idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-11.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 (November 15, 2020) is 1251 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, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. 4 Intended status: Informational N. Kumar 5 Expires: May 19, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 M. Chen 7 Huawei Technologies 8 S. Pallagatti, Ed. 9 VMware 10 November 15, 2020 12 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit 13 Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer 14 draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-11 16 Abstract 18 This document describes a list of functional requirement toward 19 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Bit Index 20 Explicit Replication (BIER) layer of a network. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 19, 2021. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 1. Introduction 71 [RFC8279] introduces and explains Bit Index Explicit Replication 72 (BIER) architecture and how it supports forwarding of multicast data 73 packets. 75 This document lists the OAM requirements for BIER layer of the 76 multicast domain. The list can further be used to for gap analysis 77 of available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing 78 or whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on- 79 demand path monitoring and service validation. 81 1.1. Conventions used in this document 83 1.1.1. Terminology 85 The term "BIER OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer 86 version "set of OAM protocols, methods, and tools for BIER layer". 88 BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router 90 BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router 92 BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication 94 OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance 96 1.1.2. Requirements Language 98 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 99 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 100 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 101 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 102 capitals, as shown here. 104 2. Requirements 106 This section lists requirements for OAM of BIER layer: 108 1. The listed requirements MUST be supported with any type of 109 transport layer over which BIER layer can be realized. 111 2. It MUST be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from any Bit- 112 Forwarding Router (BFR) of the given BIER domain. 114 3. It SHOULD be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from a 115 centralized controller. 117 4. BIER OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring and 118 measurement methods. 120 5. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, both 121 continuity check and performance measurement. 123 6. BIER OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow exactly the same 124 path as data plane traffic, in the forward direction, i.e., from 125 ingress toward egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test session. 127 7. BIER OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such OAM 128 methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the 129 forward direction and out-of-band notification in the reverse 130 direction, i.e., from egress to ingress end point of the OAM 131 test session. 133 8. BIER OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of BFER availability 134 by a BFR in the given BIER domain, e.g., p2mp BFD active tail 135 support. 137 9. BIER OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery. 139 10. BIER OAM MUST support Reverse Defect Indication (RDI) 140 notification of the source of continuity checking BFR by Bit- 141 Forwarding Egress Routers (BFERs), e.g., by using Diag in p2mp 142 BFD with active tail support. 144 11. BIER OAM MUST support active and passive performance measurement 145 methods. 147 12. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement 148 methods to calculate throughput, loss, delay and delay variation 149 metrics. [RFC6374] provides great details for performance 150 measurement and performance metrics. 152 13. BIER OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like Alarm 153 Indication Signal. Any BFR in the given BIER domain MAY 154 originate a defect notification addressed to any subset of BFRs 155 within the domain. 157 14. BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of a BIER 158 layer. These recovery methods MAY use protection switching and 159 restoration. 161 3. IANA Considerations 163 This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section 164 may be removed. 166 4. Security Considerations 168 This document list the OAM requirement for BIER-enabled domain and 169 does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones 170 common to networking. 172 5. Contributors 173 Erik Nordmark 175 Email: nordmark@acm.org 177 Sam Aldrin 178 Google 180 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com 182 Lianshu Zheng 183 Huawei Technologies 185 Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com 187 Nobo Akiya 188 Big Switch Networks 190 Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com 192 6. References 194 6.1. Normative References 196 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 197 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 198 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 199 . 201 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 202 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 203 May 2017, . 205 6.2. Informative References 207 [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay 208 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, 209 DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, 210 . 212 [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 213 Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index 214 Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, 215 DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, 216 . 218 Authors' Addresses 220 Greg Mirsky (editor) 221 ZTE Corp. 223 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com 225 Nagendra Kumar 226 Cisco Systems, Inc. 228 Email: naikumar@cisco.com 230 Mach Chen 231 Huawei Technologies 233 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 235 Santosh Pallagatti (editor) 236 VMware 238 Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com