RTG Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft R. White
Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: April 21, 2016 E. Nordmark
Arista Networks
C. Pignataro
N. Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
S. Aldrin
L. Zheng
M. Chen
Huawei Technologies
N. Akiya
Big Switch Networks
S. Pallagatti
Juniper Networks
October 19, 2015

Rationale for Transport-independent Common Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)


This document discusses set of Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) tools that can be used as common OAM independent of specific encapsulation at server layer. Requirements toward server layer to support common OAM are listed as well.

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 April 21, 2016.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2015 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

The introduction and development of new service layers such as Service Function Chaining (SFC) and Bit-Ingress Explicit Replication (BIER), is driving the need for new Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) tools. This document discusses benefits of Common transport independent OAM solution to support components of network management framework known as Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance, and Security (FCAPS):

1.1. Conventions used in this document

1.1.1. Terminology

The term "OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for a particular layer".

BIER: Bit-Ingress Explicit Replication

FCAPS: Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance, and Security

OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance

SFC: Service Function Chaining

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. Use Case for Common OAM

Recently several new service layers have been developed in IETF. Each of responsible groups, e.g. SPRING, NVO3, SFC, BIER, have formulated a set of OAM requirements, specific to their respective layer [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement], [I-D.ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements], [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework], and [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]. Proposals have already been put forward to satisfy those requirements, though mostly by enhancing existing OAM tools, such as LSP Ping [I-D.kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]. Enhancing existing tools certainly leads to faster deployment of OAM but may create operational issues later on. For instance, these new service layers may be implemented a wide range of transport layers, e.g. MPLS or IPv6, so OAM tools that are transport-oriented like LSP Ping would not be able to perform end-to-end for inter-domain scenario.

At the same time, the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol is being successfully adopted for IPv6 and MPLS networks, and efforts are moving forward to define transport-independent OAM tool based only on the requirements of one of these new services, BIER.

[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap] raised question of common OAM for NVO3, SFC, and BIER. We want to take this further and:

3. IANA Considerations

This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section may be removed.

4. Security Considerations

This document does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common to networking.

5. Acknowledgement


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.

6.2. Informative References

[I-D.ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements] Chen, H., Ashwood-Smith, P., Xia, L., Iyengar, R., Tsou, T., Sajassi, A., Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Daikoku, M., Ghanwani, A. and R. Krishnan, "NVO3 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Requirements", Internet-Draft draft-ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements-04, October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements] Mirsky, G., Nordmark, E., Pignataro, C., Kumar, N., Aldrin, S., Zheng, L., Chen, M., Akiya, N. and J. Networks, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-00, September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap] Nordmark, E., Tian, A., Gross, J., Hudson, J., Kreeger, L., Garg, P., Thaler, P. and T. Herbert, "Encapsulation Considerations", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-00, July 2015.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework] Aldrin, S., Krishnan, R., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C. and A. Ghanwani, "Service Function Chaining Operation, Administration and Maintenance Framework", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-sfc-oam-framework-00, August 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement] Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G. and S. Litkowski, "OAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-00, June 2015.
[I-D.kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping] Kumar, N., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Kini, S., Gredler, H. and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane", Internet-Draft draft-kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-04, July 2015.

Authors' Addresses

Greg Mirsky Ericsson EMail: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
Russ White Ericsson EMail: russ@riw.us
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
Sam Aldrin Google EMail: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Lianshu Zheng Huawei Technologies EMail: vero.zheng@huawei.com
Mach Chen Huawei Technologies EMail: mach.chen@huawei.com
Nobo Akiya Big Switch Networks EMail: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
Santosh Pallagatti Juniper Networks EMail: santoshpk@juniper.net