idnits 2.17.1 draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements-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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 6 pages 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 (June 11, 2015) is 3235 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2629' is defined on line 196, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-bier-architecture-00 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629 (Obsoleted by RFC 7749) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 BIER Working Group G. Mirsky 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Intended status: Informational E. Nordmark 5 Expires: December 13, 2015 Arista Networks 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 Juniper Networks 18 June 11, 2015 20 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit 21 Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer 22 draft-mirsky-bier-oam-requirements-00 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 http://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 December 13, 2015. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2015 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 (http://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. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 1. Introduction 79 [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] introduces and explains Bit Index 80 Explicit Replication (BIER) architecture and how it supports 81 forwarding of multicast data packets. 83 This document lists the OAM requirements for BIER layer of multicast 84 domain. The list can further be used to for gap analysis of 85 available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing or 86 whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on-demand 87 path monitoring and service validation. 89 1.1. Conventions used in this document 90 1.1.1. Terminology 92 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 108 [RFC2119]. 110 2. Requirements 112 This section lists requirements for OAM of BIER layer: 114 1. The listed requirements MUST be supported with any type of 115 transport layer over which BIER layer can be realized. 117 2. It MUST be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from any Bit- 118 Forwarding Router (BFR) of the given BIER domain. 120 3. It SHOULD be possible to initialize BIER OAM session from a 121 centralized controller. 123 4. BIER OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring and 124 measurement methods. 126 5. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, both 127 continuity check and performance measurement. 129 6. BIER OAM packets MUST be in-line, i.e. follow exactly the same 130 path as data plane traffic, in forward direction, i.e. from 131 ingress toward egress end point(s) of the OAM test session. 133 7. BIER OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such OAM 134 methods MAY combine in-line monitoring or measurement in forward 135 direction and out-of-bound notification in the reverse 136 direction, i.e. from egress to ingress end point of the OAM test 137 session. 139 8. BIER OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of BFER availability 140 by a BFR in the given BIER domain [e.g. p2mp BFD active tail 141 support]. 143 9. BIER OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery. 145 10. BIER OAM MUST support Reverse Defect Indication (RDI) 146 notification of the source of continuity checking BFR by Bit- 147 Forwarding Egress Routers (BFERs) [e.g. by using Diag in p2mp 148 BFD with active tail support]. 150 11. BIER OAM MUST support active and passive performance measurement 151 methods. 153 12. BIER OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement 154 methods to calculate throughput, loss, delay and delay variation 155 metrics. [RFC6374] provides great details into performance 156 measurement and performance metrics. 158 13. BIER OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like Alarm 159 Indication Signal. Any BFR in the given BIER domain MAY 160 originate a defect notification addressed to any subset of BFRs 161 within the domain. 163 14. BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of a BIER 164 layer. These recovery methods MAY use protection switching and 165 restoration. 167 3. IANA Considerations 169 This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section 170 may be removed. 172 4. Security Considerations 174 This document list the OAM requirement for BIER-enabled domain and 175 does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones 176 common to networking. 178 5. Acknowledgement 180 TBD 182 6. References 183 6.1. Normative References 185 [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] 186 Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and 187 S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit 188 Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-00 (work in 189 progress), April 2015. 191 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 192 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 194 6.2. Informative References 196 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, 197 June 1999. 199 [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay 200 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011. 202 Authors' Addresses 204 Greg Mirsky 205 Ericsson 207 Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com 209 Erik Nordmark 210 Arista Networks 212 Email: nordmark@acm.org 214 Carlos Pignataro 215 Cisco Systems, Inc. 217 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 219 Nagendra Kumar 220 Cisco Systems, Inc. 222 Email: naikumar@cisco.com 223 Sam Aldrin 224 Google 226 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com 228 Lianshu Zheng 229 Huawei Technologies 231 Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com 233 Mach Chen 234 Huawei Technologies 236 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 238 Nobo Akiya 239 Big Switch Networks 241 Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com 243 Santosh Pallagatti 244 Juniper Networks 246 Email: santoshpk@juniper.net