idnits 2.17.1 draft-mirsky-mpls-oam-mpls-sr-ip-01.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 18, 2018) is 1989 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-06 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky 3 Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. 4 Intended status: Standards Track October 18, 2018 5 Expires: April 21, 2019 7 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance for MPLS-SR over IP 8 draft-mirsky-mpls-oam-mpls-sr-ip-01 10 Abstract 12 Segment routing uses source routing paradigm to traffic engineering 13 by specifying segments a packet traverses through the network. MPLS 14 Segment Routing applies that paradigm to an MPLS data plane-based 15 networks. SR-MPLS over IP uses MPLS label stack as a source routing 16 instruction set and uses IP encapsulation/tunneling such as MPLS-in- 17 UDP as defined in RFC 7510 to realize a source routing mechanism 18 across MPLS, IPv4, and IPv6 data planes. This document describes 19 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance operations in SR-MPLS 20 over IP environment. 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 April 21, 2019. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2018 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 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. OAM in SR-MPLS over IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3.1. Fault Management OAM in SR-MPLS over IP . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3.2. Performance Monitoring OAM in SR-MPLS over IP . . . . . . 4 63 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 5.1. Source MEP ID IP Address Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 1. Introduction 72 Segment routing [RFC8402] uses source routing paradigm to traffic 73 engineering by specifying segments a packet traverses through the 74 network. MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS) 75 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] applies that paradigm to an 76 MPLS data plane-based networks. SR-MPLS over IP uses MPLS label 77 stack as a source routing instruction set and uses IP encapsulation/ 78 tunneling such as MPLS-in- UDP as defined in [RFC7510] to realize a 79 source routing mechanism across MPLS, IPv4, and IPv6 data planes. 80 This document describes Operations, Administration, and Maintenance 81 (OAM) operations in SR-MPLS over IP environment. 83 2. Conventions used in this document 85 2.1. Terminology 87 MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching 89 LSP: Label Switched Path 91 BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 93 SR Segment Routing 95 SR-MPLS Segment Routing in MPLS data plane 96 FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class 98 G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel 100 ACH: Associated Channel Header 102 GAL: G-ACh Label 104 OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance 106 2.2. Requirements Language 108 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 109 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 110 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 111 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 112 capitals, as shown here. 114 3. OAM in SR-MPLS over IP 116 OAM operations support Fault Management and Performance Monitoring 117 components of FCAPS framework for network management. To achieve its 118 objectives, Fault Management OAM includes proactive and on-demand 119 protocols to provide constant monitoring of the network to detect the 120 failure in combination with on-demand tools to efficiently localize 121 and characterize the defect. Performance Monitoring OAM protocols 122 support measurement of packet loss and packet delay that enables 123 calculation of performance metrics, e.g., packet loss ration, inter- 124 packet delay variation, that are useful in monitoring the quality of 125 service in the network, detect and quantify the service degradation. 127 3.1. Fault Management OAM in SR-MPLS over IP 129 Fault management OAM toolset includes protocols to perform on-demand 130 failure detection and localization as well as proactively monitor 131 path continuity. An example of the former is echo request/reply, 132 e.g., Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping [RFC8029]. An example of the 133 latter - Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) over MPLS LSP 134 [RFC5884]. For SR-MPLS environment applicability and use of these 135 OAM tools defined in [RFC8287] and [I-D.mirsky-spring-bfd] 136 respectively. Both LSP Ping and BFD can be used either with IP/UDP 137 encapsulation or in Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) [RFC5586]. 138 The use of IP/UDP encapsulation is well-understood and has been 139 defined in [RFC8029]: 141 The IP header is set as follows: the source IP address is a 142 routable address of the sender; the destination IP address is a 143 (randomly chosen) IPv4 address from the range 127/8 or an IPv6 144 address from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104. The IP TTL is 145 set to 1. The source UDP port is chosen by the sender. 147 Using the sender's routable address enables the receiver to send an 148 echo reply or BFD control packets over the IP network. In some 149 environments, the overhead of extra IP/UDP encapsulations may be 150 considered as overburden and make to use more compact G-ACh 151 encapsulation instead. In such a case, the OAM control packet MUST 152 be immediately followed by the IP Address TLV 153 [I-D.mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd] with its Value field containing one of the 154 routable IP addresses of the sender. 156 3.2. Performance Monitoring OAM in SR-MPLS over IP 158 Performance monitoring in SR-MPLS over IP may be performed using 159 mechanisms defined in [RFC6374]. 161 4. Security Considerations 163 This document does not introduce new security aspects but inherits 164 all security considerations from [RFC8287], [RFC8029], [RFC5884], 165 [I-D.mirsky-spring-bfd]. 167 5. IANA Considerations 169 5.1. Source MEP ID IP Address Type 171 TBD. 173 6. Acknowledgements 175 TBD 177 7. Normative References 179 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] 180 Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., 181 Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS 182 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14 183 (work in progress), June 2018. 185 [I-D.mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd] 186 Mirsky, G., "BFD for Multipoint Networks over Point-to- 187 Multi-Point MPLS LSP", draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04 (work 188 in progress), October 2018. 190 [I-D.mirsky-spring-bfd] 191 Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen, 192 "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment 193 Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane", draft-mirsky- 194 spring-bfd-06 (work in progress), August 2018. 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 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., 202 "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, 203 DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, 204 . 206 [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, 207 "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label 208 Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884, 209 June 2010, . 211 [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay 212 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, 213 DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, 214 . 216 [RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black, 217 "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510, 218 DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015, 219 . 221 [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., 222 Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label 223 Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, 224 DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, 225 . 227 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 228 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 229 May 2017, . 231 [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, 232 N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) 233 Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 234 IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data 235 Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, 236 . 238 [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., 239 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 240 Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, 241 July 2018, . 243 Author's Address 245 Greg Mirsky 246 ZTE Corp. 248 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com