idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-03.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 5, 2012) is 4183 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: '8021ag' is defined on line 454, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4377' is defined on line 461, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5101 (Obsoleted by RFC 7011) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2680 (Obsoleted by RFC 7680) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2679 (Obsoleted by RFC 7679) == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-06 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 TRILL Working Group Tissa Senevirathne 2 Internet Draft CISCO 3 Intended status: Informational David Bond 4 IBM 5 Sam Aldrin 6 Yizhou Li 7 Huawei 8 Rohit Watve 9 CISCO 11 November 5, 2012 12 Expires: May 2013 14 Requirements for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) in 15 TRILL 16 draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-03 18 Status of this Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 25 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 26 Drafts. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 29 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 30 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 31 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 36 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 37 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 5,2013. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 51 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 52 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 53 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 54 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Abstract 58 OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance) is a general term 59 used to identify functions and toolsets to troubleshoot and monitor 60 networks. This document presents, OAM Requirements applicable to 61 TRILL. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction...................................................3 66 1.1. Scope.....................................................3 67 2. Conventions used in this document..............................3 68 3. Terminology....................................................3 69 4. OAM Requirements...............................................4 70 4.1. Data Plane................................................4 71 4.2. Connectivity Verification.................................5 72 4.2.1. Unicast..............................................5 73 4.2.2. Multicast............................................5 74 4.3. Continuity Check..........................................6 75 4.4. Path Tracing..............................................6 76 4.5. General Requirements......................................6 77 4.6. Performance Monitoring....................................7 78 4.6.1. Packet Loss..........................................7 79 4.6.2. Packet Delay.........................................8 80 4.7. ECMP Utilization..........................................8 81 4.8. Security and Operational considerations...................8 82 4.9. Fault Indications.........................................9 83 4.10. Defect Indications.......................................9 84 4.11. Live Traffic monitoring..................................9 85 5. Security Considerations.......................................10 86 6. IANA Considerations...........................................10 87 7. References....................................................10 88 7.1. Normative References.....................................10 89 7.2. Informative References...................................10 91 8. Acknowledgments...............................................11 92 9. Contributing Authors..........................................11 94 1. Introduction 96 OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance) generally covers 97 various production aspects of a network. In this document we use the 98 term OAM as defined in [RFC6291]. 100 Success of any mission critical network depends on the ability to 101 proactively monitor networks for faults, performance, etc. as well 102 as its ability to efficiently and quickly troubleshoot defects and 103 failures. A well-defined OAM toolset is a vital requirement for 104 wider adoption of TRILL as the next generation data forwarding 105 technology in larger networks such as data centers. 107 In this document we define the Requirements for TRILL OAM. It is 108 assumed that the readers are familiar with the OAM concepts and 109 terminologies defined in other OAM standards such as [8021ag]and 110 [RFC5860]. This document does not attempt to redefine the terms and 111 concepts specified elsewhere. 113 1.1. Scope 115 The scope of this document is OAM between RBridges of a TRILL campus 116 over links selected by TRILL routing. 118 2. Conventions used in this document 120 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 121 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 122 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 123 Although this document is not a protocol specification, the use of 124 this language clarifies the instructions to protocol designers 125 producing solutions that satisfy the requirements set out in this 126 document. 128 3. Terminology 130 Section: The term Section refers to a partial segment of a path 131 between any two given RBridges. As an example, consider the case 132 where RB1 is connected to RBx via RB2,RB3 and RB4. The segment 133 between RB2 to RB4 is referred to as a Section of the path RB1 to 134 RBx. 136 Flow: The term Flow indicates a set of packets that share the same 137 path and per-hop behavior (such as priority). A flow is typically 138 identified by a portion of the inner payload that affects the hop-by 139 hop forwarding decisions. This may contain Layer 2 through Layer 4 140 information. 142 All Selectable Least Cost Paths: The term "all selectable least cost 143 paths" refers to a subset of all potentially available least cost 144 paths to a specified destination RBridge that are available (and 145 usable) for forwarding of frames. It is important to note, in 146 practice, due to limitations in implementations, not all available 147 least cost paths may be selectable for forwarding. 149 Connectivity: The term connectivity indicates reachability between 150 an arbitrary RBridge RB1 and any other RBridge RB2. The specific 151 path can be either explicit (i.e. associated with a specific flow) 152 or unspecified. Unspecified means that messages used for 153 connectivity verification take whatever path the RBs happen to 154 select. 156 Continuity Verification: Continuity Verification refers to proactive 157 verification of Connectivity between two RBridges at periodic 158 intervals and generation of explicit notification when Connectivity 159 failures occur. 161 Fault: The term Fault refers to an inability to perform a required 162 action, e.g., an unsuccessful attempt to deliver a packet. 164 Defect: The term Defect refers to an interruption in the normal 165 operation, such that over a period of time no packets are delivered 166 successfully. 168 Failure: The term Failure refers to the termination of the required 169 function over a longer period of time. Persistence of a defect for a 170 period of time is interpreted as a failure. 172 Simulated Flow: The term simulated flow refers to a sequence of OAM 173 generated packets designed to follow a specific path. The fields of 174 the packets in the simulated flow may or may not be identical to the 175 fields of data packets of an actual flow being simulated. However, 176 the purpose of the simulated flow is to have OAM packets of the 177 simulated flow follow a specific path. 179 4. OAM Requirements 181 4.1. Data Plane 183 OAM frames, utilized for connectivity verification, continuity 184 checks, performance measurements, etc., will by default take 185 whatever path TRILL chooses based on the current topology and per- 186 hop equal cost path choices. In some cases, it may be required that 187 the OAM frames utilize specific paths. Thus, it MUST be possible to 188 arrange that OAM frames follow the path taken by a specific flow. 190 RBridges MUST have the ability to identify OAM frames destined for 191 them or which require processing by the OAM plane from normal data 192 frames. 194 TRILL OAM frames MUST remain within a TRILL campus and MUST NOT be 195 egressed from a TRILL network as native frames. 197 OAM MUST have ability to include all Ethernet traffic types carried 198 by TRILL. 200 4.2. Connectivity Verification 202 4.2.1. Unicast 204 From an arbitrary RBridge RB1, OAM MUST have the ability to verify 205 connectivity to any other RBridge RB2. 207 From an arbitrary RBridge RB1, OAM MUST have the ability to verify 208 connectivity to any other RBridge RB2 for a specific flow via the 209 path associated with the specified flow. 211 An RBridge SHOULD have the ability to verify the above connectivity 212 tests on sections. As an example, assume RB1 is connected to RB5 via 213 RB2, RB3 and RB4. An operator SHOULD be able to verify the RB1 to 214 RB5 connectivity on the section from RB3 to RB5. The difference is 215 that the ingress and egress TRILL nicknames in this case are RB1 and 216 RB5 as opposed to RB3 and RB5, even though the message itself may 217 originate at RB3. 219 4.2.2. Multicast 221 OAM MUST have the ability to verify connectivity, from an arbitrary 222 RBridge RB1, to either a specific set of RBridges or all member 223 RBridges, for a specified multicast tree. This functionality is 224 referred to as verification of the un-pruned multicast tree. 226 OAM MUST have the ability to verify connectivity, from an arbitrary 227 RBridge RB1, to either a specific set of RBridges or all member 228 RBridges, for a specified multicast tree and for a specified flow. 229 This functionality is referred to as verification of the pruned 230 tree. 232 4.3. Continuity Check 234 OAM MUST provide functions that allow any arbitrary RBridge RB1 to 235 perform a Continuity Check to any other RBridge. 237 OAM MUST provide functions that allow any arbitrary RBridge RB1 to 238 perform a Continuity Check to any other RBridge using a path 239 associated with a specified flow. 241 OAM SHOULD provide functions that allow any arbitrary RBridge to 242 perform a Continuity Check to any other RBridge over all selectable 243 least cost paths. 245 OAM SHOULD provide the ability to perform a Continuity Check on 246 sections of any selectable path within the network. 248 OAM SHOULD provide the ability to perform a multicast Continuity 249 Check for specified multi-destination tree(s) as well as specified 250 multi-destination tree and flow combinations. The former is referred 251 to as an un-pruned multi-destination tree Continuity Check and the 252 latter is referred to as a pruned tree Continuity Check. 254 4.4. Path Tracing 256 OAM MUST provide the ability to trace a path between any two 257 RBridges per specified unicast flow. 259 OAM SHOULD provide the ability to trace all selectable least cost 260 paths between any two RBridges. 262 OAM SHOULD provide functionality to trace all branches of a 263 specified multi-destination tree (un-pruned tree) 265 OAM SHOULD provide functionality to trace all branches of a 266 specified multi-destination tree for a specified flow (pruned tree). 268 4.5. General Requirements 270 OAM MUST provide the ability to initiate and maintain multiple 271 concurrent sessions for multiple OAM functions between any arbitrary 272 RBridge RB1 to any other RBridge. In general, multiple OAM 273 operations will run concurrently. For example, proactive continuity 274 checks may take place between RB1 and RB2 at the same time an 275 operator decides to test connectivity between the same two RBs. 276 Multiple OAM functions and instances of those functions MUST be able 277 to run concurrently without interfering with each other. 279 OAM MUST provide a single OAM framework for all TRILL OAM functions 280 within the scope of this document. 282 OAM, as practical and as possible, SHOULD provide a single framework 283 between TRILL and other similar standards. 285 OAM MUST maintain related error and operational counters. Such 286 counters MUST be accessible via network management applications 287 (e.g. SNMP). 289 OAM functions related to continuity and connectivity checks MUST be 290 able to be invoked either proactively or on-demand. 292 OAM MAY be required to provide the ability to specify a desired 293 response mode for a specific OAM message. The desired response mode 294 can be either in-band, out-of band or none. 296 The OAM Framework MUST be extensible to future needs of TRILL and 297 the needs of other standard organizations. 299 OAM MAY provide methods to verify control plane and forwarding plane 300 alignments. 302 OAM SHOULD leverage existing OAM technologies, where practical. 304 4.6. Performance Monitoring 306 4.6.1. Packet Loss 308 In this document, the term loss of a packet is used as defined in 309 [RFC2680] (see Section 2.4 of RFC2680). 311 OAM SHOULD provide the ability to measure packet loss statistics for 312 a simulated flow from any arbitrary RBridge RB1 to any other 313 RBridge. 315 OAM SHOULD provide the ability to measure packet loss statistics 316 over a segment, for a simulated flow between any arbitrary RBridge 317 RB1 to any other RBridge. 319 OAM SHOULD provide the ability to measure simulated packet loss 320 statistics between any two RBridges over all least cost paths. 322 An RBridge SHOULD be able to perform the above packet loss 323 measurement functions either proactively or on-demand. 325 4.6.2. Packet Delay 327 There are two types of packet delays -- one-way delay and two-way 328 delay (Round Trip Delay). 330 One-way delay is defined in [RFC2679] as the time elapsed from the 331 start of transmission of the first bit of a packet by an RBridge 332 until the reception of the last bit of the packet by the destination 333 RBridge. 335 Two-way delay is also referred to as Round Trip Delay and is defined 336 similar to [RFC2681]; i.e. the time elapsed from the start of 337 transmission of the first bit of a packet from RB1, receipt of the 338 packet at RB2, RB2 sending a response packet back to RB1 and RB1 339 receiving the last bit of that response packet. 341 OAM SHOULD provide functions to measure two-way delay between two 342 RBridges. 344 OAM MAY provide functions to measure one-way delay between two 345 RBridges for a specified flow. 347 OAM MAY provide functions to measure one-way delay between two 348 RBridges for a specified flow over a specific section. 350 4.7. ECMP Utilization 352 OAM MAY provide functionality to monitor the effectiveness of per- 353 hop ECMP hashing. For example, individual RBridges could maintain 354 counters that show how packets are being distributed across equal 355 cost next hops for a specified destination RBridge or RBridges as a 356 result of ECMP hashing. 358 4.8. Security and Operational considerations 360 Methods MUST be provided to protect against exploitation of OAM 361 framework for security and denial of service attacks. 363 Methods SHOULD be provided to prevent OAM messages causing 364 congestion in the networks. Periodically generated messages with 365 high frequencies may lead to congestion, hence methods such as 366 shaping or rate limiting SHOULD be utilized. 368 4.9. Fault Indications 370 The term Fault refers to an inability to perform a required action, 371 e.g., an unsuccessful attempt to deliver a packet [OAMOVER]. The 372 unsuccessful attempt may be due to Hop Count expiry, invalid 373 nickname, etc. 375 OAM MUST provide a Fault Indication framework to notify faults to 376 the ingress RBRidge of the packet or other interested parties (such 377 as syslog servers). 379 OAM MUST provide functions to selectively enable or disable 380 different types of Fault Indications. 382 4.10. Defect Indications 384 [OAMOVER] defines "The term Defect refers to an interruption in the 385 normal operation, such as a consecutive period of time where no 386 packets are delivered successfully." 388 OAM SHOULD provide a framework for Defect Detection and Indication. 390 OAM implementations that provide Defect Indication SHOULD provide 391 methods to selectively enable or disable Defect Detection per defect 392 type. 394 OAM implementations that provide Defect Indication SHOULD provide 395 methods to configure Defect Detection thresholds per different types 396 of defects. 398 OAM implementations that provide Defect Indication facilities SHOULD 399 provide methods to log defect indications to a locally defined 400 archive such as log buffer or SNMP traps. 402 OAM implementations that provide Defect Indication facilities SHOULD 403 provide a Remote Defect Indication framework that facilitates 404 notifying the originator/owner of the flow experiencing the defect, 405 which is the ingress RBridge. 407 Remote Defect Indication MAY be either in-band or out-of-band. 409 4.11. Live Traffic monitoring 411 OAM implementations MAY provide methods to utilize live traffic for 412 troubleshooting and performance monitoring. 414 Implementations MAY leverage Data Driven CFM [8021Q] or IPFIX 415 [RFC5101] for the purpose of performance monitoring. 417 5. Security Considerations 419 Security Requirements are specified in section 4.8. For general 420 TRILL security considerations please refer to [RFC6325] 422 6. IANA Considerations 424 None 426 7. References 428 7.1. Normative References 430 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 431 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 433 7.2. Informative References 435 [RFC6325] Perlman, R., et.al., "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base 436 Protocol Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011. 438 [RFC5101] Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information 439 Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic 440 Flow Information", RFC5101, January 2008. 442 [RFC2680] Almes, G., et.al. "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", 443 RFC 2680, September 1999. 445 [RFC2679] Almes, G., et.al. "A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 446 2679, September 1999. 448 [RFC2681] Almes, G., et.al. "A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM", 449 RFC 2681, September 1999. 451 [RFC6291] Anderson, L., et.al. "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM" 452 Acronym in the IETF", RFC 6291, June 2011. 454 [8021ag] IEEE, "Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks Amendment 5: 455 Connectivity Fault Management", 802.1ag, 2007. 457 [8021Q] IEEE, "Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual 458 Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011, 459 August, 2011. 461 [RFC4377] Nadeau, T., et.al. "Operations and Management (OAM) 462 Requirements for Multi-protocol Label Switched 463 (MPLS)Networks", RFC 4377, February 2006. 465 [OAMOVER] Mizrahi, T, et.al., "An Overview of Operations, 466 Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms", draft- 467 ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-06, Work in Progress, March 2012. 469 [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., et.al., "Requirements for Operations, 470 Administration and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport 471 Networks", RFC5860, May 2010. 473 8. Acknowledgments 475 Special acknowledgments to IEEE 802.1 chair, Tony Jeffree for 476 allowing us to solicit comments from IEEE 802.1 group. Also 477 recognized are the comments received from IEEE group, Ayal Lior and 478 others. 480 This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. 482 9. Contributing Authors 484 Tissa Senevirathne 485 CISCO Systems 486 375 East Tasman Drive 487 San Jose, CA 95134 488 USA. 490 Phone: +1-408-853-2291 491 Email: tsenevir@cisco.com 493 David Bond 494 IBM 495 2051 Mission College Blvd 496 Santa Clara, CA 95054 497 USA 499 Phone: +1-603-339-7575 500 Email: mokon@mokon.net 501 Sam Aldrin 502 Huawei Technologies 503 2330 Central Express Way 504 Santa Clara, CA 95951 505 USA 507 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com 509 Yizhou Li 510 Huawei Technologies 511 101 Software Avenue, 512 Nanjing 210012 513 China 515 Phone: +86-25-56625375 516 Email: liyizhou@huawei.com 518 Rohit Watve 519 CISCO Systems 520 375 East Tasman Drive 521 San Jose, CA 95134 522 USA. 524 Phone: +1-408-424-2091 525 Email: rwatve@cisco.com 527 Thomas Narten 528 IBM Corporation 529 3039 Cornwallis Avenue, 530 PO Box 12195 531 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 532 USA 534 Email:narten@us.ibm.com 536 Donald Eastlake 537 Huawei Technologies 538 155 Beaver Street, 539 Milford, MAC 01757 540 USA. 542 Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com 543 Anoop Ghanwani 544 DELL 545 350 Holger Way 546 San Jose, CA 95134 547 USA. 549 Phone: +1-408-571-3500 550 Email: Anoop@alumni.duke.edu 552 Jon Hudson 553 Brocade 554 120 Holger Way 555 San Jose, CA 95134 556 USA. 558 Email: jon.hudson@gmail.com 560 Naveen Nimmu 561 Broadcom 562 9th Floor, Building no 9, Raheja Mind space 563 Hi-Tec City, Madhapur, 564 Hyderabad - 500 081, INDIA 566 Phone: +1-408-218-8893 567 Email: naveen@broadcom.com 569 Radia Perlman 570 Intel Labs 571 2700 156th Ave NE, Suite 300, 572 Bellevue, WA 98007 573 USA. 575 Phone: +1-425-881-4824 576 Email: radia.perlman@intel.com 578 Tal Mizrahi 579 Marvell 580 6 Hamada St. 581 Yokneam, 20692 Israel 583 Email: talmi@marvell.com