SFC F. Brockners, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Bhandari, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: March 14, 2020 September 11, 2019

Network Service Header (NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data


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 Network Service Header (NSH).

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 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 March 14, 2020.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2019 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

In-situ OAM (IOAM), as defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], records OAM information within the packet while the packet traverses a particular network domain. The term "in-situ" refers to the fact that the OAM data is added to the data packets rather than is being sent within packets specifically dedicated to OAM. This document defines how IOAM data fields are transported as part of the Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] encapsulation for the Service Function Chaining (SFC) [RFC7665]. The IOAM data fields are defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. An implementation of IOAM which leverages NSH to carry the IOAM data is available from the FD.io open source software project [FD.io].

2. Conventions

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.

Abbreviations used in this document:

In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
Network Service Header
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
Service Function Chaining
Type, Length, Value

3. IOAM data fields encapsulation in NSH

The NSH is defined in [RFC8300]. IOAM data fields are carried in NSH using a next protocol header which follows the NSH MD context headers. An IOAM header is added containing the different IOAM data fields defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. In an administrative domain where IOAM is used, insertion of the IOAM header in NSH is enabled at the NSH tunnel endpoints, which also serve as IOAM encapsulating/decapsulating nodes by means of configuration.

 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
|Ver|O|U|    TTL    |   Length  |U|U|U|U|MD Type| NP = TBD_IOAM |  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  N
|          Service Path Identifier              | Service Index |  S
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  H
|                            ...                                |  |
|  IOAM-Type    | IOAM HDR len  |    Reserved   | Next Protocol |  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  I
!                                                               |  O
!                                                               |  A
~                 IOAM Option and Data Space                    ~  M
|                                                               |  |
|                                                               |  |
|                                                               |
|                                                               |
|                 Payload + Padding (L2/L3/ESP/...)             |
|                                                               |
|                                                               |
|                                                               |

The NSH header and fields are defined in [RFC8300]. The "NSH Next Protocol" value (referred to as "NP" in the diagram above) is TBD_IOAM.

The IOAM related fields in NSH are defined as follows:

Multiple IOAM options MAY be included within the NSH encapsulation. For example, if a NSH encapsulation contains two IOAM options before a data payload, the Next Protocol field of the first IOAM option will contain the value of TBD_IOAM, while the Next Protocol field of the second IOAM option will contain the "NSH Next Protocol" number indicating the type of the data payload.

4. Considerations

This section summarizes a set of considerations on the overall approach taken for IOAM data encapsulation in NSH, as well as deployment considerations.

4.1. Discussion of the encapsulation approach

This section is to support the working group discussion in selecting the most appropriate approach for encapsulating IOAM data fields in NSH.

An encapsulation of IOAM data fields in NSH should be friendly to an implementation in both hardware as well as software forwarders and support a wide range of deployment cases, including large networks that desire to leverage multiple IOAM data fields at the same time.

Different approaches for encapsulating IOAM data fields in NSH could be considered:

  1. Encapsulation of IOAM data fields as "NSH MD Type 2" (see [RFC8300], Section 2.5). Each IOAM data field option (trace, proof-of-transit, and edge-to-edge) would be specified by a type, with the different IOAM data fields being TLVs within this the particular option type. NSH MD Type 2 offers support for variable length meta-data. The length field is 6-bits, resulting in a maximum of 256 (2^6 x 4) octets.
  2. Encapsulation of IOAM data fields using the "Next Protocol" field. Each IOAM data field option (trace, proof-of-transit, and edge-to-edge) would be specified by its own "next protocol".
  3. Encapsulation of IOAM data fields using the "Next Protocol" field. A single NSH protocol type code point would be allocated for IOAM. A "sub-type" field would then specify what IOAM options type (trace, proof-of-transit, edge-to-edge) is carried.

The third option has been chosen here. This option avoids the additional layer of TLV nesting that the use of NSH MD Type 2 would result in. In addition, this option does not constrain IOAM data to a maximum of 256 octets, thus allowing support for very large deployments.

4.2. IOAM and the use of the NSH O-bit

[RFC8300] defines an "O bit" for OAM packets. Per [RFC8300] the O bit must be set for OAM packets and must not be set for non-OAM packets. Packets with IOAM data included MUST follow this definition, i.e. 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.

5. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to allocate protocol numbers for the following "NSH Next Protocol" related to IOAM:

              | Next Protocol | Description | Reference     |
              | x             | TBD_IOAM    | This document |

6. Security Considerations

IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where one or several operators decide on leveraging and configuring IOAM according to their needs. Still, operators need to properly secure the IOAM domain to avoid malicious configuration and use, which could include injecting malicious IOAM packets into a domain.

7. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Eric Vyncke, Nalini Elkins, Srihari Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra Babu, Akshaya Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik Nordmark, LJ Wobker, and Andrew Yourtchenko for the comments and advice.

8. Contributors

In addition to editors listed on the title page, the following people have contributed to this document:

   Vengada Prasad Govindan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Email: venggovi@cisco.com

   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
   Email: john@leddy.net

   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
   Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com

   David Mozes
   Email: mosesster@gmail.com

   Petr Lapukhov
   1 Hacker Way
   Menlo Park, CA  94025
   Email: petr@fb.com

   Remy Chang
   Barefoot Networks
   2185 Park Boulevard
   Palo Alto, CA  94306

9. References

9.1. 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., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d. and J. Lemon, "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-06, July 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Elzur, U. and C. Pignataro, "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018.

9.2. Informative References

[FD.io] "Fast Data Project: FD.io"
[RFC7665] Halpern, J. and C. Pignataro, "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015.

Authors' Addresses

Frank Brockners (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40549 Germany EMail: fbrockne@cisco.com
Shwetha Bhandari (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Cessna Business Park, Sarjapura Marathalli Outer Ring Road Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 087, India EMail: shwethab@cisco.com