MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data
draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-04
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 "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Rakesh Gandhi , Zafar Ali , Frank Brockners , Bin Wen , Bruno Decraene , Voitek Kozak | ||
| Last updated | 2022-03-02 (Latest revision 2022-02-01) | ||
| Replaces | draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr | ||
| 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-gandhi-mpls-ioam-04
MPLS Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Z. Ali
Updates: 5586 (if approved) F. Brockners
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 3 September 2022 B. Wen
Comcast
B. Decraene
Orange
V. Kozak
Comcast
2 March 2022
MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data
draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-04
Abstract
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used
for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information
while the packet traverses a path between two points in the network.
This document defines how IOAM data fields are transported with MPLS
data plane encapsulation using new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh)
and updates the RFC 5586.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. MPLS Extensions for IOAM Data Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IOAM Generic Associated Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. IOAM Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Edge-to-Edge IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. IOAM Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Procedure for Edge-to-Edge IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Hop-By-Hop IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Hop-By-Hop Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Procedure for Hop-By-Hop IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Considerations for IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Considerations for ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Node Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Nested MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. MPLS Encapsulation with Control Word and Another G-ACh for
IOAM Data Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used
for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information
while the packet traverses a path between two points in the network.
The term "in-situ" refers to the fact that the IOAM data fields are
added to the data packets rather than being sent within the probe
packets specifically dedicated to OAM. The IOAM data fields are
defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The IOAM data fields are
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
further updated in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] for direct
export use-cases.
This document defines how IOAM data fields are transported with MPLS
data plane encapsulations using new Generic Associated Channel
(G-ACh) and updates the [RFC5586].
2. Conventions
2.1. Requirement Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in this document:
IOI IOAM Indicator
ECMP Equal Cost Multi-Path
E2E Edge-To-Edge
EL Entropy Label
ELI Entropy Label Indicator
ELC Entropy Label Control
G-ACh Generic Associated Channel
HBH Hop-By-Hop
HBI Hop-By-Hop Indicator
IOAM In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
POT Proof-of-Transit
PW PseudoWire
3. MPLS Extensions for IOAM Data Fields
3.1. IOAM Generic Associated Channel
The IOAM header is added containing different IOAM-Data-Fields in the
MPLS header as shown in Figure 1. The IOAM-Data-Fields MUST follow
the definitions corresponding to IOAM-Option-Types (e.g. see
Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and Section 3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]). More than one trace options can
be present in the IOAM-Data-Fields.
G-ACh [RFC5586] provides a mechanism to transport OAM and other
control messages over MPLS data plane. The IOAM G-ACh header
[RFC5586] with new IOAM G-ACh type MUST be added immediately after
the MPLS label stack in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 1, before
the IOAM-Data-Fields. The G-ACh label (GAL) [RFC5586] MUST NOT be
added in the MPLS label stack.
This document updates the following paragraph in Section 2.1 of
[RFC5586]: "The G-ACh MUST NOT be used to transport user traffic" to
"The G-ACh MAY be used with user traffic to transport OAM
information".
Note that the G-ACh is not really used to transport the user traffic
in this document but to transport the IOAM-Data-Fields with the user
traffic.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Length | IOAM G-ACh | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| IOAM-OPT-Type | IOAM HDR Len | Block Number | Reserved | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| | O
| | A
~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| |
| |
| Optional Payload + Padding |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IOAM Generic Associated Channel with IOAM Data Fields
The IOAM-Data-Fields are encapsulated using the following fields in
the MPLS header:
IP Version Number 0001b: The first four octets are IP Version Field
part of a G-ACh header, as defined in [RFC5586].
Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in [RFC4385].
Length: Length of IOAM G-ACh data in 4-octet units. Note that this
field is marked as Reserved in [RFC5586] and is updated for the new
IOAM G-ACh type by this document.
IOAM G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Type (value TBA1) for
IOAM [RFC5586].
Reserved: Reserved Bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
ignored upon receipt.
Block Number: The Block Number can be used to aggregate the IOAM
data collected in data plane, e.g. to compute measurement metrics
for each block of a data flow. It is also used to correlate the
IOAM data on different nodes.
IOAM-OPT-Type: 8-bit field defining the IOAM Option type, as defined
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
in the "IOAM Option-Type Registry" specified in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
IOAM HDR Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the IOAM Header
in 4-octet units.
IOAM Option and Data Space: IOAM-Data-Fields as specified by the
IOAM-OPT-Type field. IOAM-Data-Fields are defined corresponding to
the IOAM-Option-Type (e.g. see Section 5 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and Section 3.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export].
3.2. IOAM Indicators
An IOAM Indicator MUST be used to indicate the presence of the IOAM-
Data-Fields in the MPLS header. If both edge and intermediate nodes
need to process IOAM data then both IOAM Indicator and HBH Indicator
MUST be used. The HBH Indicator allows to optimize the IOAM
processing on intermediate nodes and avoids the need to check all
IOAM-Data-Fields.
A flag called IOI (IOAM Indicator) in the TTL of the X-Label is
defined in this document to indicate the presence of IOAM. A flag
called HBI (Hop-By-Hop Indicator) in the TTL of the X-Label is
defined to indicate that HBH processing is required. The bit
positions of these flags in the TTL field can be user-defined,
consistently in the network. Alternatively, the bit positions of
these flag can be allocated by IANA.
The X-Label can be a Special Purpose Label (value TBA1) assigned by
IANA or a Network Programming Label (NPL) provisioned by a user
[I-D.jags-mpls-ext-hdr] or an Entropy Label
[I-D.decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id].
4. Edge-to-Edge IOAM
4.1. IOAM Indicator
The IOAM Indicator is used to indicate the presence of the IOAM-Data-
Fields in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 2.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| X-Label | TC |1| TTL(IOI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Example MPLS Encapsulation for IOAM
The E2E IOAM-Data-Fields carry the Option-Type(s) that require
processing on the encapsulating and decapsulating nodes only. The
IOAM Option-Type carried can be IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option-Type
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The E2E IOAM-Data-Fields SHOULD NOT carry
any IOAM Option-Type that require IOAM processing on the intermediate
nodes as it will not be processed by them.
4.2. Procedure for Edge-to-Edge IOAM
The E2E IOM procedure is summarized as following:
* The encapsulating node inserts the X-Label with the IOAM Indicator
(Flag IOI) below the label whose FEC is the end (decapsulating)
node and one or more IOAM-Data-Fields in the MPLS header.
* The intermediate nodes do not process IOAM-Data-Fields.
* The penultimate node MUST NOT remove the MPLS header. This is
ensured by the encapsulating node by adding required MPLS header.
* The decapsulating node MAY punt a copy of the packet with the
receive timestamp to the slow path for IOAM-Data-Fields processing
when the node recognizes the IOAM Indicator. The receive
timestamp is required by the various E2E OAM use-cases, including
streaming telemetry. Note that the packet is not necessarily
punted to the control-plane.
* The decapsulating node processes the IOAM-Data-Fields using the
procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. An example of
IOAM processing is to export the IOAM-Data-Fields, send IOAM-Data-
Fields via streaming telemetry, etc.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
* The decapsulating node MUST remove the IOAM-Data-Fields from the
received packet. The decapsulated packet is forwarded downstream
or terminated locally similar to the regular IOAM-Data-Fields.
5. Hop-By-Hop IOAM
5.1. Hop-By-Hop Indicator
The IOAM Indicator (Flag IOI) along with Hop-By-Hop Indicator (Flag
HBI) are used to indicate the presence of the HBH IOAM-Data-Fields in
the MPLS header as shown in Figure 3.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| X-Label | TC |1| TTL(IOI, HBI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Example MPLS Encapsulation for HBH IOAM
The HBH IOAM-Data-Fields carry the Option-Type(s) that require
processing at the intermediate and/or encapsulating and decapsulating
nodes. The IOAM Option-Type carried can be IOAM Pre-allocated Trace
Option-Type, IOAM Incremental Trace Option-Type and IOAM Proof of
Transit (POT) Option-Type, as well as Edge-to-Edge Option-Type
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
5.2. Procedure for Hop-By-Hop IOAM
The HBH IOAM procedure is summarized as following:
* The encapsulating node inserts the X-Label with the IOAM Indicator
(Flag IOI) and HBH Indicator (Flag HBI) below the label whose FEC
is the end (decapsulating) node and one or more IOAM-Data-Fields
in the MPLS header.
* The intermediate node enabled with HBH IOAM function processes the
data packet including the IOAM-Data-Fields as defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] when the node recognizes the HBH
Indicator in the MPLS header.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
* The intermediate node MAY punt a copy of the packet with the
receive timestamp to the slow path for IOAM-Data-Fields processing
when the node recognizes the HBH Indicator. The receive timestamp
is required by the various HBH OAM use-cases, including streaming
telemetry. Note that the packet is not necessarily punted to the
control-plane.
* The intermediate node forwards a copy of the processed data packet
downstream.
* The penultimate node MUST NOT remove the MPLS header. This is
ensured by the encapsulating node by adding required MPLS header.
* The processing on the decapsulating node is same as E2E case.
6. Considerations for IOAM
6.1. Considerations for ECMP
The encapsulating node needs to make sure the IOAM-Data-Fields do not
start with a well-known IP Version Number (e.g. 0x4 for IPv4 and 0x6
for IPv6) as that can alter the hashing function for ECMP that uses
the IP header. This is achieved by using the IOAM G-ACh with IP
Version Number 0001b after the MPLS label stack [RFC5586].
When entropy label [RFC6790] is used for hashing function for ECMP,
the procedure defined in this document does not alter the ECMP
behaviour.
6.2. Node Capability
The decapsulating node that has to remove the IOAM-Data-Fields and
perform the IOAM function may not be capable of supporting it. The
encapsulating node needs to know if the decapsulating node can
support the IOAM function. The signaling extension for this
capability exchange is outside the scope of this document.
The intermediate node that is not capable of supporting the IOAM
functions defined in this document, can simply skip the IOAM
processing.
6.3. Nested MPLS Encapsulation
When a packet is received with IOAM, the nested MPLS encapsulating
node that supports a different IOAM, the node MUST add a new X-Label
with the supported IOAM as part of the new MPLS encapsulation.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and apply to the procedure defined in this
document.
IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where one or several
operators decide on configuring IOAM according to their needs. IOAM
is intended for deployment in limited domains [RFC8799]. As such, it
assumes that a node involved in IOAM operation has previously
verified the integrity of the path. Still, operators need to
properly secure the IOAM domain to avoid malicious configuration and
use, which could include injecting malicious IOAM packets into the
domain.
Routers that support G-ACh are subject to the same security
considerations as defined in [RFC4385] and [RFC5586].
8. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains G-ACh Type Registry (see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/g-ach-
parameters.xhtml). IANA is requested to allocate a value for IOAM
G-ACh Type from "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
(including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry.
+=======+=================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=================+===============+
| TBA1 | IOAM G-ACh Type | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
Table 1: IOAM G-ACh Type
9. Appendix
9.1. MPLS Encapsulation with Control Word and Another G-ACh for IOAM
Data Fields
The IOAM-Data-Fields, including IOAM G-ACh header are added in the
MPLS encapsulation immediately after the MPLS header. Any Control
Word [RFC4385] or another G-ACh [RFC5586] MUST be added after the
IOAM-Data-Fields in the packet as shown in the Figure 6 and Figure 7,
respectively. This allows the intermediate nodes to easily access
the HBH IOAM-Data-Fields located immediately after the MPLS header.
The decapsulating node can remove the MPLS encapsulation including
the IOAM-Data-Fields and then process the Control Word or another
G-ACh following it. The subsequent G-ACh and Control Word are
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
located through the use of the "Length" field in the IOAM G-ACh.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| X-Label | TC |1| TTL(IOI, HBI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Length | IOAM G-ACh |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| IOAM-OPT-Type | IOAM HDR Len | Block Number | Reserved | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| | O
| | A
~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|0 0 0 0| Specified by PW Encapsulation [RFC4385] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
~ Payload + Padding ~
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Example MPLS Encapsulation with Generic PW Control Word
with HBH IOAM
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| X-Label | TC |1| TTL(IOI, HBI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Length | IOAM G-ACh |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| IOAM-OPT-Type | IOAM HDR Len | Block Number | Reserved | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| | O
| | A
~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
~ Payload + Padding ~
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Example MPLS Encapsulation with Another G-ACh with HBH IOAM
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-ippm-ioam-data-17, 13 December 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-17.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,
Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ
OAM Direct Exporting", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-07, 13 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
direct-export-07.txt>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id]
Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Henderickx, W., Saad, T.,
Beeram, V. P., and L. Jalil, "Using Entropy Label for
Network Slice Identification in MPLS networks.", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-decraene-mpls-slid-
encoded-entropy-label-id-03, 11 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-
encoded-entropy-label-id-03.txt>.
[I-D.jags-mpls-ext-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Bhattacharya, J., Decraene,
B., Zigler, R., Cheng, W., and L. Jalil, "MPLS Extension
Header Encodings Using Entropy Label", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-jags-mpls-ext-hdr-00, 2 March 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jags-mpls-ext-hdr-
00.txt>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2022
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Patrick Khordoc, Sagar Soni, Shwetha
Bhandari, Clarence Filsfils, and Vengada Prasad Govindan for the
discussions on IOAM. The authors would also like to thank Tarek
Saad, Loa Andersson, Greg Mirsky, Stewart Bryant, Xiao Min, and Cheng
Li for providing many useful comments. The authors would also like
to thank Mach Chen, Andrew Malis, Matthew Bocci, and Nick Delregno
for the MPLS-RT reviews.
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Frank Brockners
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40549
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Bin Wen
Comcast
Email: Bin_Wen@cable.comcast.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Voitek Kozak
Comcast
Email: Voitek_Kozak@comcast.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires 3 September 2022 [Page 14]