draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10.txt   draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11.txt 
6man Z. Ali 6man Z. Ali
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: October 10, 2021 S. Matsushima Expires: December 4, 2021 S. Matsushima
Softbank Softbank
D. Voyer D. Voyer
Bell Canada Bell Canada
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
April 8, 2021 June 2, 2021
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing
Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6) Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-11
Abstract Abstract
This document describes how the existing IPv6 mechanisms for ping and This document describes how the existing IPv6 mechanisms for ping and
traceroute can be used in an SRv6 network. The document also traceroute can be used in an SRv6 network. The document also
specifies the OAM flag in the Segment Routing Header (SRH) for specifies the OAM flag in the Segment Routing Header (SRH) for
performing controllable and predictable flow sampling from segment performing controllable and predictable flow sampling from segment
endpoints. In addition, the document describes how a centralized endpoints. In addition, the document describes how a centralized
monitoring system performs a path continuity check between any nodes monitoring system performs a path continuity check between any nodes
within an SRv6 domain. within an SRv6 domain.
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 10, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 4, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 7, line 26 skipping to change at page 7, line 26
The processing node SHOULD rate-limit the number of packets punted to The processing node SHOULD rate-limit the number of packets punted to
the OAM process to a configurable rate. This is to avoid hitting any the OAM process to a configurable rate. This is to avoid hitting any
performance impact on the OAM and the telemetry collection processes. performance impact on the OAM and the telemetry collection processes.
Failure in implementing the rate limit can lead to a denial-of- Failure in implementing the rate limit can lead to a denial-of-
service attack, as detailed in Section 5. service attack, as detailed in Section 5.
The OAM process MUST NOT process the copy of the packet or respond to The OAM process MUST NOT process the copy of the packet or respond to
any upper-layer header (like ICMP, UDP, etc.) payload to prevent any upper-layer header (like ICMP, UDP, etc.) payload to prevent
multiple evaluations of the datagram. multiple evaluations of the datagram.
Specification of the OAM process or the external controller The OAM process is expected to be located on the routing node
operations are beyond the scope of this document. How to correlate processing the packet. Although the specification of the OAM process
the data collected from different nodes at an external controller is or the external controller operations are beyond the scope of this
also outside the scope of the document. Section 3 illustrates use of document, the OAM process SHOULD NOT be topologically distant from
the O-flag for implementing a hybrid OAM mechanism, where the the routing node, as this is likely to create significant security
"hybrid" classification is based on RFC7799 [RFC7799]. and congestion issues. How to correlate the data collected from
different nodes at an external controller is also outside the scope
of the document. Section 3 illustrates use of the O-flag for
implementing a hybrid OAM mechanism, where the "hybrid"
classification is based on RFC7799 [RFC7799].
2.2. OAM Operations 2.2. OAM Operations
IPv6 OAM operations can be performed for any SRv6 SID whose behavior IPv6 OAM operations can be performed for any SRv6 SID whose behavior
allows Upper Layer Header processing for an applicable OAM payload allows Upper Layer Header processing for an applicable OAM payload
(e.g., ICMP, UDP). (e.g., ICMP, UDP).
Ping to an SRv6 SID is used to verify that the SID is reachable and Ping to an SRv6 SID is used to verify that the SID is reachable and
is locally programmed at the target node. Traceroute to a SID is is locally programmed at the target node. Traceroute to a SID is
used for hop-by-hop fault localization as well as path tracing to a used for hop-by-hop fault localization as well as path tracing to a
skipping to change at page 16, line 25 skipping to change at page 16, line 25
o When node N3, which is a classic IPv6 node, receives the packet P1 o When node N3, which is a classic IPv6 node, receives the packet P1
, it performs the standard IPv6 processing. Specifically, it , it performs the standard IPv6 processing. Specifically, it
forwards the packet P1 based on DA 2001:db8:B:4:C52:: in the IPv6 forwards the packet P1 based on DA 2001:db8:B:4:C52:: in the IPv6
header. header.
o When node N4 receives the packet P1 (2001:db8:A:1::, o When node N4 receives the packet P1 (2001:db8:A:1::,
2001:db8:B:4:C52::) (2001:db8:B:7:DT999::, 2001:db8:B:4:C52::, 2001:db8:B:4:C52::) (2001:db8:B:7:DT999::, 2001:db8:B:4:C52::,
2001:db8:B:2:C31::; SL=1; O-flag=1; NH=IPv4)(IPv4 2001:db8:B:2:C31::; SL=1; O-flag=1; NH=IPv4)(IPv4
header)(payload), it processes the O-flag. As part of processing header)(payload), it processes the O-flag. As part of processing
the O-flag, it sends a timestamped copy of the packet to a local the O-flag, it sends a timestamped copy of the packet to a local
OAM process. The local OAM process sends a full or partial copy OAM process. Based on a local configuration, the local OAM
of the packet P1 to the controller N100. The OAM process includes process sends a full or partial copy of the packet P1 to the
the recorded timestamp, additional OAM information like incoming controller N100. The OAM process includes the recorded timestamp,
and outgoing interface, etc. along with any applicable metadata. additional OAM information like incoming and outgoing interface,
Node N4 performs the standard SRv6 SID and SRH processing on the etc. along with any applicable metadata. Node N4 performs the
original packet P1. Specifically, it executes the END.X behavior standard SRv6 SID and SRH processing on the original packet P1.
(2001:db8:B:4:C52::) and forwards the packet P1 (2001:db8:A:1::, Specifically, it executes the END.X behavior (2001:db8:B:4:C52::)
2001:db8:B:7:DT999::) (2001:db8:B:7:DT999::, 2001:db8:B:4:C52::, and forwards the packet P1 (2001:db8:A:1::, 2001:db8:B:7:DT999::)
2001:db8:B:2:C31::; SL=0; O-flag=1; NH=IPv4)(IPv4 header)(payload) (2001:db8:B:7:DT999::, 2001:db8:B:4:C52::, 2001:db8:B:2:C31::;
over link 10 towards Node N5. SL=0; O-flag=1; NH=IPv4)(IPv4 header)(payload) over link 10
towards Node N5.
o When node N5, which is a classic IPv6 node, receives the packet o When node N5, which is a classic IPv6 node, receives the packet
P1, it performs the standard IPv6 processing. Specifically, it P1, it performs the standard IPv6 processing. Specifically, it
forwards the packet based on DA 2001:db8:B:7:DT999:: in the IPv6 forwards the packet based on DA 2001:db8:B:7:DT999:: in the IPv6
header. header.
o When node N7 receives the packet P1 (2001:db8:A:1::, o When node N7 receives the packet P1 (2001:db8:A:1::,
2001:db8:B:7:DT999::) (2001:db8:B:7:DT999::, 2001:db8:B:4:C52::, 2001:db8:B:7:DT999::) (2001:db8:B:7:DT999::, 2001:db8:B:4:C52::,
2001:db8:B:2:C31::; SL=0; O-flag=1; NH=IPv4)(IPv4 2001:db8:B:2:C31::; SL=0; O-flag=1; NH=IPv4)(IPv4
header)(payload), it processes the O-flag. As part of processing header)(payload), it processes the O-flag. As part of processing
skipping to change at page 19, line 14 skipping to change at page 19, line 14
rate limiting in section 2.1.1 is not susceptible to that denial-of- rate limiting in section 2.1.1 is not susceptible to that denial-of-
service attack. Additionally, SRH Flags are protected by the HMAC service attack. Additionally, SRH Flags are protected by the HMAC
TLV, as described in Section 2.1.2.1 of [RFC8754]. TLV, as described in Section 2.1.2.1 of [RFC8754].
This document does not impose any additional security challenges to This document does not impose any additional security challenges to
be considered beyond security threats described in [RFC4884], be considered beyond security threats described in [RFC4884],
[RFC4443], [RFC0792], and [RFC8754]. [RFC4443], [RFC0792], and [RFC8754].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA allocate the following registrations This document requests that IANA allocate the following registration
in the "Segment Routing Header Flags" sub-registry for the "Internet in the "Segment Routing Header Flags" sub-registry for the "Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry maintained by IANA: Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry maintained by IANA:
+-------+------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+------------------------------+---------------+
| Bit | Description | Reference | | Bit | Description | Reference |
+=======+==============================+===============+ +=======+==============================+===============+
| 2 | O-flag | This document | | 2 | O-flag | This document |
+-------+------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+------------------------------+---------------+
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
skipping to change at page 21, line 11 skipping to change at page 21, line 11
Email: faisal.ietf@gmail.com Email: faisal.ietf@gmail.com
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., [RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm] [I-D.gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm]
Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Chen, M., and B. Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Chen, M., Janssens,
Janssens, "Performance Measurement Using Simple TWAMP B., and R. Foote, "Performance Measurement Using Simple
(STAMP) for Segment Routing Networks", draft-gandhi- TWAMP (STAMP) for Segment Routing Networks", draft-gandhi-
spring-stamp-srpm-04 (work in progress), January 2021. spring-stamp-srpm-06 (work in progress), April 2021.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11 (work in for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11 (work in
progress), November 2020. progress), November 2020.
[I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status] [I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status]
Matsushima, S., Filsfils, C., Ali, Z., Li, Z., and K. Matsushima, S., Filsfils, C., Ali, Z., Li, Z., and K.
Rajaraman, "SRv6 Implementation and Deployment Status", Rajaraman, "SRv6 Implementation and Deployment Status",
draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-10 (work in draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-11 (work in
progress), December 2020. progress), February 2021.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, [RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981, RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
skipping to change at page 22, line 44 skipping to change at page 23, line 5
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>. May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S. [RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.
Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016, (S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8403] Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N. [RFC8403] Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N.
Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane
Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>.
[RFC8571] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and [RFC8571] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and
C. Filsfils, "BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of C. Filsfils, "BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of
IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions", IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions",
RFC 8571, DOI 10.17487/RFC8571, March 2019, RFC 8571, DOI 10.17487/RFC8571, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 42 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/