Re: [sfc] Progression of OAM work in the SFC WG - OAM Packet

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Hmm.  let me paraphrase to make sure I understood, and assuming I did, 
clarify my confusion.

You seem to be saying that a way to do SFP OAM is to use something 
carried in IP carried in an NSH, with the O bit set.

If I am reading this correctly, this means that you expect an SFF seeing 
a packet with the O bit is supposed to examine not only the carried 
protocol (indicated by the next protocol field in the NSH) but to 
examine the various fields of that protocol to decide if the inned 
content is OAM the SFF is supposed to pay attention to.

That does not match my understanding of expected behavior.  Particularly 
since that carried IP packet is likely not addressed to the SFF, and 
also will not be having its TTL or other fields checked.

Again, it would be good to hear from other WG participants as to whether 
they understand expect behavior of an SFF to include this (based on 8300).

Yours,
Joel

On 2/14/2022 8:02 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> Joel,
> 
> Happy to.
> 
> No, that is not what I meant. I am not sure where (or why) you added the 
> word “external”, but that was key to showing a disconnect (I might not 
> have been clear and/or you might not have read correctly).
> 
> Let me try different way:
> 
> There is an I-D now, sfc-multi-layer-oam, that sends “SFC Active OAM" 
> packets with a new SFC next protocol for a newly created protocol. In 
> this case, the SFC next protocol is not expected to be used in user 
> packets, at least for now (or people have not thought about that 
> in hierarchical cases)
> 
> Imagine now that BFD or ICMP want to be used as an SFC Active OAM 
> protocols, instead of the sfc-multi-layer-oam one. Those can be 
> encapsulated in IP (even with a 127/8 destination). Using the O-bit set 
> and SFC NP as IP is the RFC 8300 expected way. (I imagine creating a new 
> SFC next protocol for “BFD-in-IP-used-in-SFC” so as to avoid an SFC NP 
> expected on external packets would be an approach if there was no O-bit 
> defined)
> 
> Best,
> 
> Carlos.
> 
>> 2/14/22 午前7:05、Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>のメール:
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to provide a careful reply.
>>
>> It appears, from your description of ICMP packets that your 
>> understanding of 8300 is that in SFC an external ICMP packet will get 
>> the O bit set in the NSH header.  Presumably, base on this, the SFF or 
>> SF are supposed to look through and notice this content?   (Otherwise, 
>> why set the bit?)  This seems an undesirable and expensive 
>> implications which other readers have not drawn from the RFC 8300 
>> text.  (It also requires the encapsulating node to do extra checking 
>> to discover this case.)
>>
>> Am I reading your expectation correctly?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 2/13/2022 11:06 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
>>> Replying to this specific email in the thread, only because it is the 
>>> latest one at this point in time, but bundling comments from various 
>>> places on the thread. Please find some follow-up comments and 
>>> questions marked “CMP”, indicating the “From”, and organized 
>>> chronologically:
>>> *James N Guichard <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>:*
>>>> 1) The chairs have reviewed the O bit definition in RFC 8300.  That 
>>>> definition is at best open to interpretation and therefore 
>>>> incomplete.  For example, the clear intention is only to mark 
>>>> packets which are intended for SFC OAM at the SFC service layer.  
>>>> But that is not what the current text says.  There is also, 
>>>> unfortunately, ambiguity as to what constitutes an OAM packet.  So 
>>>> it is reasonable for documents to update 8300 to clarify the exact 
>>>> applicability and action for the O-bit.
>>> CMP: It is unclear to me what exact issues the chairs are calling 
>>> out. There are two issues mentioned:
>>> CMP: 1. "But that is not what the current text says.” —> what does 
>>> the text say precisely?  Can you point to the specific RFC 8300 text 
>>> that is believed to be incomplete, and a detailed use case that 
>>> showcases the potential issue? An extrapolated counter-example just 
>>> to make a point: the text does not  say what days of the week OAM 
>>> packets can be marked, yet there’s an expectation that they will work 
>>> Mondays and Saturdays all the same — even holidays.
>>> CMP: 2. What specifically is the ambiguity with what an OAM packet 
>>> is? Please grep the RFC series for “oam packet”, it is not a new term.
>>> CMP: Net-net, O-bit=1, OAM packet.
>>>> 2) However, related to point 1), we can't have multiple documents 
>>>> updating the definition differently.  As such, the authors of the 
>>>> SFC iOAM draft and the SFC multi-layer-oam draft need to come 
>>>> together and figure out what the clarification is for the definition 
>>>> of that bit. We do not believe as chairs that either of these 
>>>> documents can move forward from the WG until such clarity has been 
>>>> reached.
>>> CMP: If there is still believed to be an ambiguity or a clear 
>>> opportunity for improving the definition, I agree with consolidating 
>>> that update. I had suggested before that if such new text or real 
>>> clarification is agreed, a separate document that only makes that 
>>> O-bit clarification is the most clear and clean way to go. That doc 
>>> should be a one-pager or less. I’d be happy to contribute to that 
>>> minimal doc, if it is shown to be needed.
>>> CMP: For completeness also, the "SFC multi-layer-oam” document has 
>>> many outstanding issues besides the O-bit.
>>> *Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>*
>>>> I've reviewed our SFC OAM documents and draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv. As I 
>>>> understand these documents, the Active SFC OAM and IOAM are 
>>>> identified by the respective values for the NSH Next Protocol field 
>>>> (to be assigned by IANA).
>>> CMP: There is a major issue with the sentence above. Active SFC OAM 
>>> (as a category), as per RFC 8300, needs to be identified by setting 
>>> the O-bit. No way around that based on RFC 8300. However, the text 
>>> "the Active SFC OAM” creates confusion since it refer to a specific 
>>> OAM protocol which has the same name as a the category as well. That 
>>> name collision is quite unfortunate in my opinion.
>>>> At the same time, so far no OAM-specific meta data TLV has been 
>>>> defined. Thus, it appears that one way forward could be to not 
>>>> involve the O bit in the active SFC OAM or IOAM altogether. In other 
>>>> words, to deprecate the NSH O bit.
>>> CMP: RFC 8924 already includes ICMP and BFD as example SFC Action OAM 
>>> protocols. Those can be encapsulated in IP, in which the 
>>> Next-Protocol indicates IP — and (as per RFC 8300) the O-bit is set 
>>> to indicate an OAM packet.
>>> CMP: The proposal of deprecating the O-bit breaks those SFC OAM 
>>> protocols already included in an RFC.
>>> CMP: That proposal of deprecating the O-bit also breaks Section 4.1 
>>> of IOAM.
>>> CMP: This expired I-D yet implemented in open source uses the O-bit: 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-penno-sfc-trace-03.txt 
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-penno-sfc-trace-03.txt> 
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-penno-sfc-trace-03.txt 
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-penno-sfc-trace-03.txt>>
>>> *Gyan Mishra <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>*
>>>> I agree that what makes sense to me as a path forward is to 
>>>> deprecate the O bit and not use in SFC Multilayer OAM and SFC IOAM, 
>>>> as both SFC Multilayer OAM and SFC IOAM are identified by the 
>>>> respective values for the NSH Next Protocol field (to be assigned by 
>>>> IANA), as well as so far no OAM-specific meta data TLV has been yet 
>>>> defined.
>>> CMP: What is the “SFC Multilayer OAM”?
>>> CMP: The O-bit (reading RFC 8300) does not indicate if there is OAM 
>>> Metadata. It indicates an OAM packet.
>>> *"Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>*
>>>> As far as I can tell, if we deprecate the O-bit and rely on the next 
>>>> protocol field, we are saying that in practice (not by rule) NSH 
>>>> metadata can not be used for OAM.  That's fine with me as long as we 
>>>> agree on that.
>>> CMP: I do not fully follow this. Can you explain the relationship of 
>>> the O-bit with Metadata?
>>> CMP: Here’s an example: RFC 8924 shows ICMP as Active OAM. The SFC 
>>> next protocol is IP, the IP next protocol is ICMP, the O-bit needs to 
>>> be set.
>>> CMP: Consider the following document, independent submission and in 
>>> the RFC Publication queue already:
>>> CMP: 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mymb-sfc-nsh-allocation-timestamp/ 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mymb-sfc-nsh-allocation-timestamp/> 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mymb-sfc-nsh-allocation-timestamp/ 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mymb-sfc-nsh-allocation-timestamp/>>
>>> CMP: Is a Timestamp in Metadata an OAM element?
>>> CMP: Consider this proposal 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm/ 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm/> 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm/ 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm/>>
>>> CMP: Where the base header borrows a bit for an OAM function.
>>> CMP: Neither of those have any impact on the O-bit.
>>> *Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>*
>>>> I agree that, as we find SFC NSH now, no OAM metadata has been 
>>>> defined. It appears to me that deprecating the O bit does not affect 
>>>> any of the already defined mechanisms in the SFC NSH.
>>> CMP: It actually does, see my example above.
>>>> I think that if a new, for example, MD Type = 2 TLV that is used for 
>>>> any OAM functionality to be proposed in the future, deprecated the O 
>>>> bit would not prevent using such NSH TLV.
>>> CMP: I agree with this — because there is no correlation between MD 
>>> Type field and O-bit as defined.
>>> Best,
>>> Carlos.
>>>> 2/13/22 午後12:32、Gyan Mishra <[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>のメール:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Joel
>>>>
>>>> I am in agreement as well with what you have stated that once the O 
>>>> bit is deprecated that NSH metadata cannot be used for OAM and that 
>>>> we would have to now from that point forward rely on the next 
>>>> protocol field as we will be doing for SFC Multilayer and SFC IOAM 
>>>> drafts as well as will have backwards compatible with any already 
>>>> existing defined mechanisms in SFC NSH.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t see any issues or impact with moving forward.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>
>>>> Gyan
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 12:04 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Hi Joel,
>>>>    I agree that, as we find SFC NSH now, no OAM metadata has been
>>>>    defined. It appears to me that deprecating the O bit does not
>>>>    affect any of the already defined mechanisms in the SFC NSH. I
>>>>    think that if a new, for example, MD Type = 2 TLV that is used for
>>>>    any OAM functionality to be proposed in the future, deprecated the
>>>>    O bit would not prevent using such NSH TLV.
>>>>    What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>    Regards,
>>>>    Greg
>>>>
>>>>    On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 6:55 AM Joel M. Halpern
>>>>    <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        There is an implication of deprecating the O-bit that I would
>>>>        like to
>>>>        hear from more WG participants about.
>>>>
>>>>        As far as I can tell, if we deprecate the O-bit and rely on
>>>>        the next
>>>>        protocol field, we are saying that in practice (not by rule) NSH
>>>>        metadata can not be used for OAM.  That's fine with me as long
>>>>        as we
>>>>        agree on that.
>>>>
>>>>        Yours,
>>>>        Joel
>>>>
>>>>        On 2/13/2022 2:52 AM, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>>>>        >
>>>>        > Hi Jim, Joel & SFC WG,
>>>>        >
>>>>        > I agree that the RFC 8300 definition of O bit is incomplete
>>>>        and not
>>>>        > clear as to its intended use.
>>>>        >
>>>>        > That is a problem that I agree needs to be rectified.
>>>>        >
>>>>        > I understand that we need to get this resolved before we can
>>>>        progress
>>>>        > Multilayer SFC OAM draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-18 and SFC
>>>>        IOAM.
>>>>        >
>>>>        > I agree that what makes sense to me as a path forward is to
>>>>        deprecate
>>>>        > the O bit and not use in SFC Multilayer OAM and SFC IOAM, as
>>>>        both SFC
>>>>        > Multilayer OAM and SFC IOAM are identified by the respective
>>>>        values for
>>>>        > the NSH Next Protocol field (to be assigned by IANA), as
>>>>        well as so far
>>>>        > no OAM-specific meta data TLV has been yet defined.
>>>>        >
>>>>        > So we have I believe solid solution and path forward and I
>>>>        support
>>>>        > deprecating the O bit.
>>>>        >
>>>>        > Kind Regards
>>>>        >
>>>>        > Gyan
>>>>        >
>>>>        > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 5:42 PM Greg Mirsky
>>>>        <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>        > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>> wrote:
>>>>        >
>>>>        >     Thank you, Jim and Joel, for guiding the SFC OAM work
>>>>        and pointing
>>>>        >     out the issue that must be addressed.
>>>>        >
>>>>        >     I've reviewed our SFC OAM documents and
>>>>        draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv. As I
>>>>        >     understand these documents, the Active SFC OAM and IOAM are
>>>>        >     identified by the respective values for the NSH Next
>>>>        Protocol field
>>>>        >     (to be assigned by IANA). At the same time, so far no
>>>>        OAM-specific
>>>>        >     meta data TLV has been defined. Thus, it appears that
>>>>        one way
>>>>        >     forward could be to not involve the O bit in the active
>>>>        SFC OAM or
>>>>        >     IOAM altogether. In other words, to deprecate the NSH O 
>>>> bit.
>>>>        >
>>>>        >     I greatly appreciate your comments on the proposal to
>>>>        deprecate the
>>>>        >     NSH O bit.
>>>>        >
>>>>        >     Regards,
>>>>        >     Greg
>>>>        >
>>>>        >     On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 10:36 AM James Guichard
>>>>        >     <[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>        >     <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>> wrote:
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         Hi WG:____
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         __ __
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         Having reviewed all of the OAM related documents in
>>>>        our WG, the
>>>>        >         chairs would like to provide a few comments to 
>>>> hopefully
>>>>        >         generate discussion and forward progress of this
>>>>        work:____
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         __ __
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         1) The chairs have reviewed the O bit definition in
>>>>        RFC 8300.
>>>>        >         That definition is at best open to interpretation
>>>>        and therefore
>>>>        >         incomplete.  For example, the clear intention is
>>>>        only to mark
>>>>        >         packets which are intended for SFC OAM at the SFC
>>>>        service
>>>>        >         layer.  But that is not what the current text says. 
>>>>         There is
>>>>        >         also, unfortunately, ambiguity as to what
>>>>        constitutes an OAM
>>>>        >         packet.  So it is reasonable for documents to update
>>>>        8300 to
>>>>        >         clarify the exact applicability and action for the
>>>>        O-bit.____
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         __ __
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         2) However, related to point 1), we can't have multiple
>>>>        >         documents updating the definition differently.  As
>>>>        such, the
>>>>        >         authors of the SFC iOAM draft and the SFC
>>>>        multi-layer-oam draft
>>>>        >         need to come together and figure out what the
>>>>        clarification is
>>>>        >         for the definition of that bit. We do not believe as
>>>>        chairs that
>>>>        >         either of these documents can move forward from the
>>>>        WG until
>>>>        >         such clarity has been reached. ____
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         __ __
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         3) Related to the SFC iOAM, we need a clear
>>>>        definition of iOAM.
>>>>        >         There seem to be differences between the definitions in
>>>>        >         published RFCs, the usage (which is not a
>>>>        definition) in the SFC
>>>>        >         draft, and the various ippm drafts.  Any such
>>>>        definition will
>>>>        >         need to be vetted with the ippm working group.____
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         __ __
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         Again, it would be good if members of the working
>>>>        group beyond
>>>>        >         the two author teams spoke up about their readings
>>>>        of the
>>>>        >         documents, and their understandings of what we 
>>>> need.____
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         __ __
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         Yours,____
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         Jim and Joel____
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         __ __
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         __ __
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         __ __
>>>>        >
>>>>        >         _______________________________________________
>>>>        >         sfc mailing list
>>>>        > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>>>        > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>
>>>>        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>>
>>>>        >         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>
>>>>        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>>>
>>>>        >
>>>>        >     _______________________________________________
>>>>        >     sfc mailing list
>>>>        > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>>>>        > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>
>>>>        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>>
>>>>        >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>
>>>>        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>>>
>>>>        >
>>>>        > --
>>>>        >
>>>>        > <http://www.verizon.com/ <http://www.verizon.com/> 
>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/ <http://www.verizon.com/>>>
>>>>        >
>>>>        > *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>        >
>>>>        > /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>>>>        >
>>>>        > /Email [e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>        <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>//
>>>>        > /
>>>>        >
>>>>        > /M 301 502-1347
>>>>        >
>>>>        > /
>>>>        >
>>>>        >
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/ <http://www.verizon.com/>>
>>>>
>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>> /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>>>> /Email [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>//
>>>> /
>>>> /M 301 502-1347
>>>>
>>>> /
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sfc mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sfc mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
>