Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zafar Ali , Clarence Filsfils , Nagendra Kumar Nainar , Carlos Pignataro , faiqbal@cisco.com , Rakesh Gandhi , John Leddy , Satoru Matsushima , Robert Raszuk , Daniel Voyer , Gaurav Dawra , Bart Peirens , Mach Chen , Gaurav Naik | ||
| Last updated | 2018-07-02 (Latest revision 2018-02-26) | ||
| Replaces | draft-ali-6man-srv6-oam, draft-spring-srv6-oam | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-01
SPRING Working Group Z. Ali
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track N. Kumar
Expires: January 1, 2019 C. Pignataro
F. Iqbal
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Leddy
Comcast
S. Matsushima
SoftBank
R. Raszuk
Bloomberg LP
D. Voyer
Bell Canada
G. Dawra
LinkedIn
B. Peirens
Proximus
M. Chen
Huawei
G. Naik
Drexel University
July 2, 2018
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment
Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-01.txt
Abstract
This document defines building blocks that can be used for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing
Networks with IPv6 Dataplane (SRv6). The document also describes
some SRv6 OAM mechanisms that can be realized using these building
blocks.
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."
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
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......................................................3
2. Conventions Used in This Document.................................3
2.1. Abbreviations.............................................3
2.2. Terminology and Reference Topology........................4
3. OAM Building Blocks...............................................5
3.1. O-flag in Segment Routing Header..........................5
3.1.1. O-flag Processing....................................6
3.1.2. Disabling Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP)..............7
3.2. OAM Segments..............................................7
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
3.2.1. End.OP: OAM Endpoint with Punt.......................7
3.2.2. End.OTP: OAM Endpoint with Timestamp and Punt........8
4. OAM Mechanisms....................................................8
4.1. Ping......................................................9
4.1.1. Classic Ping.........................................9
4.1.2. Pinging a SID Function..............................10
4.1.2.1. End-to-end ping using END.OP/ END.OTP..........11
4.1.2.2. Segment-by-segment ping using O-flag (Proof of
Transit)................................................11
4.2. Error Reporting..........................................13
4.3. Traceroute...............................................13
4.3.1. Classic Traceroute..................................13
4.3.2. Traceroute to a SID Function........................15
4.3.2.1. Hop-by-hop traceroute using END.OP/ END.OTP....16
4.3.2.2. Tracing SRv6 Overlay...........................17
4.4. In-situ OAM..............................................19
4.5. Monitoring of SRv6 Paths.................................19
5. Security Considerations..........................................20
6. IANA Considerations..............................................20
6.1. Segment Routing Header Flags Register....................20
6.2. ICMPv6 type Numbers Registry.............................20
7. References.......................................................21
7.1. Normative References.....................................21
7.2. Informative References...................................22
8. Acknowledgments..................................................22
1. Introduction
This document defines building blocks that can be used for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing
Networks with IPv6 Dataplane (SRv6). The document also describes
some SRv6 OAM mechanisms that can be implemented using these
building blocks.
Additional OAM mechanisms will be added in a future revision of the
document.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Abbreviations
ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path.
SID: Segment ID.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
SL: Segment Left.
SR: Segment Routing.
SRH: Segment Routing Header.
SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 Data plane.
TC: Traffic Class.
UCMP: Unequal Cost Multi-Path.
2.2. 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
------
Figure 1 Reference Topology
In the reference topology:
Nodes N1, N2, and N4 are SRv6 capable nodes.
Nodes N3, N5 and N6 are classic IPv6 nodes.
Node 100 is a controller.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
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 2001:DB8:X:Y:Xn::, e.g., the IPv6 address of link6
(the 2nd link) between N3 and N4 at N3 in Figure 1 is
2001:DB8:3:4:32::. Similarly, the IPv6 address of link5 (the 1st
link between N3 and N4) at node 3 is 2001:DB8:3:4:31::.
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.
<S1, S2, S3> 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.
(SA, DA) (S3, S2, S1; SL) represents an IPv6 packet, SA is the IPv6
Source Address, DA the IPv6 Destination Address, (S3, S2, S1; SL) is
the SRH header that includes the SID list <S1, S2, S3>.
3. OAM Building Blocks
This section defines the various building blocks that can be used to
implement OAM mechanisms in SRv6 networks. The following section
describes some SRv6 OAM mechanisms that can be implemented using
these building blocks.
3.1. O-flag in Segment Routing Header
[I-D. draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] describes the Segment
Routing Header (SRH) and how SR capable nodes use it. The SRH
contains an 8-bit "Flags" field [I-D. draft-ietf-6man-segment-
routing-header]. This document defines the following bit in the
SRH.Flags to carry the O-flag:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |O| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
Where:
- O-flag: OAM flag. When set, it indicates that this packet is an
operations and management (OAM) packet. This document defines
the usage of the O-flag in the SRH.Flags.
- The document does not define any other flag in the SRH.Flags
and meaning and processing of any other bit in SRH.Flags is
outside of the scope of this document.
3.1.1. O-flag Processing
Implementation of the O-flag is OPTIONAL. A node MAY ignore
SRH.Flags.O-flag. It is also possible that a node is capable of
supporting the O-bit but based on a local decision it MAY ignore it
during processing on some local SIDs. If a node does not support the
O-flag, then upon reception it simply ignores it. If a node supports
the O-flag, it can optionally advertise its potential via node
capability advertisement in IGP [I-D.bashandy-isis-srv6-
extensions] and BGP-LS [I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext].
The SRH.Flags.O-flag implements the "punt a timestamped copy and
forward" behavior. To avoid the head of the line processing of the
packet, some implementation may implement the "forward and punt a
timestamped copy" behavior, instead. In order to implement "punt a
timestamped copy and forward" or "forward and punt a timestamped
copy" behavior, the following instructions are inserted at the
beginning or the end of the pseudo-code for all SID Functions,
respectively.
When N receives a packet whose IPv6 DA is S and S is a local SID, N executes the
following the pseudo-code, either before or after the execution of the local SID
S.
1. IF SRH.Flags.O-flag is True and SRH.Flags.O-flag is locally
supported for S THEN
a. Timestamp a local copy of the packet. ;; Ref1
b. Punt the time-stamped copy of the packet to CPU for processing in
software (slow-path). ;; Ref2
Ref1: Timestamping is done in hardware, as soon as possible during
the packet processing. As timestamping is done on a copy of the
packet which is locally punted, timestamp value can be carried in
the local packet (punt) header.
Ref1: Hardware (microcode) just punts the packet. There is no
requirement for the hardware to manipulate any TLV in SRH (or
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
elsewhere). Software (slow path) implements the required OAM
mechanism. Timestamp is not carried in the packet forwarded to the
next hop.
3.1.2. Disabling Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP)
Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP) needs to be disabled when SRH.Flags.O-
flag is set. If a node supports SRH.Flags.O-flag, it adds the
following check after executing the instruction 'update the IPv6 DA
with SRH[SL]' during processing of a local SID as described in [I-
D.draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]:
1. IF updated SL = 0 & PSP is TRUE and SRH.Flags.O-bit is False
2. pop the top SRH ;; Ref1
Ref1: PSP behavior is disabled when SRH.Flags.O-flag is set.
3.2. OAM Segments
OAM Segment IDs (SIDs) is another components of the building blocks
needed to implement SRv6 OAM mechanisms. This document defines a
couple of OAM SIDs. Additional SIDs will be added in the later
version of the document.
3.2.1. End.OP: OAM Endpoint with Punt
Many scenarios require punting of SRv6 OAM packets at the desired
nodes in the network. The "OAM Endpoint with Punt" function (End.OP
for short) represents a particular OAM function to implement the
punt behavior for an OAM packet. It is described using the
pseudocode as follows:
When N receives a packet destined to S and S is a local End.OP SID,
N does:
1. Punt the packet to CPU for SW processing (slow-path) ;; Ref1
Ref1: Hardware (microcode) only punts the packet. There is no
requirement for the hardware to manipulate any TLV in the SRH (or
elsewhere). Software (slow path) implements the required OAM
mechanisms.
Please note that in an SRH containing END.OP SID, it is RECOMMENDED
to set the SRH.Flags.O-flag = 0.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
3.2.2. End.OTP: OAM Endpoint with Timestamp and Punt
Scenarios demanding performance management of an SR policy/ path
requires hardware timestamping before hardware punts the packet to
the software for OAM processing. The "OAM Endpoint with Timestamp
and Punt" function (End.OTP for short) represents an OAM SID
function to implement the timestamp and punt behavior for an OAM
packet. It is described using the pseudocode as follows:
When N receives a packet destined to S and S is a local End.OTP SID,
N does:
1. Timestamp the packet ;; Ref1
2. Punt the packet to CPU for SW processing (slow-path) ;; Ref2
Ref1: Timestamping is done in hardware, as soon as possible
during the packet processing. As timestamping is done on a copy of
the packet which is locally punted, timestamp value can be carried
in the local packet (punt) header.
Ref2: Hardware (microcode) only punts the packet. There is no
requirement for the hardware to manipulate any TLV in the SRH (or
elsewhere). Software (slow path) implements the required OAM
mechanisms.
Please note that in an SRH containing END.OTP SID, it is RECOMMENDED
to set the SRH.Flags.O-flag = 0.
4. OAM Mechanisms
This section describes how OAM mechanisms can be implemented using
the OAM building blocks described in the previous section.
Additional OAM mechanisms will be added in a future revision of the
document.
[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 ping 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.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
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].
4.1. Ping
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.
4.1.1. 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 <S1, S2, S3>, it needs to initiate ICMPv6
ping with an SR header containing the SID list <S1, S2, S3>. This 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 ping from node N1 to a
loopback of node 5, via segment list <A2::C31, A4::C52>.
Figure 2 contains sample output for a ping request initiated at node
N1 to the loopback address of node N5 via a segment list <A2::C31,
A4::C52>.
> 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
Figure 2 A sample ping output at an SRv6 capable node
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
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.
4.1.2. 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;
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.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-flag in SRH
or by inserting the END.OP/ END.OTP SIDs at an appropriate place in
the SRH. The following illustration uses END.OTP SID but the
procedures are equally applicable to the END.OP SID.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
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.
4.1.2.1. End-to-end ping using END.OP/ END.OTP
The end-to-end ping illustration uses the END.OTP SID but the
procedures are equally applicable to the END.OP SID.
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
Section 3. 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.
4.1.2.2. Segment-by-segment ping using O-flag (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.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
To force a punt of the ICMPv6 echo request at node N2 and node N4,
node N1 sets the O-flag 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-flag in SRH, as described in the
pseudocode in Section 3. 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 Section 3, if node N2 does
not support the O-flag, 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-flag in SRH, as described in the pseudocode in
Section 3. 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.
Support for O-flag 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.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
4.2. 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.
4.3. 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.
4.3.1. 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.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
If an SRv6 capable ingress node wants to traceroute to IPv6 prefix
via an arbitrary segment list <S1, S2, S3>, it needs to initiate
traceroute probe with an SR header containing the SID list <S1, S2,
S3>. 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 <A2::C31,
A4::C52>. Figure 3 contains sample output for the traceroute
request.
> traceroute B5:: via segment-list A2::C31, A4::C52
Tracing the route to B5::
1 2001:DB8:1:2:21:: 0.512 msec 0.425 msec 0.374 msec
SRH: (B5::, A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=2)
2 2001:DB8:2:3:31:: 0.721 msec 0.810 msec 0.795 msec
SRH: (B5::, A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=1)
3 2001:DB8:3:4::41:: 0.921 msec 0.816 msec 0.759 msec
SRH: (B5::, A4::C52, A2::C31, SL=1)
4 2001:DB8:4:5::52:: 0.879 msec 0.916 msec 1.024 msec
Figure 3 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.
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
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
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 2001:DB8:2:3:31:: 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 2001:DB8:4:5::52:: at N5.
This matches with the expected interface bound to the END.X function
A4::C52 (link10).
4.3.2. 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-flag in SRH
or by inserting the END.OTP SID at an appropriate place in the SRH.
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
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
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.
4.3.2.1. Hop-by-hop traceroute using END.OP/ 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.
Furthermore, the illustration uses the END.OTP SID but the
procedures are equally applicable to the END.OP SID
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 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.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
- 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
Section 3. 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 2001:DB8:1:2:21 0.512 msec 0.425 msec 0.374 msec
SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=2)
2 2001:DB8:2:3:31 0.721 msec 0.810 msec 0.795 msec
SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=1)
3 2001:DB8:3:4::41 0.921 msec 0.816 msec 0.759 msec
SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=1)
Figure 4 A sample output for hop-by-hop traceroute to a SID
function
4.3.2.2. 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.
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
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
set to 64 to skip the underlay nodes from tracing. The O-flag
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-flag in SRH, as described in the pseudocode in
Section 3. 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-flag punt at Transit (TBA)"). Please note that, as
mentioned in Section 3, if node N2 does not support the O-flag,
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-flag in SRH, as described in the pseudocode in
Section 3. 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).
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
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
1 2001:DB8:1:2:21:: 0.512 msec 0.425 msec 0.374 msec
SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=2)
2 2001:DB8:3:4::41:: 0.921 msec 0.816 msec 0.759 msec
SRH: (A4::C52, A4::OTP, A2::C31; SL=1)
Figure 5 A sample output for overlay traceroute to a SID function
4.4. In-situ OAM
[I-D.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. To address
iOAM requirements in an SRv6 network, the draft describes iOAM TLV
in SRH and its usage.
4.5. Monitoring of SRv6 Paths
In the recent past, network operators are interested in performing
network OAM functions 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
describes how the concept can be used to perform path monitoring in
an SRv6 network. This document describes how the concept can be used
to perform path monitoring in an SRv6 network as follows.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
In the above reference topology, N100 is the centralized monitoring
system implementing an END function A100::. In order to verify a
segment list <A2::C31, A4::C52>, 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 the 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.
5. 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.
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Segment Routing Header Flags Register
This document requests the creation of a new IANA managed registry
to identify SRH Flags Bits. The registration procedure is "Expert
Review" as defined in [RFC8126]. Suggested registry name is
"Segment Routing Header Flags". SRH.Flags is an 8 bits field; the
following bit is defined in this document:
Suggested Bit Description Reference
-----------------------------------------------------
2 OAM This document
6.2. ICMPv6 type Numbers Registry
This document defines one ICMPv6 Message, a type that has been
allocated from the "ICMPv6 'type' Numbers" registry of [RFC4443].
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
Specifically, it requests to add the following to the "ICMPv6 Type
Numbers" registry:
TBA (suggested value: 162) SRv6 OAM Message.
The document also requests the creation of a new IANA registry to
the
"ICMPv6 'Code' Fields" against the "ICMPv6 Type Numbers TBA - SRv6
OAM Message" with the following codes:
Code Name Reference
-------------------------------------------------------
0 No Error This document
1 SID is not locally implemented This document
2 O-flag punt at Transit This document
6.3. SRv6 OAM Endpoint Types
This I-D requests to IANA to allocate, within the "SRv6 Endpoint
Types" sub-registry belonging to the top-level "Segment-routing with
IPv6 dataplane (SRv6) Parameters" registry [I-D.filsfils-spring-
srv6-network-programming], the following allocations:
+-------------+-----+-------------------+-----------+
| Value (Suggested | Endpoint function | Reference |
| Value) | | |
+------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| TBA (25) | End.OTP | [This.ID] |
| TBA (30) | End.OTP | [This.ID] |
+------------------+-------------------+-----------+
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC792] J. Postel, "Internet Control Message Protocol", RFC 792,
September 1981.
[RFC4443] A. Conta, S. Deering, M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC4884] R. Bonica, D. Gan, D. Tappan, C. Pignataro, "Extended ICMP
to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, April 2007.
[RFC5837] A. Atlas, Ed., R. Bonica, Ed., C. Pignataro, Ed., N. Shen,
JR. Rivers, "Extending ICMP for Interface and Next-Hop
Identification", RFC 5837, April 2010.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming] C. Filsfils, et al.,
"SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming, work in
progress.
[I-D.6man-segment-routing-header] Previdi, S., Filsfils, et al,
"IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)",
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, work in progress.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions] IS-IS Extensions to Support Routing
over IPv6 Dataplane. L. Ginsberg, P. Psenak, C. Filsfils,
A. Bashandy, B. Decraene, Z. Hu,
draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions, work in progress.
[I-D.dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] G. Dawra, C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar,
et al., BGP Link State extensions for IPv6 Segment Routing
(SRv6), draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext, work in progress.
[I-D.ietf-spring-oam-usecase] A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS
Dataplane Monitoring System. R. Geib, C. Filsfils, C.
Pignataro, N. Kumar, draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase, work
in progress.
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-data] F. Brockners, et al., "Data Formats
for In-situ OAM", draft-brockners-inband-oam-data, work in
progress.
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport] F.Brockners, at al.,
"Encapsulations for In-situ OAM Data",
draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport, work in progress.
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements] F.Brockners, et al.,
"Requirements for In-situ OAM",
draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements, work in progress.
[I-D.spring-segment-routing-policy] Filsfils, C., et al., "Segment
Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering",
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy, work in
progress.
8. Acknowledgments
To be added.
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
Authors' Addresses
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
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
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@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
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018
Gaurav Dawra
LinkedIn
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
Bart Peirens
Proximus
Email: bart.peirens@proximus.com
Mach Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Gaurav Naik
Drexel University
United States of America
Email: gn@drexel.edu
Ali, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft OAM for SRv6 July 2, 2018