draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-08.txt   draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09.txt 
spring R. Geib, Ed. spring R. Geib, Ed.
Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: Informational C. Filsfils Intended status: Informational C. Filsfils
Expires: January 3, 2018 C. Pignataro, Ed. Expires: January 26, 2018 C. Pignataro, Ed.
N. Kumar N. Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 2, 2017 July 25, 2017
A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Dataplane Monitoring System A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Dataplane Monitoring System
draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-08 draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09
Abstract Abstract
This document describes features of a path monitoring system and This document describes features of a path monitoring system and
related use cases. Segment based routing enables a scalable and related use cases. Segment based routing enables a scalable and
simple method to monitor data plane liveliness of the complete set of simple method to monitor data plane liveliness of the complete set of
paths belonging to a single domain. The MPLS monitoring system adds paths belonging to a single domain. The MPLS monitoring system adds
features to the traditional MPLS Ping and LSP Trace, in a very features to the traditional MPLS Ping and LSP Trace, in a very
complementary way. MPLS topology awareness reduces management and complementary way. MPLS topology awareness reduces management and
control plane involvement of OAM measurements while enabling new OAM control plane involvement of OAM measurements while enabling new OAM
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 January 3, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
5. Path Trace and Failure Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Path Trace and Failure Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Applying SR to Monitoring non-SR based LSPs (LDP and possibly 6. Applying SR to Monitoring non-SR based LSPs (LDP and possibly
RSVP-TE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 RSVP-TE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. PMS Monitoring of Different Segment ID Types . . . . . . . . 13 7. PMS Monitoring of Different Segment ID Types . . . . . . . . 13
8. Connectivity Verification Using PMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Connectivity Verification Using PMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Network operator need to be able to monitor the forwarding paths used Network operator need to be able to monitor the forwarding paths used
to transport user packets. Monitoring packets are expected to be to transport user packets. Monitoring packets are expected to be
forwarded in dataplane in a similar way as user packets. Segment forwarded in dataplane in a similar way as user packets. Segment
Routing enables forwarding of packets along pre-defined paths and Routing enables forwarding of packets along pre-defined paths and
segments and thus a Segment Routed monitoring packet can stay in segments and thus a Segment Routed monitoring packet can stay in
dataplane while passing along one or more segments to be monitored. dataplane while passing along one or more segments to be monitored.
skipping to change at page 4, line 49 skipping to change at page 4, line 49
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) [RFC7880] [RFC7881] (see Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) [RFC7880] [RFC7881] (see
Section 3.4 of [RFC7882]), and MPLS LSP Ping [RFC8029]. They can Section 3.4 of [RFC7882]), and MPLS LSP Ping [RFC8029]. They can
also have any other OAM format supported by the PMS. As long as the also have any other OAM format supported by the PMS. As long as the
packet used to check continuity returns back to the server while no packet used to check continuity returns back to the server while no
IGP change is detected, the monitored path can be considered as IGP change is detected, the monitored path can be considered as
validated. If monitoring requires pushing a large label stack, a validated. If monitoring requires pushing a large label stack, a
software based implementation is usually more flexible than an software based implementation is usually more flexible than an
hardware based one. Hence router label stack depth and label hardware based one. Hence router label stack depth and label
composition limitations don't limit MPLS OAM choices. composition limitations don't limit MPLS OAM choices.
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping] discusses SR OAM applicability [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping] discusses SR OAM applicability and
and MPLS traceroute enhancements adding functionality to the use MPLS traceroute enhancements adding functionality to the use cases
cases described by this document. described by this document.
2. Terminology and Acronyms 2. Terminology and Acronyms
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Terminology
Continuity Check Continuity Check
is defined in Section 2.2.7 of RFC 7276 [RFC7276]. is defined in Section 2.2.7 of RFC 7276 [RFC7276].
Connectivity Verification Connectivity Verification
skipping to change at page 9, line 47 skipping to change at page 9, line 47
Monitoring an MPLS domain by a PMS based on SR offers the option of Monitoring an MPLS domain by a PMS based on SR offers the option of
monitoring complete MPLS domains with limited effort and a unique monitoring complete MPLS domains with limited effort and a unique
possibility to scale a flexible monitoring solution as required by possibility to scale a flexible monitoring solution as required by
the operator (the number of PMS deployed is independent of the the operator (the number of PMS deployed is independent of the
locations of the origin and destination of the monitored paths). The locations of the origin and destination of the monitored paths). The
PMS can be enabled to send MPLS OAM packets with the label stacks and PMS can be enabled to send MPLS OAM packets with the label stacks and
address information identical to those of the monitoring packets to address information identical to those of the monitoring packets to
any node of the MPLS domain. The routers of the monitored domain any node of the MPLS domain. The routers of the monitored domain
should support MPLS LSP Ping RFC 8029 [RFC8029]. They may also should support MPLS LSP Ping RFC 8029 [RFC8029]. They may also
incorporate the additional enhancements defined in incorporate the additional enhancements defined in
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping] to incorporate further MPLS [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping] to incorporate further MPLS trace
trace route features. ICMP Ping based continuity checks don't route features. ICMP Ping based continuity checks don't require
require router control plane activity. Prior to monitoring a path, router control plane activity. Prior to monitoring a path, MPLS OAM
MPLS OAM may be used to detect ECMP dependent forwarding of a packet. may be used to detect ECMP dependent forwarding of a packet. A PMS
A PMS may be designed to learn the IP address information required to may be designed to learn the IP address information required to
execute a particular ECMP routed path and interfaces along that path. execute a particular ECMP routed path and interfaces along that path.
This allows to monitor these paths with label stacks reduced to a This allows to monitor these paths with label stacks reduced to a
limited number of Node-SIDs resulting from SPF routing. The PMS does limited number of Node-SIDs resulting from SPF routing. The PMS does
not require access to LSR / LER management- or data-plane information not require access to LSR / LER management- or data-plane information
to do so. to do so.
4.2. Use Case 2 - Monitoring a Remote Bundle 4.2. Use Case 2 - Monitoring a Remote Bundle
+---+ _ +--+ +-------+ +---+ _ +--+ +-------+
| | { } | |---991---L1---662---| | | | { } | |---991---L1---662---| |
skipping to change at page 13, line 16 skipping to change at page 13, line 16
Identification of tunnel entry- and transit-nodes may add complexity. Identification of tunnel entry- and transit-nodes may add complexity.
They are not within scope of this document. They are not within scope of this document.
7. PMS Monitoring of Different Segment ID Types 7. PMS Monitoring of Different Segment ID Types
MPLS SR topology awareness should allow the PMS to monitor liveliness MPLS SR topology awareness should allow the PMS to monitor liveliness
of SIDs related to interfaces within the SR and IGP domain, of SIDs related to interfaces within the SR and IGP domain,
respectively. Tracing a path where an SR capable node assigns an respectively. Tracing a path where an SR capable node assigns an
Adj-SID for a non-SR-capable node may fail. This and other backward Adj-SID for a non-SR-capable node may fail. This and other backward
compatibility with non Segment Routing devices are discussed by compatibility with non Segment Routing devices are discussed by
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]. [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping].
To match control plane information with data plane information for To match control plane information with data plane information for
all relevant types of Segment IDs, all relevant types of Segment IDs, [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]enhances MPLS OAM functions enhances MPLS OAM functions defined by RFC 8029 [RFC8029].
defined by RFC 8029 [RFC8029].
8. Connectivity Verification Using PMS 8. Connectivity Verification Using PMS
While the PMS based use cases explained in Section 5 are sufficient While the PMS based use cases explained in Section 5 are sufficient
to provide continuity check between LER i and LER j, it may not help to provide continuity check between LER i and LER j, it may not help
perform connectivity verification. perform connectivity verification.
+---+ +---+
|PMS| |PMS|
+---+ +---+
skipping to change at page 16, line 12 skipping to change at page 16, line 12
Raik Leipnitz kindly provided an editorial review. The authors would Raik Leipnitz kindly provided an editorial review. The authors would
also like to thank Faisal Iqbal for an insightful review and a useful also like to thank Faisal Iqbal for an insightful review and a useful
set of comments and suggestions. Finally, Bruno Decraene's shepherd set of comments and suggestions. Finally, Bruno Decraene's shepherd
review led to a clarified document. review led to a clarified document.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
IETF, "Segment Routing Architecture", IETF, Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring- and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
segment-routing/, 2016. spring-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June 2017.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]
Kumar, N., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Kini,
S., Gredler, H., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing Networks with MPLS
Dataplane", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-03 (work in
progress), June 2017.
[I-D.leipnitz-spring-pms-implementation-report]
Leipnitz, R. and R. Geib, "A scalable and topology aware
MPLS data plane monitoring system", draft-leipnitz-spring-
pms-implementation-report-00 (work in progress), June
2016.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
[RFC4950] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "ICMP [RFC4950] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "ICMP
Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching", RFC 4950, Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching", RFC 4950,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4950, August 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4950, August 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4950>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4950>.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884, Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884,
June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884>. June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884>.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y. [RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276, Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014, 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test
Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the
Standards Track", RFC 6808, DOI 10.17487/RFC6808, December
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6808>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.
[RFC7881] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., and N. Akiya, "Seamless [RFC7881] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., and N. Akiya, "Seamless
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6,
and MPLS", RFC 7881, DOI 10.17487/RFC7881, July 2016, and MPLS", RFC 7881, DOI 10.17487/RFC7881, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7881>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7881>.
[RFC7882] Aldrin, S., Pignataro, C., Mirsky, G., and N. Kumar,
"Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Use
Cases", RFC 7882, DOI 10.17487/RFC7882, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7882>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]
IETF, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace for Segment
Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane", IETF,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-
lsp-ping/, 2016.
[I-D.leipnitz-spring-pms-implementation-report]
Leipnitz, R. and R. Geib, "A scalable and topology aware
MPLS data plane monitoring system", IETF, draft-leipnitz-
spring-pms-implementation-report-00, 2016.
[RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,
"IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement
Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.
[RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test
Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the
Standards Track", RFC 6808, DOI 10.17487/RFC6808, December
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6808>.
[RFC7882] Aldrin, S., Pignataro, C., Mirsky, G., and N. Kumar,
"Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Use
Cases", RFC 7882, DOI 10.17487/RFC7882, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7882>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ruediger Geib (editor) Ruediger Geib (editor)
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom
Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7 Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7
Darmstadt 64295 Darmstadt 64295
Germany Germany
Phone: +49 6151 5812747 Phone: +49 6151 5812747
Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
55 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/