idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-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 (September 18, 2020) is 1316 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-01 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 8321 (Obsoleted by RFC 9341) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky 3 Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. 4 Intended status: Informational M. Chen 5 Expires: March 22, 2021 Huawei 6 D. Black 7 Dell EMC 8 September 18, 2020 10 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic 11 Networks (DetNet) with IP Data Plane 12 draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-00 14 Abstract 16 This document defines the principles for using Operations, 17 Administration, and Maintenance protocols and mechanisms in the 18 Deterministic Networking networks with the IP data plane. 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2021. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with the IP Data Plane . . . . 3 59 3.1. Active OAM Using DetNet-in-UDP Encapsulation . . . . . . 4 60 3.2. Mapping Active OAM and IP DetNet flows . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3.3. Active OAM Using GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation . . . . . . . . 5 62 4. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 5. OAM of DetNet IP Interworking with OAM of non-IP DetNet 64 domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 8. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 9.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 1. Introduction 75 [RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet) 76 architecture. 78 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used 79 to detect, localize defects in the network, and monitor network 80 performance. Some OAM functions, e.g., failure detection, work in 81 the network proactively, while others, e.g., defect localization, 82 usually performed on-demand. These tasks achieved by a combination 83 of active and hybrid, as defined in [RFC7799], OAM methods. 85 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam] lists the functional requirements toward 86 OAM for DetNet domain. The list can further be used for gap analysis 87 of available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing 88 or whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on- 89 demand path monitoring and service validation. Also, the document 90 defines the OAM use principals for the DetNet networks with the IP 91 data plane. 93 2. Conventions used in this document 95 2.1. Terminology 97 The term "DetNet OAM" used in this document interchangeably with 98 longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for 99 Deterministic Networks". 101 DetNet Deterministic Networks 103 DiffServ Differentiated Services 105 OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance 107 PREF Packet Replication and Elimination Function 109 POF Packet Ordering Function 111 RDI Remote Defect Indication 113 ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol 115 Underlay Network or Underlay Layer: The network that provides 116 connectivity between the DetNet nodes. MPLS network providing LSP 117 connectivity between DetNet nodes is an example of the underlay 118 layer. 120 DetNet Node - a node that is an actor in the DetNet domain. DetNet 121 domain edge node and node that performs PREF within the domain are 122 examples of DetNet node. 124 2.2. Keywords 126 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 127 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 128 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 129 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 130 capitals, as shown here. 132 3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with the IP Data Plane 134 OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the 135 particular networking layer. And thus it is critical that the data 136 plane encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms in such a way that DetNet 137 OAM packets are in-band with a DetNet flow being monitored, i.e., 138 DetNet OAM test packets follow precisely the same path as DetNet data 139 plane traffic both for unidirectional and bi-directional DetNet 140 paths. 142 The DetNet data plane encapsulation in a transport network with IP 143 encapsulations specified in Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]. For 144 the IP underlay network, DetNet flows are identified by the ordered 145 match to the provisioned information set that, among other elements, 146 includes the IP protocol, source port number, destination port 147 number. Active IP OAM protocols like Bidirectional Forwarding 148 Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] or STAMP [RFC8762], use UDP transport and 149 the well-known UDP port numbers as the destination port. Thus a 150 DetNet node MUST be able to associate an IP DetNet flow with the 151 particular test session to ensure that test packets experience the 152 same treatment as the DetNet flow packets. 154 Most of on-demand failure detection and localization in IP networks 155 is being done by using the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) 156 Echo Request, Echo Reply and the set of defined error messages, e.g., 157 Destination Unreachable, with the more detailed information provided 158 through code points. [RFC0792] and [RFC4443] define the ICMP for 159 IPv4 and IPv6 networks, respectively. Because ICMP is another IP 160 protocol like, for example, UDP, a DetNet node MUST able to associate 161 an ICMP packet generated by the specified IP DetNet node and 162 addressed to the another IP DetnNet node with an IP DetNet flow 163 between this pair of endpoints. 165 3.1. Active OAM Using DetNet-in-UDP Encapsulation 167 Active OAM in IP DetNet can be realized using DetNet-in-UDP 168 encapsulation [Ed.note: Do we define it in this document or start a 169 new one?]. Using DetNet-in-UDP tunnel between IP DetNet nodes 170 ensures that active OAM test packets are fate-sharing with the 171 monitored IP DetNet flow packets. As a result, a test packet shares 172 the tunnel with the IP DetNet flow and shares the fate, statistically 173 speaking, of the IP DetNet flow being monitored. 175 3.2. Mapping Active OAM and IP DetNet flows 177 IP OAM protocols that use UDP transport, e.g., BFD and STAMP, can be 178 used to detect failures or performance degradation that affects an IP 179 DetNet flow. When the UDP destination port number used by the OAM 180 protocol is one of the assigned by IANA, then the UDP source port can 181 be used to achieve co-routedness of OAM, and the monitored IP DetNet 182 flow in the multipath environments, e.g., LAG or ECMP. To maximize 183 the accuracy of OAM results in detecting failures and monitoring 184 performance of IP DetNet, test packets should receive the same 185 treatment by the nodes as experienced by the IP DetNet packet. 186 Hence, the DSCP value used for a test packet MUST be mapped to 187 DetNet. 189 3.3. Active OAM Using GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation 191 [RFC8086] has defined the method of encapsulating GRE (Generic 192 Routing Encapsulation) headers in UDP. GRE-in-UDP encapsulation can 193 be used for IP DetNet OAM as it eases the task of mapping an OAM test 194 session to a particular IP DetNet flow that is identified by N-tuple. 195 Matching a GRE-in-UDP tunnel to the monitored IP DetNet flow enables 196 the use of Y.1731/G.8013 [ITU-T.1731] as a comprehensive toolset of 197 OAM. The Protocol Type field in GRE header MUST be set to 0x8902 198 assigned by IANA to IEEE 802.1ag Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) 199 Protocol / ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731. Y.1731/G.8013 supports 200 necessary for IP DetNet OAM functions, i.e., continuity check, one- 201 way packet loss and packet delay measurement. 203 4. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet 205 Hybrid OAM methods are used in performance monitoring and defined in 206 [RFC7799] as: 208 Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination 209 of Active Methods and Passive Methods. 211 A hybrid measurement method may produce metrics as close to passive, 212 but it still alters something in a data packet even if that is the 213 value of a designated field in the packet encapsulation. One example 214 of such a hybrid measurement method is the Alternate Marking method 215 (AMM) described in [RFC8321]. One of the advantages of the use of 216 AMM in a DetNet domain with the IP data plane is that the marking is 217 applied to a data flow, thus ensuring that measured metrics are 218 directly applicable to the DetNet flow. 220 5. OAM of DetNet IP Interworking with OAM of non-IP DetNet domains 222 A domain in which IP data plane provides DetNet service could be used 223 in conjunction with a TSN and a DetNet domain with MPLS data plane to 224 deliver end-to-end service. In such scenarios, the ability to detect 225 defects and monitor performance using OAM is essential. 226 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam] identified two OAM interworking models - 227 peering and tunneling. Interworking between DetNet domains with IP 228 and MPLS data planes analyzed in Section 6.2 of 229 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam]. Also, requirements and recommendations 230 for OAM interworking between a DetNet domain with MPLS data plane and 231 OAM of a TSN equally apply to a DetNet domain with an IP data plane. 233 6. IANA Considerations 235 This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation. This 236 section can be deleted before the publication of the draft. 238 7. Security Considerations 240 This document describes the applicability of the existing Fault 241 Management and Performance Monitoring IP OAM protocols, and does not 242 raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common to 243 networking or already documented for the referenced DetNet and OAM 244 protocols. 246 8. Acknowledgment 248 TBA 250 9. References 252 9.1. Normative References 254 [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] 255 Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S. 256 Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-07 257 (work in progress), July 2020. 259 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam] 260 Mirsky, G. and M. Chen, "Operations, Administration and 261 Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with 262 MPLS Data Plane", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-01 (work in 263 progress), July 2020. 265 [RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, 266 RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981, 267 . 269 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 270 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 271 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 272 . 274 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet 275 Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet 276 Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, 277 RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, 278 . 280 [RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE- 281 in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086, 282 March 2017, . 284 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 285 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 286 May 2017, . 288 [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, 289 "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, 290 DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, 291 . 293 9.2. Informational References 295 [ITU-T.1731] 296 ITU-T, "Operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) 297 functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks", 298 ITU-T G.8013/Y.1731, August 2015. 300 [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 301 (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, 302 . 304 [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with 305 Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, 306 May 2016, . 308 [RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, 309 L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, 310 "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid 311 Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, 312 January 2018, . 314 [RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple 315 Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, 316 DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020, 317 . 319 Authors' Addresses 321 Greg Mirsky 322 ZTE Corp. 324 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com 325 Mach(Guoyi) Chen 326 Huawei 328 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 330 David Black 331 Dell EMC 332 176 South Street 333 Hopkinton, MA 01748 334 United States of America 336 Email: david.black@dell.com