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.

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

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.

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

    
       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 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].

The interpretation of the fields is

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:

Overlay Ping Type
Value Description Reference
TBA1 Overlay Ping This document

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:

Overlay Ping Message Types
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

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:

Overlay Ping Reply Modes
Value Description Reference
0 Reserved
TBA3 Do not reply This document
TBA4 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet This document
192-251 Unassigned First Come First Served
252-254 Reserved Private Use
255 Reserved

4. Security Considerations

TBD

5. Acknowledgement

TBD

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

[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006.
[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.

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
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