SPRING Working Group Z. Ali Internet Draft C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track N. Kumar Expires: June 23, 2018 C. Pignataro F. Iqbal Cisco Systems, Inc. J. Leddy Comcast S. Matsushima SoftBank R. Raszuk Bloomberg LP B. Peirens Proximus G. Naik Drexel University December 23, 2017 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Dataplane (SRv6) draft-spring-srv6-oam-00.txt 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 2018. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 1] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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. Abstract This document outlines various use-cases for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing with the IPv6 data plane (SRv6) network. It also specifies solutions to address the SRv6 OAM requirements. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................3 1.1. Terminology and Reference Topology........................3 2. Use-cases......................................................4 2.1. Connectivity Verification.................................5 2.2. Monitoring a Specific Flow................................5 2.3. Monitoring all ECMP/ UCMP Paths...........................5 2.4. Traceroute................................................6 2.5. Proof of Transit..........................................6 2.6. Anycast Server selection..................................7 2.7. Detecting Path Divergence.................................7 2.8. Fault Isolation...........................................7 2.9. Connectivity Verification from arbitrary node.............7 3. OAM Mechanisms.................................................8 3.1. Ping......................................................8 3.1.1. Classic Ping.........................................8 3.1.2. Pinging a SID Function...............................9 3.1.2.1. End-to-end ping using EDN.OTP..................10 3.1.2.2. Segment-by-segment ping using O-bit (Proof of Transit)................................................11 3.2. Error Reporting..........................................12 3.3. Traceroute...............................................12 3.3.1. Classic Traceroute..................................13 3.3.2. Traceroute to a SID Function........................14 ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 2] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 3.3.2.1. Hop-by-hop traceroute using END.OTP............15 3.3.2.2. Tracing SRv6 Overlay...........................16 3.4. In-situ OAM..............................................18 3.5. Seamless BFD Applicability...............................19 3.6. Connectivity Verification from arbitrary SR node.........19 4. Security Considerations.......................................20 5. IANA Considerations...........................................20 6. References....................................................20 6.1. Normative References.....................................20 6.2. Informative References...................................21 7. Acknowledgments...............................................21 1. Introduction This document outlines various SRv6 OAM use-cases. It also describes OAM mechanisms that can be used to address SRv6 OAM requirements. Additional OAM use-cases and mechanisms will be added in a future revision of the document. 1.1. Terminology and Reference Topology This document uses the terminology defined in [I-D.draft-filsfils- spring-srv6-network-programming]. The readers are expected to be familiar with the same. Throughout the document, the following simple topology is used for illustration. +--------------------------| N100 |------------------------+ | | ====== link1====== link3------ link5====== link9------ ||N1||======||N2||======| N3 |======||N4||======| N5 | || ||------|| ||------| |------|| ||------| | ====== link2====== link4------ link6======link10------ | | | ------ | +-------| N6 |---------+ link7 | | link8 ------ Reference Topology In the reference topology: Nodes N1, N2, and N4 are SRv6 capable nodes. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 3] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 Nodes N3, N5 and N6 are classic IPv6 nodes. Node 100 is a controller. Node Nk has a classic IPv6 loopback address Bk::/128 Node Nk has Ak::/48 for its local SID space from which Local SIDs are explicitly allocated. The IPv6 address of the nth Link between node X and Y at the X side is represented as 99:X:Y::Xn. e.g., the IPv6 address of link6 (the 2nd link) between N3 and N4 at N3 in Figure 1 is 99:3:4:32. Similarly, the IPv6 address of link5 (the 1st link between N3 and N4) at node 3 is 99:3:4::31. Ak::0 is explicitly allocated as the END function at Node k. Ak::Cij is explicitly allocated as the END.X function at node k towards neighbor node i via jth Link between node i and node j. e.g., A2::C31 represents END.X at N2 towards N3 via link3 (the 1st link between N2 and N3). Similarly, A4::C52 represents the END.X at N4 towards N5 via link10. SRH is the abbreviation for the Segment Routing Header. SL is the abbreviation for the Segment Left. SID is the abbreviation for the Segment ID. represents a SID list where S1 is the first SID and S3 is the last SID. (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents the same SID list but encoded in the SRH format where the rightmost SID (S1) in the SRH is the first SID and the leftmost SID (S3) in the SRH is the last SID. ECMP is the abbreviation for the Equal Cost Multi-Path. UCMP is the abbreviation for the Unequal Cost Multi-Path. 2. Use-cases This section outlines some for the basic OAM use-cases in an SRv6 network. Additional use-cases will be added in a future revision of the document. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 4] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 2.1. Connectivity Verification One of the basic OAM use-cases for any network is the capability to perform path monitoring between different end points over any possible shortest path without any path preference. Such essential path monitoring helps to monitor the path availability and the liveliness of the remote end point. The shortest path monitoring can be done continuously or can be triggered on demand basis using an external event like a script or a CLI trigger. It may be required to perform the connectivity verification in the order of milliseconds, or at a slower pace. In the reference topology in Figure 1, N1 can send OAM probe packet destined to loopback address of N5 (B5::) to monitor the path liveliness between N1 and N5. N1 optionally may include any relevant segment list in SRH. N1 is not concerned about which route is taken by the probe between N1 and N5 as long as N1 receives the response back from N5. All transit nodes treat the probe packet as like other data packet and forward it based on the Destination Address (DA). N5 looks into the payload of probe packet and respond back to the source address of the probe packet (N1). 2.2. Monitoring a Specific Flow The network OAM needs to have the ability to monitor a particular path from the available ECMP paths. For example, in the reference topology in figure 1, there are many ECMP paths between N1 and N5. However, the service provider may like to monitor a flow that follows [N1]--[N2]--[N6]--[N4]--[N5]. The flow monitoring can be done continuously or can be triggered on demand basis. It may be required to perform the connectivity verification in the order of milliseconds, or at a slower pace. 2.3. Monitoring all ECMP/ UCMP Paths In any network, it is common to see multiple ECMP paths between end points that are used for load balancing or redundancy. While monitoring, the shortest path helps to monitor the path and liveliness of remote node, it may not be sufficient to detect any failure in one of the ECMP paths. In our reference topology in figure 1, N6 has 2 ECMP paths to reach N5 as below: N6----N4----N5 N6----N4----N5 ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 5] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 If the probe packet from N6 to N5 uses link10, it may not detect any failure on link9. It is critical and beneficial to discover and monitor all ECMP/ UCMP paths. Monitoring of all ECMP/ UCMP paths can be done by probing the candidate paths from end-to-end or by each node by monitoring its data plane. 2.4. Traceroute It is essential to trace the path between different end points for troubleshooting and fault localization purpose. In the SRv6 network, depending on the forwarding instruction encoded in SRH, a packet may traverse over zero or more SRv6 transit nodes which in turn are connected through transit IPv6 nodes. For example, the best effort traffic may traverse the shortest path between Ingress and egress nodes while an SLA constrained traffic may follow a specific path that involves one or more transit SRv6 nodes. In either of these cases, traceroute functionality allows an operator to discover the set of SRv6 and/or IPv6 nodes along the path between different end points. Multipath being inevitable in any network, it is also essential to identify the exact path (among the available equal cost multi paths) that a particular flow or packet is traversing. 2.5. Proof of Transit Various scenarios require the packet to be steered over a particular links or nodes. For example: - Voice traffic in a SLA constrained network needs to traverse a low latency path between endpoints which may not be the shortest path, i.e. the voice traffic needs to be traffic engineered and steered over the specified segment list that satisfies the SLA constraint. - In a service chaining environment, the traffic may need to traverse over an ordered list of service functions. In these scenarios, the SRH contains the list of SID functions that the packet should execute before reaching the destination. It is possible, due to an error, that the packet may reach the destination without visiting all the segments in the segment list. It is, therefore, important to have the ability to verify that all the function SIDs have been executed correctly before the packet is delivered to the destination. It is also important to ensure that ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 6] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 the order of execution of the SID function has been consistent with the SRH contents. 2.6. Anycast Server selection For application redundancy and load sharing purpose, it is prevalent to see anycast deployment where the service address will assign to different application servers spanned across the network. While traditionally this type of deployment model was used to terminate the client session to the nearest server, the recent capability of collecting network and application telemetry along with the traffic steering characteristics of SRv6 allows an operator to leverage the knowledge to choose the right server and path based on not just the shortest path, but also based on other performance metrics. It is therefore essential to have the ability to monitor the anycast server performance and detect any deviation and take corrective actions. 2.7. Detecting Path Divergence Path divergence occurs when network traffic diverges from the expected path that packet was supposed to take. Path divergence may result in congestion, delay, or breakage of strict SLAs promised to customers. It is, therefore, important to exercise mechanisms that can detect path divergence in the SRv6 network. 2.8. Fault Isolation In the cases where a monitoring technique discovers an issue, it is required to have the ability to pinpoint the failure location. The fault isolation mechanisms are required to help service providers troubleshoot failure in an SRv6 network. 2.9. Connectivity Verification from arbitrary node In the recent past, network operators are interested in performing network operations, administration, and maintenance configuration in a centralized manner. In this use-case, one of the requirements is to implement OAM functionality like connectivity verification between different SRv6 end points in a centralized manner by triggering it from any arbitrary node. The other requirement in this use-case is to perform the connectivity verification between end points without any control plane intervention at the monitored or other transit nodes. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 7] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 Additional OAM use-cases will be included in a future revision of the document. 3. OAM Mechanisms This section describes how ping and traceroute mechanisms can be used in an SRv6 network. Additional OAM mechanisms will be added in a future revision of the document. 3.1. Ping [RFC4443] describes Internet Control Message Protocol for IPv6 (ICMPv6) that is used by IPv6 devices for network diagnostic and error reporting purposes. As Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane (SRv6) simply adds a new type of Routing Extension Header, existing ICMPv6 mechanisms can be used in an SRv6 network. This section describes the applicability of ICMPv6 in the SRv6 network and how the existing ICMPv6 mechanisms can be used for providing OAM functionality to address many use-cases outlined in Section 2. Throughout this document, unless otherwise specified, the acronym ICMPv6 refers to multi-part ICMPv6 messages [RFC4884]. The document does not propose any changes to the standard ICMPv6 [RFC4443], [RFC4884] or standard ICMPv4 [RFC792]. There is no hardware or software change required for ping operation at the classic IPv6 nodes in an SRv6 network. That includes the classic IPv6 node with ingress, egress or transit roles. Furthermore, no protocol changes are required to the standard ICMPv6 [RFC4443], [RFC4884] or standard ICMPv4 [RFC792]. In other words, existing ICMP ping mechanisms work seamlessly in the SRv6 networks. The following subsections outline some use cases of the ICMP ping in the SRv6 networks. 3.1.1. Classic Ping The existing mechanism to ping a remote IP prefix, along the shortest path, continues to work without any modification. The initiator may be an SRv6 node or a classic IPv6 node. Similarly, the egress or transit may be an SRv6 capable node or a classic IPv6 node. If an SRv6 capable ingress node wants to ping an IPv6 prefix via an arbitrary segment list , it needs to initiate ICMPv6 ping with an SR header containing the SID list . This is illustrated using the topology in Figure 1. Assume all the links ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 8] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 have IGP metric 10 except both links between node2 and node3, which have IGP metric set to 100. User issues a ping from node N1 to a loopback of node 5, via via segment list . Figure 2 contains sample output for a ping request initiated at node N1 to the loopback address of node N5 via a segment list . > ping B5:: via segment-list A2::C31, A4::C52 Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to B5::, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 0.625 /0.749/0.931 ms A sample ping output at an SRv6 capable node All transit nodes process the echo request message like any other data packet carrying SR header and hence do not require any change. Similarly, the egress node (IPv6 classic or SRv6 capable) does not require any change to process the ICMPv6 echo request. For example, in the ping example of Figure 2: - Node N1 initiates an ICMPv6 ping packet with SRH as follows (B1::, A2::C31)(B1::, A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=2, NH: ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request). - Node N2, which is an SRv6 capable node, performs the standard SRH processing. Specifically, it executes the END.X function (A2::C31) on the echo request packet. - Node N3, which is a classic IPv6 node, performs the standard IPv6 processing. Specifically, it forwards the echo request based on DA A4::C52 in the IPv6 header. - Node N4, which is an SRv6 capable node, performs the standard SRH processing. Specifically, it observes the END.X function (A4::C52) with PSP (Penultimate Segment POP) on the echo request packet and removes the SRH and forwards the packet across link10 to N5. - The echo request packet at N5 arrives as an IPv6 packet without a SRH. Node N5, which is a classic IPv6 node, performs the standard IPv6/ ICMPv6 processing on the echo request and responds, accordingly. 3.1.2. Pinging a SID Function The classic ping described in the previous section cannot be used to ping a remote SID function, as explained using an example in the following. Consider the case where the user wants to ping the remote SID function A4::C52, via A2::C31, from node N1. Node N1 constructs the ping packet (B1::0, A2::C31)( A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=1; ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 9] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 NH=ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request). When the node N4 receives the ICMPv6 echo request with DA set to A4::C52 and next header set to ICMPv6, it silently drops it (see [I-D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6- network-programming] for details). To solve this problem, the initiator needs to mark the ICMPv6 echo request as an OAM packet. The OAM packets are identified either by setting the O-bit in SRH or by inserting the END.OTP SID at an appropriate place in the SRH [I- D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. In an SRv6 network, the user can exercise two flavors of the ping: end-to-end ping or segment-by-segment ping, as outlined in the following. 3.1.2.1. End-to-end ping using EDN.OTP Consider the same example where the user wants to ping a remote SID function A4::C52 , via A2::C31, from node N1. To force a punt of the ICMPv6 echo request at the node N4, node N1 inserts the END.OTP SID just before the target SID A4::C52 in the SRH. The ICMPv6 echo request is processed at the individual nodes along the path as follows. - Node N1 initiates an ICMPv6 ping packet with SRH as follows (B1::0, A2::C31)(A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=2; NH=ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request). - Node N2, which is an SRv6 capable node, performs the standard SRH processing. Specifically, it executes the END.X function (A2::C31) on the echo request packet. - Node N3 receives the packet as follows (B1::0, A4::OTP)(A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31 ; SL=1; NH=ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request). Node N3, which is a classic IPv6 node, performs the standard IPv6 processing. Specifically, it forwards the echo request based on DA A4::OTP in the IPv6 header. - When node N4 receives the packet (B1::0, A4::OTP)(A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31 ; SL=1; NH=ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request), it processes the END.OTP SID, as described in the pseudocode in [I- D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. The packet gets punted to the ICMPv6 process for processing. The ICMPv6 process checks if the next SID in SRH (the target SID A4::C52) is locally programmed. If the target SID is not locally programmed, N4 responses with the ICMPv6 message (Type: "SRv6 OAM (TBA)", Code: "SID not locally implemented (TBA)"); otherwise a success is returned. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 10] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 3.1.2.2. Segment-by-segment ping using O-bit (Proof of Transit) Consider the same example where the user wants to ping a remote SID function A4::C52 , via A2::C31, from node N1. However, in this ping, the node N1 wants to get a response from each segment node in the SRH. In other words, in the segment-by-segment ping case, the node N1 expects a response from node N2 and node N4 for their respective local SID function. To force a punt of the ICMPv6 echo request at node N2 and node N4, node N1 sets the O-bit in SRH. The ICMPv6 echo request is processed at the individual nodes along the path as follows. - Node N1 initiates an ICMPv6 ping packet with SRH as follows (B1::0, A2::C31)(A4::C52, A2::C31; SL=1, Flags.O=1; NH=ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request). - When node N2 receives the packet (B1::0, A2::C31)(A4::C52, A2::C31; SL=1, Flags.O=1; NH=ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request) packet, it processes the O-bit in SRH, as described in the pseudocode in [I-D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. A time- stamped copy of the packet gets punted to the ICMPv6 process for processing. Node N2 continues to apply the A2::C31 SID function on the original packet and forwards it, accordingly. As SRH.Flags.O=1, Node N2 also disables the PSP flavour, i.e., does not remove the SRH. The ICMPv6 process at node N2 checks if its local SID (A2::C31) is locally programmed or not and responds to the ICMPv6 Echo Request. If the target SID is not locally programmed, N4 responses with the ICMPv6 message (Type: "SRv6 OAM (TBA)", Code: "SID not locally implemented (TBA)"); otherwise a success is returned. Please note that, as mentioned in [I-D.draft- filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming], if node N2 does not support the O-bit, it simply ignores it and process the local SID, A2::C31. - Node N3, which is a classic IPv6 node, performs the standard IPv6 processing. Specifically, it forwards the echo request based on DA A4::C52 in the IPv6 header. - When node N4 receives the packet (B1::0, A4::C52)(A4::C52, A2::C31; SL=0, Flags.O=1; NH=ICMPv6)(ICMPv6 Echo Request), it processes the O-bit in SRH, as described in the pseudocode in [I- D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. A time-stamped copy of the packet gets punted to the ICMPv6 process for processing. The ICMPv6 process at node N4 checks if its local SID (A2::C31) is locally programmed or not and responds to the ICMPv6 Echo Request. If the target SID is not locally programmed, N4 responses with the ICMPv6 message (Type: "SRv6 OAM (TBA)", Code: "SID not locally implemented (TBA)"); otherwise a success is returned. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 11] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 Support for O-bit is part of node capability advertisement. That enables node N1 to know which segment nodes are capable of responding to the ICMPv6 echo request. Node N1 processes the echo responses and presents data to the user, accordingly. Please note that segment-by-segment ping can be used to address proof of transit use-case discussed earlier. 3.2. Error Reporting Any IPv6 node can use ICMPv6 control messages to report packet processing errors to the host that originated the datagram packet. To name a few such scenarios: - If the router receives an undeliverable IP datagram, or - If the router receives a packet with a Hop Limit of zero, or - If the router receives a packet such that if the router decrements the packet's Hop Limit it becomes zero, or - If the router receives a packet with problem with a field in the IPv6 header or the extension headers such that it cannot complete processing the packet, or - If the router cannot forward a packet because the packet is larger than the MTU of the outgoing link. In the scenarios listed above, the ICMPv6 response also contains the IP header, IP extension headers and leading payload octets of the "original datagram" to which the ICMPv6 message is a response. Specifically, the "Destination Unreachable Message", "Time Exceeded Message", "Packet Too Big Message" and "Parameter Problem Message" ICMPV6 messages can contain as much of the invoking packet as possible without the ICMPv6 packet exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU [RFC4443], [RFC4884]. In an SRv6 network, the copy of the invoking packet contains the SR header. The packet originator can use this information for diagnostic purposes. For example, traceroute can use this information as detailed in the following. 3.3. Traceroute There is no hardware or software change required for traceroute operation at the classic IPv6 nodes in an SRv6 network. That includes the classic IPv6 node with ingress, egress or transit roles. Furthermore, no protocol changes are required to the standard traceroute operations. In other words, existing traceroute mechanisms work seamlessly in the SRv6 networks. The following subsections outline some use cases of the traceroute in the SRv6 networks. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 12] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 3.3.1. Classic Traceroute The existing mechanism to traceroute a remote IP prefix, along the shortest path, continues to work without any modification. The initiator may be an SRv6 node or a classic IPv6 node. Similarly, the egress or transit may be an SRv6 node or a classic IPv6 node. If an SRv6 capable ingress node wants to traceroute to IPv6 prefix via an arbitrary segment list , it needs to initiate traceroute probe with an SR header containing the SID list . That is illustrated using the topology in Figure 1. Assume all the links have IGP metric 10 except both links between node2 and node3, which have IGP metric set to 100. User issues a traceroute from node N1 to a loopback of node 5, via segment list . Figure 3 contains sample output for the traceroute request. > traceroute B5:: via segment-list A2::C31, A4::C52 Tracing the route to B5:: 1 99:1:2::21 0.512 msec 0.425 msec 0.374 msec SRH: (B5::, A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=2) 2 99:2:3::31 0.721 msec 0.810 msec 0.795 msec SRH: (B5::, A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=1) 3 99:3:4::41 0.921 msec 0.816 msec 0.759 msec SRH: (B5::, A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=1) 4 99:4:5::52 0.879 msec 0.916 msec 1.024 msec A sample traceroute output at an SRv6 capable node Please note that information for hop2 is returned by N3, which is a classic IPv6 node. Nonetheless, the ingress node is able to display SR header contents as the packet travels through the IPv6 classic node. This is because the "Time Exceeded Message" ICMPv6 message can contain as much of the invoking packet as possible without the ICMPv6 packet exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU [RFC4443]. The SR header is also included in these ICMPv6 messages initiated by the classic IPv6 transit nodes that are not running SRv6 software. Specifically, a node generating ICMPv6 message containing a copy of the invoking packet does not need to understand the extension header(s) in the invoking packet. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 13] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 The segment list information returned for hop1 is returned by N2, which is an SRv6 capable node. Just like for hop2, the ingress node is able to display SR header contents for hop1. There is no difference in processing of the traceroute probe at an IPv6 classic node and an SRv6 capable node. Similarly, both IPv6 classic and SRv6 capable nodes use the address of the interface on which probe was received as the source address in the ICMPv6 response. ICMP extensions defined in [RFC5837] can be used to also display information about the IP interface through which the datagram would have been forwarded had it been forwardable, and the IP next hop to which the datagram would have been forwarded, the IP interface upon which a datagram arrived, the sub-IP component of an IP interface upon which a datagram arrived. The information about the IP address of the incoming interface on which the traceroute probe was received by the reporting node is very useful. This information can also be used to verify if SID functions A2::C31 and A4::C52 are executed correctly by N2 and N4, respectively. Specifically, the information displayed for hop2 contains the incoming interface address 99:2:3::31 at N3. This matches with the expected interface bound to END.X function A2::C31 (link3). Similarly, the information displayed for hop5 contains the incoming interface address 99:4:5::52 at N5. This matches with the expected interface bound to the END.X function A4::C52 (link10). 3.3.2. Traceroute to a SID Function The classic traceroute described in the previous section cannot be used to traceroute a remote SID function, as explained using an example in the following. Consider the case where the user wants to traceroute the remote SID function A4::C52, via A2::C31, from node N1. Node N1 constructs the traceroute packet (B1::0, A2::C31, HC=1)( A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=1; NH=UDP)(traceroute probe). Even though Hop Count of the packet is set to 1, when the node N4 receives the traceroute probe with DA set to A4::C52 and next header set to UDP, it silently drops it (see [I- D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] for details). To solve this problem, the initiator needs to mark the traceroute probe as an OAM packet. The OAM packets are identified either by setting the O-bit in SRH or by inserting the END.OTP SID at an appropriate place in the SRH [I- D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 14] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 In an SRv6 network, the user can exercise two flavors of the traceroute: hop-by-hop traceroute or overlay traceroute. In hop-by-hop traceroute, user gets responses from all nodes including classic IPv6 transit nodes, SRv6 capable transit nodes as well as SRv6 capable segment endpoints. E.g., consider the example where the user wants to traceroute to a remote SID function A4::C52 , via A2::C31, from node N1. The traceroute output will also display information about node3, which is a transit (underlay) node. The overlay traceroute, on the other hand, does not trace the underlay nodes. In other words, the overlay traceroute only displays the nodes that acts as SRv6 segments along the route. I.e., in the example where the user wants to traceroute to a remote SID function A4::C52 , via A2::C31, from node N1, the overlay traceroute would only display the traceroute information from node N2 and node N2 and will not display information from node 3. 3.3.2.1. Hop-by-hop traceroute using END.OTP In this section, hop-by-hop traceroute to a SID function is exemplified using UDP probes. However, the procedure is equally applicable to other implementation of traceroute mechanism. Consider the same example where the user wants to traceroute to a remote SID function A4::C52 , via A2::C31, from node N1. To force a punt of the traceroute probe only at the node N4, node N1 inserts the END.OTP SID just before the target SID A4::C52 in the SRH. The traceroute probe is processed at the individual nodes along the path as follows. - Node N1 initiates a traceroute probe packet with a monotonically increasing value of hop count and SRH as follows (B1::0, A2::C31)(A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=2; NH=UDP)(Traceroute probe). - When node N2 receives the packet with hop-count = 1, it processes the hop count expiry. Specifically, the node N2 responses with the ICMPv6 message (Type: "Time Exceeded", Code: "Time to Live exceeded in Transit"). - When Node N2 receives the packet with hop-count > 1, it performs the standard SRH processing. Specifically, it executes the END.X function (A2::C31) on the traceroute probe. - When node N3, which is a classic IPv6 node, receives the packet (B1::0, A4::OTP)(A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31 ; HC=1, SL=1; NH=UDP)(Traceroute probe) with hop-count = 1, it processes the hop count expiry. Specifically, the node N3 responses with the ICMPv6 ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 15] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 message (Type: "Time Exceeded", Code: "Time to Live exceeded in Transit"). - When node N3, which is a classic IPv6 node, receives the packet with hop-count > 1, it performs the standard IPv6 processing. Specifically, it forwards the traceroute probe based on DA A4::OTP in the IPv6 header. - When node N4 receives the packet (B1::0, A4::OTP)(A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31 ; SL=1; HC=1, NH=UDP)(Traceroute probe), it processes the END.OTP SID, as described in the pseudocode in [I- D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. The packet gets punted to the traceroute process for processing. The traceroute process checks if the next SID in SRH (the target SID A4::C52) is locally programmed. If the target SID A4::C52 is locally programmed, node N4 responses with the ICMPv6 message (Type: Destination unreachable, Code: Port Unreachable). If the target SID A4::C52 is not a local SID, node N4 silently drops the traceroute probe. Figure 4 displays a sample traceroute output for this example. > traceroute srv6 A4::C52 via segment-list A2::C31 Tracing the route to SID function A4::C52 1 99:1:2::21 0.512 msec 0.425 msec 0.374 msec SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=2) 2 99:2:3::31 0.721 msec 0.810 msec 0.795 msec SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=1) 3 99:3:4::41 0.921 msec 0.816 msec 0.759 msec SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=1) A sample output for hop-by-hop traceroute to a SID function 3.3.2.2. Tracing SRv6 Overlay The overlay traceroute does not trace the underlay nodes, i.e., only displays the nodes that acts as SRv6 segments along the path. This is achieved by setting the SRH.Flags.O bit. In this section, overlay traceroute to a SID function is exemplified using UDP probes. However, the procedure is equally applicable to other implementation of traceroute mechanism. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 16] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 Consider the same example where the user wants to traceroute to a remote SID function A4::C52 , via A2::C31, from node N1. - Node N1 initiates a traceroute probe with SRH as follows (B1::0, A2::C31)(A4::C52, A2::C31; HC=64, SL=1, Flags.O=1; NH=UDP)(Traceroute Probe). Please note that the hop-count is set to 64 to skip the underlay nodes from tracing. The O-bit in SRH is set to make the overlay nodes (nodes processing the SRH) respond. - When node N2 receives the packet (B1::0, A2::C31)(A4::C52, A2::C31; SL=1, HC=64, Flags.O=1; NH=UDP)(Traceroute Probe), it processes the O-bit in SRH, as described in the pseudocode in [I- D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. A time-stamped copy of the packet gets punted to the traceroute process for processing. Node N2 continues to apply the A2::C31 SID function on the original packet and forwards it, accordingly. As SRH.Flags.O=1, Node N2 also disables the PSP flavor, i.e., does not remove the SRH. The traceroute process at node N2 checks if its local SID (A2::C31) is locally programmed. If the SID is not locally programmed, it silently drops the packet. Otherwise, it performs the egress check by looking at the SL value in SRH. As SL is not equal to zero (i.e., it's not egress node), node N2 responses with the ICMPv6 message (Type: "SRv6 OAM (TBA)", Code: "O-bit punt at Transit (TBA)"). Please note that, as mentioned in [I-D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming], if node N2 does not support the O-bit, it simply ignores it and processes the local SID, A2::C31. - When node N3 receives the packet (B1::0, A4::C52)(A4::C52, A2::C31; SL=0, HC=63, Flags.O=1; NH=UDP)(Traceroute Probe), performs the standard IPv6 processing. Specifically, it forwards the traceroute probe based on DA A4::C52 in the IPv6 header. Please note that there is no hop-count expiration at the transit nodes. - When node N4 receives the packet (B1::0, A4::C52)(A4::C52, A2::C31; SL=0, HC=62, Flags.O=1; NH=UDP)(Traceroute Probe), it processes the O-bit in SRH, as described in the pseudocode in [I- D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]. A time-stamped copy of the packet gets punted to the traceroute process for processing. The traceroute process at node N4 checks if its local SID (A2::C31) is locally programmed. If the SID is not locally programmed, it silently drops the packet. Otherwise, it performs the egress check by looking at the SL value in SRH. As SL is equal to zero (i.e., N4 is the egress node), node N4 tries to consume the UDP probe. As UDP probe is set to access an invalid port, the node N4 responses with the ICMPv6 message (Type: Destination unreachable, Code: Port Unreachable). ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 17] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 Figure 5 displays a sample overlay traceroute output for this example. Please note that the underlay node N3 does not appear in the output. > traceroute srv6 A4::C52 via segment-list A2::C31 Tracing the route to SID function A4::C52 1 99:1:2::21 0.512 msec 0.425 msec 0.374 msec SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=2) 2 99:3:4::41 0.921 msec 0.816 msec 0.759 msec SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=1) A sample output for overlay traceroute to a SID function 3.4. In-situ OAM [I-D.draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements] describes motivation and requirements for In-situ OAM (iOAM). iOAM records operational and telemetry information in the data packet while the packet traverses the network of telemetry domain. iOAM complements out-of- band probe based OAM mechanisms such ICMP ping and traceroute by directly encoding tracing and the other kind of telemetry information to the regular data traffic. [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport] describes transport mechanisms for iOAM data including IPv6 and Segment Routing traffic. furthermore, [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-data] defines information encoding for iOAM data. One of the application of iOAM is to perform inband traceroute. In SRv6 network, iOAM traceroute feature can be used to trace the order set of segment ID executed by SRv6 nodes for packet forwarding along the packet path. This is achieved by recording the node details that the packet traversed in the packet header itself. Another important application of iOAM is to perform delay measurement in anycast server scenarios. Anycast server deployment is commonly seen for redundancy and load balancing purpose. In SRv6 network, iOAM can be used to collect the timestamp from different anycats servers to measure the delay induced by each server within the anycast cluster that helps to provide SLA constrainted services. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 18] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 One of the other applications of iOAM is to provide the Proof of Transit (POT). Among other features of iOAM, SRv6 networks can use the POT feature of iOAM to verify that all the function SIDs in SRH have been executed before the packet is delivered to the destination. It can also ensure that the order of execution of the SID function has been consistent with the SRH contents. More details on various applications of iOAM in SRv6 networks will be included in future versions of this document. 3.5. Seamless BFD Applicability [RFC7880] defines Seamless BFD (S-BFD) architecture that simplifies BFD mechanism and enables it to perform path monitoring in a controlled and scalable manner. [RFC7881] describes the procedure to perform continuity check using S-BFD in different environments including IPv6 networks. Section 5.1 of [RFC7881] explains the SBFDInitiator specification and procedure to initiate S-BFD control packet in IP and MPLS network. The specification described for IP- routed S-BFD control packet is also directly applicable to the SRv6 network. S-BFD has a fast bootstrapping capability. Furthermore, in S-BFD, only the ingress is required to keep BFD states; the egress and transit node does not have any knowledge of the BFD session. These attributes of S-BFD make it an excellent candidate for rapid failure detection in the SRv6 network. More details on various S-BFD usage on the SRv6 network will be included in a future version. 3.6. Connectivity Verification from arbitrary SR node In the recent past, network operators are interested in performing network operations, administration, and maintenance configuration in a centralized manner. Various data models like YANG are available to collect data from the network and manage it from a centralized entity. SR technology enables a centralized OAM entity to perform path monitoring from centralized OAM entity without control plane intervention on monitored nodes. [I.D-draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase] describes such a centralized OAM mechanism. Specifically, the draft describes a procedure that can be used to perform path continuity check between any nodes within an SR domain from a centralized monitoring system, with minimal or no control plane intervene on the nodes. However, the draft focuses on SR networks with MPLS data plane. The same concept applies to the SRv6 networks. This document ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 19] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 describes how the concept can be used to perform path monitoring in an SRv6 network. In the above reference topology, N100 is the centralized monitoring system implementing an END function A100::. In order to verify a segment list , N100 generates a probe packet with SRH set to (A100::, A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=2). The controller routes the probe packet towards the first segment, which is A2::C31. N2 performs the standard SRH processing and forward it over link3 with the DA of IPv6 packet set to A4::C52. N4 also performs the normal SRH processing and forward it over link10 with the DA of IPv6 packet set to A100::. This makes the probe loops back to the centralized monitoring system. In our reference topology in Figure 1, N100 uses an IGP protocol like OSPF or ISIS to get the topology view within the IGP domain. N100 can also use BGP-LS to get the complete view of an inter-domain topology. In other words, the controller leverages the visibility of the topology to monitor the paths between the various endpoints without control plane intervention required at the monitored nodes. 4. Security Considerations This document does not define any new protocol extensions and relies on existing procedures defined for ICMP. This document does not impose any additional security challenges to be considered beyond security considerations described in [RFC4884], [RFC4443], [RFC792] and RFCs that updates these RFCs. 5. IANA Considerations This document does not define any new protocol or any extension to an existing protocol. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC4884] Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages. R. Bonica, D. Gan, D. Tappan, C. Pignataro. April 2007. [RFC4443] Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. A. Conta, S. Deering, M. Gupta, Ed. March 2006. [RFC792] Internet Control Message Protocol. J. Postel. September 1981. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 20] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 [RFC5837] Extending ICMP for Interface and Next-Hop Identification. A. Atlas, Ed., R. Bonica, Ed., C. Pignataro, Ed., N. Shen, JR. Rivers. April 2010. [RFC7880] Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD). C.Pignataro, D.Ward, N.Akiya, M.Bhatia, S.Pallagatti. July 2016. [RFC7881] Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6, and MPLS. C.Pignataro, D.Ward, N.Akiya. July 2016. [I.D-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] SRv6 Network Programming, draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network- programming, C. Fisfils, work in progress. 6.2. Informative References [I.D-draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase] A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Dataplane Monitoring System. R. Geib, C. Filsfils, C. Pignataro, N. Kumar, work in progress. [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-data] Data Formats for In-situ OAM. F. Brockners, work in progress. [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport] Encapsulations for In-situ OAM Data, F.Brockners, work in progress. [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements] Requirements for In-situ OAM, F.Brockners, work in progress. 7. Acknowledgments To be added. ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 21] Internet-Draft SRv6 OAM December 2017 Authors' Addresses Clarence Filsfils Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Zafar Ali Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: zali@cisco.com Nagendra Kumar Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: naikumar@cisco.com Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: cpignata@cisco.com Faisal Iqbal Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: faiqbal@cisco.com John Leddy Comcast Email: John_Leddy@cable.comcast.com Robert Raszuk Bloomberg LP 731 Lexington Ave New York City, NY10022, USA Email: robert@raszuk.net Satoru Matsushima SoftBank Japan Email: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp Bart Peirens Proximus Email: bart.peirens@proximus.com Gaurav Naik Drexel University United States of America Email: gn@drexel.edu ali, et al. Expires June 23, 2018 [Page 22]