idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-08.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 (August 27, 2019) is 1697 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 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 ZTE Corp. 4 Intended status: Informational E. Nordmark 5 Expires: February 28, 2020 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 VMware 18 August 27, 2019 20 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit 21 Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer 22 draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-08 24 Abstract 26 This document describes a list of functional requirement toward 27 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Bit Index 28 Explicit Replication (BIER) layer of a network. 30 Status of This Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 28, 2020. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 65 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 66 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 5. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 1. Introduction 79 [RFC8279] introduces and explains Bit Index Explicit Replication 80 (BIER) architecture and how it supports forwarding of multicast data 81 packets. 83 This document lists the OAM requirements for BIER layer of the 84 multicast domain. The list can further be used to for gap analysis 85 of available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing 86 or whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on- 87 demand path monitoring and service validation. 89 1.1. Conventions used in this document 90 1.1.1. Terminology 92 The term "BIER OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer 93 version "set of OAM protocols, methods, and tools for BIER layer". 95 BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router 97 BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router 99 BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication 101 OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance 103 1.1.2. Requirements Language 105 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 106 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 107 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 108 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 109 capitals, as shown here. 111 2. Requirements 113 This section lists requirements for OAM of BIER layer: 115 1. The listed requirements MUST be supported with any type of 116 transport layer over which BIER layer can be realized. 118 2. It MUST be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from any Bit- 119 Forwarding Router (BFR) of the given BIER domain. 121 3. It SHOULD be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from a 122 centralized controller. 124 4. BIER OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring and 125 measurement methods. 127 5. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, both 128 continuity check and performance measurement. 130 6. BIER OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow exactly the same 131 path as data plane traffic, in the forward direction, i.e., from 132 ingress toward egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test session. 134 7. BIER OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such OAM 135 methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the 136 forward direction and out-of-band notification in the reverse 137 direction, i.e., from egress to ingress end point of the OAM 138 test session. 140 8. BIER OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of BFER availability 141 by a BFR in the given BIER domain, e.g., p2mp BFD active tail 142 support. 144 9. BIER OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery. 146 10. BIER OAM MUST support Reverse Defect Indication (RDI) 147 notification of the source of continuity checking BFR by Bit- 148 Forwarding Egress Routers (BFERs), e.g., by using Diag in p2mp 149 BFD with active tail support. 151 11. BIER OAM MUST support active and passive performance measurement 152 methods. 154 12. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement 155 methods to calculate throughput, loss, delay and delay variation 156 metrics. [RFC6374] provides great details for performance 157 measurement and performance metrics. 159 13. BIER OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like Alarm 160 Indication Signal. Any BFR in the given BIER domain MAY 161 originate a defect notification addressed to any subset of BFRs 162 within the domain. 164 14. BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of a BIER 165 layer. These recovery methods MAY use protection switching and 166 restoration. 168 3. IANA Considerations 170 This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section 171 may be removed. 173 4. Security Considerations 175 This document list the OAM requirement for BIER-enabled domain and 176 does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones 177 common to networking. 179 5. Acknowledgment 181 TBD 183 6. References 185 6.1. Normative References 187 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 188 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 189 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 190 . 192 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 193 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 194 May 2017, . 196 6.2. Informative References 198 [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay 199 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, 200 DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, 201 . 203 [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 204 Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index 205 Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, 206 DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, 207 . 209 Authors' Addresses 211 Greg Mirsky 212 ZTE Corp. 214 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com 216 Erik Nordmark 218 Email: nordmark@acm.org 220 Carlos Pignataro 221 Cisco Systems, Inc. 223 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 224 Nagendra Kumar 225 Cisco Systems, Inc. 227 Email: naikumar@cisco.com 229 Sam Aldrin 230 Google 232 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com 234 Lianshu Zheng 235 Huawei Technologies 237 Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com 239 Mach Chen 240 Huawei Technologies 242 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 244 Nobo Akiya 245 Big Switch Networks 247 Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com 249 Santosh Pallagatti 250 VMware 252 Email: santosh.palagatti@gmail.com