved | NP=TBD_IOAM | | 135 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ GPE 136 | Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved | | 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ 138 | IOAM-Type | IOAM HDR len | Reserved | Next Protocol | | 139 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I 140 ! | O 141 ! | A 142 ~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M 143 | | | 144 | | | 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ 146 | | 147 | | 148 | Payload + Padding (L2/L3/ESP/...) | 149 | | 150 | | 151 | | 152 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 Figure 1: IOAM data encapsulation in VXLAN-GPE 156 The VXLAN-GPE header and fields are defined in 157 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]. The VXLAN Next Protocol value for IOAM is 158 TBD_IOAM. 160 The IOAM related fields in VXLAN-GPE are defined as follows: 162 IOAM-Type: 8-bit field defining the IOAM Option type, as defined in 163 Section 7.2 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. 165 IOAM HDR len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the IOAM HDR in 166 4-octet units. 168 Reserved: 8-bit reserved field MUST be set to zero upon transmission 169 and ignored upon receipt. 171 Next Protocol: 8-bit unsigned integer that determines the type of 172 header following IOAM protocol. The value is from the IANA 173 registry setup for VXLAN GPE Next Protocol defined in 174 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]. 176 IOAM Option and Data Space: IOAM option header and data is present 177 as specified by the IOAM-Type field, and is defined in Section 4 178 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. 180 Multiple IOAM options MAY be included within the VXLAN-GPE 181 encapsulation. For example, if a VXLAN-GPE encapsulation contains 182 two IOAM options before a data payload, the Next Protocol field of 183 the first IOAM option will contain the value of TBD_IOAM, while the 184 Next Protocol field of the second IOAM option will contain the VXLAN 185 "Next Protocol" number indicating the type of the data payload. 187 4. Considerations 189 This section summarizes a set of considerations on the overall 190 approach taken for IOAM data encapsulation in VXLAN-GPE, as well as 191 deployment considerations. 193 4.1. Discussion of the encapsulation approach 195 This section is to support the working group discussion in selecting 196 the most appropriate approach for encapsulating IOAM data fields in 197 VXLAN-GPE. 199 An encapsulation of IOAM data fields in VXLAN-GPE should be friendly 200 to an implementation in both hardware as well as software forwarders. 201 Hardware forwarders benefit from an encapsulation that minimizes 202 iterative look-ups of fields within the packet: Any operation which 203 looks up the value of a field within the packet, based on which 204 another lookup is performed, consumes additional gates and time in an 205 implementation - both of which are desired to be kept to a minimum. 206 This means that flat TLV structures are to be preferred over nested 207 TLV structures. IOAM data fields are grouped into three option 208 categories: Trace, proof-of-transit, and edge-to-edge. Each of these 209 three options defines a TLV structure. A hardware-friendly 210 encapsulation approach avoids grouping these three option categories 211 into yet another TLV structure, but would rather carry the options as 212 a serial sequence. 214 Two approaches for encapsulating IOAM data fields in VXLAN-GPE could 215 be considered: 217 1. Use a single GPE protocol type for all IOAM types: IOAM would 218 receive a single GPE protocol type code point. A "sub-type" 219 field would then specify what IOAM options type (trace, proof-of- 220 transit, edge-to-edge) is carried. 222 2. Use one GPE protocol type per IOAM options type: Each IOAM data 223 field option (trace, proof-of-transit, and edge-to-edge) would be 224 specified by its own "next protocol", i.e. each IOAM options type 225 becomes its own GPE protocol type with a dedicated code point. 226 This implies that in case additional IOAM option types would be 227 added in the future, additional GPE protocol type code points 228 would need to be allocated. 230 The first option has been chosen here. Multiple back-to-back IOAM 231 options can be encoded as a succession of IOAM headers, with the same 232 single GPE protocol type appearing as the next protocol before each 233 IOAM header, but different sub-types within each IOAM header. 235 4.2. IOAM and the use of the VXLAN O-bit 237 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] defines an "O bit" for OAM packets. Per 238 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] the O bit indicates that the packet 239 contains an OAM message instead of data payload. Packets that carry 240 IOAM data fields in addition to regular data payload / customer 241 traffic must not set the O bit. Packets that carry only IOAM data 242 fields without any payload must set the O bit. 244 5. IANA Considerations 246 IANA is requested to allocate a protocol number for the following 247 VXLAN-GPE "Next Protocols" related to IOAM: 249 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 250 | Next Protocol | Description | Reference | 251 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 252 | x | TBD_IOAM | This document | 253 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 255 6. Security Considerations 257 The security considerations of VXLAN-GPE are discussed in 258 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe], and the security considerations of IOAM in 259 general are discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. 261 IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where one or several 262 operators decide on leveraging and configuring IOAM according to 263 their needs. Still, operators need to properly secure the IOAM 264 domain to avoid malicious configuration and use, which could include 265 injecting malicious IOAM packets into a domain. 267 7. Acknowledgements 269 The authors would like to thank Eric Vyncke, Nalini Elkins, Srihari 270 Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra Babu, Akshaya 271 Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik Nordmark, LJ Wobker, 272 and Andrew Yourtchenko for the comments and advice. 274 8. References 276 8.1. Normative References 278 [ETYPES] "IANA Ethernet Numbers", 279 . 282 [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] 283 Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., 284 Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov, 285 P., Chang, R., and d. daniel.bernier@bell.ca, "Data Fields 286 for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-01 (work in 287 progress), October 2017. 289 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] 290 Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol 291 Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-05 (work 292 in progress), October 2017. 294 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 295 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 296 RFC2119, March 1997, . 299 [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. 300 Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, 301 DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, . 304 [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced 305 by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232, 306 January 2002, . 308 8.2. Informative References 310 [FD.io] "Fast Data Project: FD.io", . 312 [I-D.brockners-proof-of-transit] 313 Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Dara, S., Pignataro, C., 314 Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mozes, D., and T. Mizrahi, "Proof 315 of Transit", draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-04 (work in 316 progress), October 2017. 318 [RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function 319 Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10.17487/ 320 RFC7665, October 2015, . 323 Authors' Addresses 325 Frank Brockners 326 Cisco Systems, Inc. 327 Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor 328 DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40549 329 Germany 331 Email: fbrockne@cisco.com 333 Shwetha Bhandari 334 Cisco Systems, Inc. 335 Cessna Business Park, Sarjapura Marathalli Outer Ring Road 336 Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 087 337 India 339 Email: shwethab@cisco.com 341 Vengada Prasad Govindan 342 Cisco Systems, Inc. 344 Email: venggovi@cisco.com 346 Carlos Pignataro 347 Cisco Systems, Inc. 348 7200-11 Kit Creek Road 349 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 350 United States 352 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 353 Hannes Gredler 354 RtBrick Inc. 356 Email: hannes@rtbrick.com 358 John Leddy 359 Comcast 361 Email: John_Leddy@cable.comcast.com 363 Stephen Youell 364 JP Morgan Chase 365 25 Bank Street 366 London E14 5JP 367 United Kingdom 369 Email: stephen.youell@jpmorgan.com 371 Tal Mizrahi 372 Marvell 373 6 Hamada St. 374 Yokneam 20692 375 Israel 377 Email: talmi@marvell.com 379 Aviv Kfir 380 Mellanox Technologies, Inc. 381 350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100 382 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 383 U.S.A. 385 Email: avivk@mellanox.com 387 Barak Gafni 388 Mellanox Technologies, Inc. 389 350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100 390 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 391 U.S.A. 393 Email: gbarak@mellanox.com 394 Petr Lapukhov 395 Facebook 396 1 Hacker Way 397 Menlo Park, CA 94025 398 US 400 Email: petr@fb.com 402 Mickey Spiegel 403 Barefoot Networks 404 2185 Park Boulevard 405 Palo Alto, CA 94306 406 US 408 Email: mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com