Routing Area Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track E. Nordmark
Expires: January 9, 2017 Arista Networks
C. Pignataro
N. Kumar
D. Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Chen
Y. Li
Huawei Technologies
D. Mozes
Mellanox Technologies Ltd.
I. Bagdonas
July 8, 2016
On-demand Continuity Check (CC) and Connectivity Verification(CV) for
Overlay Networks
draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv-00
Abstract
This document defines Overlay Echo Request and Echo Reply that enable
on-demand Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification among other
operations in overlay networks.
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 January 9, 2017.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks July 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification . . 3
2.1. Overlay Echo Request Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Overlay Echo Request Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Overlay Echo Reply Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Overlay Echo Reply Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Overlay Ping Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Overlay Ping Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Overlay Ping Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Overlay Ping Reply Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks July 2016
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".
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 Virtualization Overlays
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
SFC Service Function 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. On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
The format of the control packet to support ping and traceroute
functionality in overlay networks Figure 1 is similar to the format
of MPLS LSP Ping [RFC4379].
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks July 2016
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 1: 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 Message Type filed reflects the type of the packet. Value
TBA2 identifies echo request and TBA3 - echo reply
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 length of the Value
field in octets.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks July 2016
2.1. Overlay Echo Request Transmission
2.2. Overlay Echo Request Reception
2.3. Overlay Echo Reply Transmission
The Reply Mode field directs whether and how the echo reply message
should be sent. The sender of the echo request MAY use TLVs to
request that corresponding echo reply be sent using the specified
path. Value TBA3 is referred as "Do not reply" mode and suppresses
transmission of echo reply packet. Default value (TBA4) for the
Reply mode field requests the responder to send the echo reply packet
out-of-band as IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet. [Selection of destination
and source IP addresses and UDP port numbers to be provided in the
next update.]
2.4. Overlay Echo Reply Reception
3. IANA Considerations
3.1. Overlay Ping Type
IANA is requested to assign new type from the Overlay OAM Protocol
Types registry as follows:
+-------+--------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------+---------------+
| TBA1 | Overlay Ping | This document |
+-------+--------------+---------------+
Table 1: Overlay Ping Type
3.2. Overlay Ping Parameters
IANA is requested to create new Overlay Ping Parameters registry.
3.3. Overlay Ping Message Types
IANA is requested to create in the Overlay Ping Parameters registry
the new sub-registry Message Types. All code points in the range 1
through 191 in this registry shall be allocated according to the
"IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC5226] and assign values
as follows:
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks July 2016
+---------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+---------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | |
| TBA1 | Overlay Echo Request | This document |
| TBA2 | Overlay Echo Reply | This document |
| 192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First Served |
| 252-254 | Reserved | Private Use |
| 255 | Reserved | |
+---------+----------------------+-------------------------+
Table 2: Overlay Ping Message Types
3.4. Overlay Ping Reply Modes
IANA is requested to create in the Overlay Ping Parameters registry
the new sub-registry Reply Modes All code points in the range 1
through 191 in this registry shall be allocated according to the
"IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC5226] and assign values
as follows:
+---------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+---------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | |
| TBA3 | Do not reply | This document |
| TBA4 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP | This document |
| | packet | |
| 192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First |
| | | Served |
| 252-254 | Reserved | Private Use |
| 255 | Reserved | |
+---------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
Table 3: Overlay Ping Reply Modes
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. Acknowledgement
TBD
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks July 2016
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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
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
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft On-demand CC/CV for Overlay Networks July 2016
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
Ignas Bagdonas
Email: ibagdona@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 8]