In-situ OAM IPv6 Options
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9486.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Shwetha Bhandari , Frank Brockners , Carlos Pignataro , Hannes Gredler , John Leddy , Stephen Youell , Tal Mizrahi , Aviv Kfir , Barak Gafni , Petr Lapukhov , Mickey Spiegel , Suresh Krishnan , Rajiv Asati | ||
| Last updated | 2020-03-09 (Latest revision 2019-09-26) | ||
| Replaces | draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-08)
by Joel Halpern
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9486 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-01
ippm S. Bhandari
Internet-Draft F. Brockners
Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro
Expires: September 9, 2020 Cisco
H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
J. Leddy
Comcast
S. Youell
JMPC
T. Mizrahi
Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab
A. Kfir
B. Gafni
Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
P. Lapukhov
Facebook
M. Spiegel
Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
S. Krishnan
Kaloom
R. Asati
Cisco
March 08, 2020
In-situ OAM IPv6 Options
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-01
Abstract
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet
traverses a path between two points in the network. This document
outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in IPv6.
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 https://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
Bhandari, et al. Expires September 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation March 2020
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 September 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://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
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet
traverses a path between two points in the network. This document
outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in the IPv6 [RFC8200].
2. Conventions
Bhandari, et al. Expires September 9, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation March 2020
2.1. 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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in this document:
E2E: Edge-to-Edge
IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
POT: Proof of Transit
3. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6
In-situ OAM in IPv6 is used to enhance diagnostics of IPv6 networks.
It complements other mechanisms proposed to enhance diagnostics of
IPv6 networks, such as the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics
Destination Option described in [RFC8250].
IOAM data fields are encapsulated in "option data" fields of two
types of extension headers in IPv6 packets - either Hop-by-Hop
Options header or Destination options header. The selection of a
particular extension header type depends on IOAM usage, as described
in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Multiple options with the
same Option Type MAY appear in the same Hop-by-Hop Options or
Destination Options header, with varying content.
In order for IOAM to work in IPv6 networks, IOAM MUST be explicitly
enabled per interface on every node within the IOAM domain. Unless a
particular interface is explicitly enabled (i.e. explicitly
configured) for IOAM, a router MUST drop packets which contain
extension headers carrying IOAM data-fields. This is the default
behavior and is independent of whether the Hop-by-Hop options or
Destination options are used to encode the IOAM data. This ensures
that IOAM data does not unintentionally get forwarded outside the
IOAM domain.
An IPv6 packet carrying IOAM data in an Extension header can have
other extension headers, compliant with [RFC8200].
Bhandari, et al. Expires September 9, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation March 2020
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option format for carrying in-situ
OAM data fields:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len | Reserved | IOAM Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| | |
. . I
. Option Data . O
. . A
. . M
. . .
. . O
. . P
. . T
. . I
. . O
. . N
. . |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
Option Type: 8-bit identifier of the type of option.
Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the Reserved and
Option Data field of this option, in octets.
Reserved: 8-bit field MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
ignored upon reception.
IOAM Type: 8-bit field as defined in section 7.2 in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Option Data: Variable-length field. Option-Type-specific data.
In-situ OAM Options are inserted as Option data as follows:
1. Pre-allocated Tracing Option: The in-situ OAM Preallocated
Tracing option defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is
represented as a IPv6 option in hop by hop extension header:
Option Type: 001xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of
option. xxxxx=TBD.
IOAM Type: IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Type.
Bhandari, et al. Expires September 9, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation March 2020
2. Incremental Tracing Option: The in-situ OAM Incremental Tracing
option defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a
IPv6 option in hop by hop extension header:
Option Type: 001xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of
option. xxxxx=TBD.
IOAM Type: IOAM Incremental Trace Option Type.
3. Proof of Transit Option: The in-situ OAM POT option defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a IPv6 option in hop
by hop extension header:
Option Type: 001xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of
option. xxxxx=TBD.
IOAM Type: IOAM POT Option Type.
4. Edge to Edge Option: The in-situ OAM E2E option defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a IPv6 option in IPv6
option in destination options extension header:
Option Type: 000xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of
option. xxxxx=TBD.
IOAM Type: IOAM E2E Option Type.
All the in-situ OAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment
requirements. Specifically, they all require 4n alignment. This
ensures that 4 octet fields specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
such as transit delay are aligned at a multiple-of-4 offset from the
start of the Hop-by-Hop Options header. In addition, to maintain
IPv6 extension header 8-octet alignment and avoid the need to add or
remove padding at every hop, the Trace-Type for Incremental Tracing
Option in IPv6 MUST be selected such that the IOAM node data length
is a multiple of 8-octets.
An outline of how the options defined here can be enabled and used in
an IPv6 network is provided in
[I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment].
4. Security Considerations
This document describes the encapsulation of IOAM data fields in
IPv6. Security considerations of the specific IOAM data fields for
each case (i.e., Trace, Proof of Transit, and E2E) are described in
defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Bhandari, et al. Expires September 9, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation March 2020
As this document describes new options for IPv6 , these are similar
to the security considerations of [RFC8200] and the new weakness
documented in [RFC8250].
5. IANA Considerations
This draft requests the following IPv6 Option Type assignments from
the Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options sub-registry of
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-
parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2
Hex Value Binary Value Description Reference
act chg rest
----------------------------------------------------------------
TBD_1_0 00 0 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft]
TBD_1_1 00 1 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft]
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Tom Herbert, Eric Vyncke, Nalini
Elkins, Srihari Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra
Babu, Akshaya Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik
Nordmark, LJ Wobker, Mark Smith, and Andrew Yourtchenko for the
comments and advice. For the IPv6 encapsulation, this document
leverages concepts described in [I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route].
The authors would like to acknowledge the work done by the author
Hiroshi Kitamura and people involved in writing it.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
P., Chang, R., and d. daniel.bernier@bell.ca, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-01 (work in
progress), October 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Bhandari, et al. Expires September 9, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation March 2020
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment]
Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni,
B., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., and M. Smith, "Deployment
Considerations for In-situ OAM with IPv6 Options", draft-
ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment-01 (work in
progress), March 2019.
[I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route]
Kitamura, H., "Record Route for IPv6 (PR6) Hop-by-Hop
Option Extension", draft-kitamura-ipv6-record-route-00
(work in progress), November 2000.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.
Authors' Addresses
Shwetha Bhandari
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Sarjapura Marathalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 087
India
Email: shwethab@cisco.com
Frank Brockners
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Kaiserswerther Str. 115,
RATINGEN, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40880
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Bhandari, et al. Expires September 9, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation March 2020
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
John Leddy
Comcast
Email: John_Leddy@cable.comcast.com
Stephen Youell
JP Morgan Chase
25 Bank Street
London E14 5JP
United Kingdom
Email: stephen.youell@jpmorgan.com
Tal Mizrahi
Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab
Israel
Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
Aviv Kfir
Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
U.S.A.
Email: avivk@mellanox.com
Bhandari, et al. Expires September 9, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation March 2020
Barak Gafni
Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
U.S.A.
Email: gbarak@mellanox.com
Petr Lapukhov
Facebook
1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
US
Email: petr@fb.com
Mickey Spiegel
Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
4750 Patrick Henry Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95054
US
Email: mickey.spiegel@intel.com
Suresh Krishnan
Kaloom
Email: suresh@kaloom.com
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Bhandari, et al. Expires September 9, 2020 [Page 9]