idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-09.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 (February 18, 2020) is 1529 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 C. Pignataro 5 Expires: August 21, 2020 N. Kumar 6 Cisco Systems, Inc. 7 M. Chen 8 Huawei Technologies 9 S. Pallagatti 10 VMware 11 February 18, 2020 13 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit 14 Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer 15 draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-09 17 Abstract 19 This document describes a list of functional requirement toward 20 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Bit Index 21 Explicit Replication (BIER) layer of a network. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2020. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 1. Introduction 72 [RFC8279] introduces and explains Bit Index Explicit Replication 73 (BIER) architecture and how it supports forwarding of multicast data 74 packets. 76 This document lists the OAM requirements for BIER layer of the 77 multicast domain. The list can further be used to for gap analysis 78 of available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing 79 or whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on- 80 demand path monitoring and service validation. 82 1.1. Conventions used in this document 84 1.1.1. Terminology 86 The term "BIER OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer 87 version "set of OAM protocols, methods, and tools for BIER layer". 89 BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router 91 BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router 93 BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication 95 OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance 97 1.1.2. Requirements Language 99 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 100 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 101 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 102 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 103 capitals, as shown here. 105 2. Requirements 107 This section lists requirements for OAM of BIER layer: 109 1. The listed requirements MUST be supported with any type of 110 transport layer over which BIER layer can be realized. 112 2. It MUST be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from any Bit- 113 Forwarding Router (BFR) of the given BIER domain. 115 3. It SHOULD be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from a 116 centralized controller. 118 4. BIER OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring and 119 measurement methods. 121 5. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, both 122 continuity check and performance measurement. 124 6. BIER OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow exactly the same 125 path as data plane traffic, in the forward direction, i.e., from 126 ingress toward egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test session. 128 7. BIER OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such OAM 129 methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the 130 forward direction and out-of-band notification in the reverse 131 direction, i.e., from egress to ingress end point of the OAM 132 test session. 134 8. BIER OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of BFER availability 135 by a BFR in the given BIER domain, e.g., p2mp BFD active tail 136 support. 138 9. BIER OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery. 140 10. BIER OAM MUST support Reverse Defect Indication (RDI) 141 notification of the source of continuity checking BFR by Bit- 142 Forwarding Egress Routers (BFERs), e.g., by using Diag in p2mp 143 BFD with active tail support. 145 11. BIER OAM MUST support active and passive performance measurement 146 methods. 148 12. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement 149 methods to calculate throughput, loss, delay and delay variation 150 metrics. [RFC6374] provides great details for performance 151 measurement and performance metrics. 153 13. BIER OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like Alarm 154 Indication Signal. Any BFR in the given BIER domain MAY 155 originate a defect notification addressed to any subset of BFRs 156 within the domain. 158 14. BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of a BIER 159 layer. These recovery methods MAY use protection switching and 160 restoration. 162 3. IANA Considerations 164 This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section 165 may be removed. 167 4. Security Considerations 169 This document list the OAM requirement for BIER-enabled domain and 170 does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones 171 common to networking. 173 5. Contributors 174 Erik Nordmark 176 Email: nordmark@acm.org 178 Sam Aldrin 179 Google 181 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com 183 Lianshu Zheng 184 Huawei Technologies 186 Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com 188 Nobo Akiya 189 Big Switch Networks 191 Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com 193 6. References 195 6.1. Normative References 197 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 198 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 199 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 200 . 202 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 203 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 204 May 2017, . 206 6.2. Informative References 208 [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay 209 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, 210 DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, 211 . 213 [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 214 Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index 215 Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, 216 DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, 217 . 219 Authors' Addresses 221 Greg Mirsky 222 ZTE Corp. 224 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com 226 Carlos Pignataro 227 Cisco Systems, Inc. 229 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 231 Nagendra Kumar 232 Cisco Systems, Inc. 234 Email: naikumar@cisco.com 236 Mach Chen 237 Huawei Technologies 239 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 241 Santosh Pallagatti 242 VMware 244 Email: santosh.palagatti@gmail.com