How OAM Identified in Overlay Protocols

Similar documents
In-situ OAM. IPPM November 6 th, 2018

How to send OAM information in packet networks?

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: May 2018

Intended Status: Standard Track. Dan Wing Calvin Qian. VMware. Expires: January 1, 2018 June 30, 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5885 Category: Standards Track July 2016 ISSN:

A Segment Routing (SR) Tutorial. R. Bonica NANOG70 June 6, 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7881 Category: Standards Track. Big Switch Networks July 2016

IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework (Title updated formerly referred to as IPv6 update) draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-02

Intended Status: Informational. Intel. Arista Networks. Expires: September 13, 2017 March 12, 2017

Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) WG. IETF 93, July 2015, Prague

EVPN OAM Requirements and Framework and BFD draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01 draft-gmsm-evpn-bfd-01

draft-xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction

A packet based method for passive performance monitoring

UDP Encapsulation in Linux netdev0.1 Conference February 16, Tom Herbert

VXLAN Overview: Cisco Nexus 9000 Series Switches

MPLS Segment Routing in IP Networks

Software-Defined Multicast Network Overlay Framework draft-qi-bitar-intarea-sdn-multicast-overlay-00

Geneve Header Authentication and Encryption Option

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: August 31, 2018 Y. Fan China Telecom February 27, 2018

Generic Overlay OAM and Datapath Failure Detec6on. Kanwar Singh (Nuage Networks)

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8300 ISSN: C. Pignataro, Ed. Cisco. January 2018

A BGP-Based Control Plane for Service Function Chaining

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. S. Aldrin Google Inc. March 2018

Data Plane Monitoring in Segment Routing Networks Faisal Iqbal Cisco Systems Clayton Hassen Bell Canada

SFC in the DOCSIS Network James Kim Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.

IPSec. Overview. Overview. Levente Buttyán

Packetization Layer Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PLPMTU) For IPsec Tunnels

Implementing NSH Based Service Chaining

Transport Area Working Group

UDP Path for In-band Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Dolganow Nokia T. Przygienda. Juniper Networks, Inc. S. Aldrin Google, Inc.

Cloud e Datacenter Networking

Cloud e Datacenter Networking

Bit Indexed Explicit Replication A Stateless Multicast Architecture. Nagendra Kumar Nainar NANOG72

Identifier Locator Addressing IETF95

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7759 Category: Standards Track

Data Center Configuration. 1. Configuring VXLAN

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. M. Conn D. Pacella L. Tomotaki Verizon January 2016

Cisco Systems June 2009

Internet Engineering Task Force

Internet Engineering Task Force

Enhanced Virtual Private Networks (VPN+)

Multicast VPN using BIER

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Obsoletes: 4379, 6424, 6829, 7537

Federal Agencies and the Transition to IPv6

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7189 Category: Standards Track March 2014 ISSN:

Network Scalability Ignas Bagdonas RIPE68 13-MAY-2014

IPv6 over IPv4 GRE Tunnels

Multicast Information Model

QoS in IPv6. Madrid Global IPv6 Summit 2002 March Alberto López Toledo.

On the cost of tunnel endpoint processing in overlay virtual networks

Springpath Qiang. Zu Ericsson S. Davari yahoo X. Liu Jabil January 3, This document defines a YANG data model for VxLAN protocol.

White Paper. Huawei Campus Switches VXLAN Technology. White Paper

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8431 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Cisco Systems, Inc. April 2015

Routing Working Group. Expires: May 25, 2018 A. Saxena Ciena Corporation November 21, 2017

BIG-IP TMOS : Tunneling and IPsec. Version 13.0

BNG - Control & User Plane Separation Architecture, Requirements & Interfaces

Identifier Locator Addressing with IPv6

VXLAN Design with Cisco Nexus 9300 Platform Switches

Transport Independent OAM Multi-Layer (TIME) Problem Statement & Activity, IETF Toronto July20,2014

IPv6 over IPv4 GRE Tunnels

IPv6 over IPv4 GRE Tunnels

LARGE SCALE IP ROUTING LECTURE BY SEBASTIAN GRAF

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: N. Bitar Nokia R. Shekhar. Juniper. J. Uttaro AT&T W. Henderickx Nokia March 2018

December Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires. Status of This Memo

Network Working Group. Category: Informational June Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)

DetNet. Flow Definition and Identification, Features and Mapping to/from TSN. DetNet TSN joint workshop IETF / IEEE 802, Bangkok

Network Layer (4): ICMP

The IPsec protocols. Overview

Next-gen Network Telemetry is Within Your Packets: In-band OAM

Cisco IOS LISP Application Note Series: Access Control Lists

Unicast Forwarding. Unicast. Unicast Forwarding Flows Overview. Intra Subnet Forwarding (Bridging) Unicast, on page 1

LISP: Intro and Update

Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in IGPs

Service Function Chaining Metadata Type 1 and Type 2 draft-sarikaya-sfc-metadatat1t2-01

J. Korhonen, Ed. Intended status: Informational Expires: September 22, Ericsson P. Thubert Cisco Y. Zhuang Huawei L. Berger LabN March 21, 2016

Pluribus Data Center Interconnect Validated

Resource Allocation Resource Usage Data Access Control. Network Intelligence, Guidance. Statistics, States, Objects and Events.

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Tunneling Configuration

Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. Intended status: Informational July 16, 2012 Expires: January 17, 2013

SR for SD-WAN over hybrid networks

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Tata Communications F. Jounay Orange CH S. Delord January 2014

Multicast Yang Model

Higher scalability to address more Layer 2 segments: up to 16 million VXLAN segments.

Position of IP and other network-layer protocols in TCP/IP protocol suite

Main Use Cases and Gap Analysis for Network Slicing

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7213 Category: Standards Track. M. Bocci Alcatel-Lucent June 2014

Cloud Networking (VITMMA02) Network Virtualization: Overlay Networks OpenStack Neutron Networking

Transition To IPv6 October 2011

MPLS LSP Ping Traceroute for LDP TE and LSP Ping for VCCV

Location ID Separation Protocol. Gregory Johnson -

Shim6: Network Operator Concerns. Jason Schiller Senior Internet Network Engineer IP Core Infrastructure Engineering UUNET / MCI

Implementing IP in IP Tunnel

Configuring MPLS Transport Profile

ODL SFC. Release master

Intended status: Standards Track. S. Salam Cisco Q. Wu, Ed. M. Wang Huawei March 20, 2016

DPDK Tunneling Offload RONY EFRAIM & YONGSEOK KOH MELLANOX

Mapping of Address and Port Using Translation

Transport Independent OAM Multi-Layer (TIME) Problem Statement & Activity, IETF Toronto July20,2014

Transcription:

How OAM Identified in Overlay Protocols draft-mirsky-rtgwg-oam-identify Greg Mirsky IETF-102 July 2018, Montreal

Problem statement How to achieve unambiguous identification of OAM? Active OAM uses specifically constructed packets test packets. Fault Management and Performance Monitoring ( F and P in FCAPS) Single-ended vs. dual-ended, e.g., ping vs. BFD in Async mode Two-way vs. one-way, e.g., Echo request/reply vs. BFD in Demand mode Hybrid OAM, according to RFC 7799, is an OAM method that combines properties of passive and active measurement methods: Alternate Marking method triggers measurement In-situ OAM triggers measurement, collects and transports the measurement results, network state information, a.k.a. telemetry information, in the data packet itself The Hybrid Two-Step method collects and transports the telemetry information on-path in a follow-up packets Overlay network protocols use: encapsulations that support optional meta-data, i.e., variable size headers (Geneve, SFC NSH, GUE) encapsulations that use fixed-size headers (BIER, VXLAN-GPE)

Overlay Tunnels and OAM draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve: O (1 bit): OAM packet. This packet contains a control message instead of a data payload. Endpoints MUST NOT forward the payload and transit devices MUST NOT attempt to interpret or process it. Since these are infrequent control messages, it is RECOMMENDED that endpoints direct these packets to a high priority control queue (for example, to direct the packet to a general purpose CPU from a forwarding ASIC or to separate out control traffic on a NIC). Transit devices MUST NOT alter forwarding behavior on the basis of this bit, such as ECMP link selection. draft-ietf-intarea-gue: C-bit provides the separate namespace to carry formatted data that are implicitly addressed to the decapsulator to monitor or control the state or behavior of a tunnel. The payload is interpreted as a control message with type specified in the proto/ctype field. The format and contents of the control message are indicated by the type and can be variable length.

SFC NSH and OAM RFC 8300 Network Service Header: O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM packet. draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework: While the presence of OAM marker in the overlay header (e.g., O bit in the NSH header) indicates it as OAM packet, it is not sufficient to indicate what OAM function the packet is intended for. draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh:... the O bit MUST NOT be set for regular customer traffic which also carries IOAM data and the O bit MUST be set for OAM packets which carry only IOAM data without any regular data payload.

Fixed-size header and OAM RFC 8296 4 Encapsulation for BIER in MPLS and Non-MPLS Networks: OAM packet identified by the value of the Next Protocol field. IANA BIER Next Protocol Identifiers registry includes the identifier for OAM (5). draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe: OAM Flag Bit (O bit): The O bit is set to indicate that the packet is an OAM packet.

Dual OAM Identification What is the definition of OAM packet? OAM commands or information present in the header as meta-data OAM commands or information immediately follow the header What are the issues with using the flag field to identify OAM packet? The ambiguity of O-bit being set and a non-zero value in the Next Protocol field RFC 8393 Operating the Network Service Header (NSH) with Next Protocol "None suggests the optional use of O-bit set and the value None in the Next Protocol field as active OAM with OAM commands or information in MD Type=2. The problem is that the Length is limited to 512 octets (Geneve limits TLV to 128 octets of payload). That will affect applicability in Service Activation Testing and OAM methods that must generate synthetic traffic with a wider range of packets (up to Jumbo frame size). How to identify OAM command or information immediately follow the header?

Recommendations OAM control commands and data may be present as part of the overlay encapsulation header or as a payload that follows the overlay network header. The recommendations: OAM in the overlay header, if supported by the overlay network, identified by the dedicated flag. Use of this method as active OAM is possible but functionality is limited. The scope of the OAM flag is the meta-data included in the header. OAM that follows the overlay header identified as payload type, e.g. by the value of the Next Protocol field.

Active OAM: Source Identifier OAM packet source identifier is required for single-ended two-way methods, e.g., echo request/reply IP underlay natively provides the Source ID When the underlay is MPLS data plane options are: use, if available, Sender ID in the overlay, e.g., BFR ID in BIER use IP/UDP encapsulation with the destination IP address from the martian range, e.g., from 127/8 range for IPv4 and from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6 non-ip encapsulation to avoid the overhead of extra IP/UDP encapsulation

On-path OAM Identification OAM toolset may include methods that don't use specially constructed and injected in the network test packets. RFC 7799 defines OAM methods that are neither entirely active nor passive but are combine both as hybrid methods. Examples: The Alternate Marking Method (AMM) (RFC 8321) uses the dedicated field in the header to trigger a performance measurement (packet loss, delay, delay variation, residence time, etc.). Applicability of AMM discussed in the number of drafts: BIER, SFC, NVO3, IPv6 (V6OPS WG) In-situ OAM (ioam) uses OAM flag in the header and/or values of the Next Protocol field to identify ioam commands and/or data Hybrid Two-Step (HTS) collects and transports the measurement results and/or the telemetry information in the payload immediately following the header. Uses the value of the Next Protocol field.

Next steps Non-IP encapsulation of OAM packets over MPLS underlay Update the document on GUE (thanks to Tom Herbert) Your comments, suggestions, questions always welcome and greatly appreciated WG adoption? (May not need to publish but it may serve to reflect on the discussion)