Routing Area Working Group G. Mirsky Internet-Draft Ericsson Intended status: Standards Track E. Nordmark Expires: November 22, 2016 Arista Networks C. Pignataro N. Kumar D. Kumar Cisco Systems, Inc. M. Chen Y. Li Huawei Technologies D. Mozes Mellanox Technologies Ltd. S. Pallagatti I. Bagdonas May 21, 2016 On-demand Continuity Check (CC) and Connectivity Verification(CV) for Overlay Networks draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv-00 Abstract Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on November 22, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Mirsky, et al. Expires November 22, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks May 2016 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Overlay OAM Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Overlay OAM Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.1. On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.2. Alarm Indication Signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Overlay OAM Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1. Overlay OAM PM Active . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.2. Overlay OAM PM Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Introduction Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset provides methods for fault management and performance monitoring in each layer of the network, in order to improve their ability to support services with guaranteed and strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs) while reducing operational costs. 1.1. Conventions used in this document 1.1.1. Terminology Term "Overlay OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for Overlay networks". Mirsky, et al. Expires November 22, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks May 2016 CC Continuity Check CV Connectivity Verification FM Fault Management G-ACh Generic Associated Channel Geneve Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation GUE Generic UDP Encapsulation MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching NVO3 Network Virtalization Overlays OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance SFC Service Fundction Chaining SFP Service Function Path VxLAN Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network VxLAN-GPE Generic Protocol Extension for VxLAN 1.1.2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. Overlay OAM Header 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | V | Msg Type | Flags | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ OOAM Control Packet ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Overlay OAM Header format V - two bits long field indicates the current version of the Overlay OAM Header. The current value is 0. Mirsky, et al. Expires November 22, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks May 2016 Msg Type - six bits long field identifies OAM protocol, e.g. Ping or BFD. Flags - eight bits long field carries bit flags that define optional capability and thus processing of the OOAM control packet, e.g. optional timestamping. Length - two octets long field that is length of the OOAM control packet in octets. The OOAM header may be followed by the Timestamp control block Figure 2 and then by OOAM Control Packet identified by the Msg Type field. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | QTF | RTF | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Timestamp 1 | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Timestamp 4 | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Timestamp block format where: QTF - Querier timestamp format RTF - Responder timestamp format Timestamp 1-4 - 64-bit timestamp values 2.1. Overlay OAM Fault Management Protocols that enable Fault Management functions of OAM toolset are comprised of protocols that perform proactive and on-demand defect detection and failure localization. Mirsky, et al. Expires November 22, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks May 2016 2.1.1. On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification The format of the control packet to support ping and traceroute functionality in overlay networks Figure 3 is similar to the format of MPLS LSP Ping [RFC4379]. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version Number | Global Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Type | Reply mode | Return Code | Return S.code | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender's Handle | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ TLVs ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: Overlay OAM Ping format The interpretation of the fields is The Version reflects the current version. The version number is to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the ability of an implementation to correctly parse or process control packet. The Global Flags is a bit vector field The Messaage Type filed reflects the type of the packet. The Reply Mode defines the type of the return path requested by the sender of the Echo Request. Return Codes and Subcodes can be used to inform the sender about result of processing its request. The Sender's Handle is filled in by the sender, and returned unchanged by the receiver in the echo reply. The Sequence Number is assigned by the sender and can be (for example) used to detect missed replies. TLVs (Type-Length-Value tuples) have the two octets long Type field, two octets long Length field that is legth of the Value field in octets. Mirsky, et al. Expires November 22, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks May 2016 2.1.2. Alarm Indication Signal 2.2. Overlay OAM Performance Measurement 2.2.1. Overlay OAM PM Active 2.2.2. Overlay OAM PM Passive 2.3. Conclusions 3. IANA Considerations This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section may be removed. 4. Security Considerations 5. Acknowledgement TBD 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 6.2. Informative References [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006, . Authors' Addresses Greg Mirsky Ericsson Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com Mirsky, et al. Expires November 22, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks May 2016 Erik Nordmark Arista Networks Email: nordmark@acm.org Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: cpignata@cisco.com Nagendra Kumar Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: naikumar@cisco.com Deepak Kumar Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: dekumar@cisco.com Mach Chen Huawei Technologies Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Yizhou Li Huawei Technologies Email: liyizhou@huawei.com David Mozes Mellanox Technologies Ltd. Email: davidm@mellanox.com Santosh Pallagatti Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com Mirsky, et al. Expires November 22, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks May 2016 Ignas Bagdonas Email: ibagdona@gmail.com Mirsky, et al. Expires November 22, 2016 [Page 8]