idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-04.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 (July 18, 2017) is 2467 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 BIER Working Group G. Mirsky 3 Internet-Draft Independent 4 Intended status: Informational E. Nordmark 5 Expires: January 19, 2018 6 C. Pignataro 7 N. Kumar 8 Cisco Systems, Inc. 9 S. Aldrin 10 Google 11 L. Zheng 12 M. Chen 13 Huawei Technologies 14 N. Akiya 15 Big Switch Networks 16 S. Pallagatti 17 July 18, 2017 19 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit 20 Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer 21 draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-04 23 Abstract 25 This document describes a list of functional requirement toward 26 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Bit Index 27 Explicit Replication (BIER) layer of a network. 29 Status of This Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2018. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 64 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 65 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 5. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 1. Introduction 78 [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] introduces and explains Bit Index 79 Explicit Replication (BIER) architecture and how it supports 80 forwarding of multicast data packets. 82 This document lists the OAM requirements for BIER layer of multicast 83 domain. The list can further be used to for gap analysis of 84 available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing or 85 whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on-demand 86 path monitoring and service validation. 88 1.1. Conventions used in this document 89 1.1.1. Terminology 91 Term "BIER OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer 92 version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for BIER layer". 94 BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router 96 BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router 98 BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication 100 OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance 102 1.1.2. Requirements Language 104 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 105 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 106 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 107 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 108 capitals, as shown here. 110 2. Requirements 112 This section lists requirements for OAM of BIER layer: 114 1. The listed requirements MUST be supported with any type of 115 transport layer over which BIER layer can be realized. 117 2. It MUST be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from any Bit- 118 Forwarding Router (BFR) of the given BIER domain. 120 3. It SHOULD be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from a 121 centralized controller. 123 4. BIER OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring and 124 measurement methods. 126 5. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, both 127 continuity check and performance measurement. 129 6. BIER OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e. follow exactly the same 130 path as data plane traffic, in forward direction, i.e. from 131 ingress toward egress end point(s) of the OAM test session. 133 7. BIER OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such OAM 134 methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in forward 135 direction and out-of-band notification in the reverse direction, 136 i.e. from egress to ingress end point of the OAM test session. 138 8. BIER OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of BFER availability 139 by a BFR in the given BIER domain, e.g. p2mp BFD active tail 140 support. 142 9. BIER OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery. 144 10. BIER OAM MUST support Reverse Defect Indication (RDI) 145 notification of the source of continuity checking BFR by Bit- 146 Forwarding Egress Routers (BFERs), e.g. by using Diag in p2mp 147 BFD with active tail support. 149 11. BIER OAM MUST support active and passive performance measurement 150 methods. 152 12. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement 153 methods to calculate throughput, loss, delay and delay variation 154 metrics. [RFC6374] provides great details into performance 155 measurement and performance metrics. 157 13. BIER OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like Alarm 158 Indication Signal. Any BFR in the given BIER domain MAY 159 originate a defect notification addressed to any subset of BFRs 160 within the domain. 162 14. BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of a BIER 163 layer. These recovery methods MAY use protection switching and 164 restoration. 166 3. IANA Considerations 168 This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section 169 may be removed. 171 4. Security Considerations 173 This document list the OAM requirement for BIER-enabled domain and 174 does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones 175 common to networking. 177 5. Acknowledgement 179 TBD 181 6. References 182 6.1. Normative References 184 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 185 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 186 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 187 . 189 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 190 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 191 May 2017, . 193 6.2. Informative References 195 [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] 196 Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and 197 S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit 198 Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07 (work in 199 progress), June 2017. 201 [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay 202 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, 203 DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, 204 . 206 Authors' Addresses 208 Greg Mirsky 209 Independent 211 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com 213 Erik Nordmark 215 Email: nordmark@acm.org 217 Carlos Pignataro 218 Cisco Systems, Inc. 220 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 222 Nagendra Kumar 223 Cisco Systems, Inc. 225 Email: naikumar@cisco.com 226 Sam Aldrin 227 Google 229 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com 231 Lianshu Zheng 232 Huawei Technologies 234 Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com 236 Mach Chen 237 Huawei Technologies 239 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 241 Nobo Akiya 242 Big Switch Networks 244 Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com 246 Santosh Pallagatti 248 Email: santosh.palagatti@gmail.com