MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data
draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-07
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 , Haoyu Song , Voitek Kozak | ||
| Last updated | 2022-10-13 | ||
| 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-07
MPLS Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Z. Ali
Intended status: Standards Track F. Brockners
Expires: 16 April 2023 Cisco Systems, Inc.
B. Wen
Comcast
B. Decraene
Orange
H. Song
Futurewei Technologies
V. Kozak
Comcast
13 October 2022
MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data
draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-07
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 MPLS Network Action (MNA) and follows
the MNA framework defined in draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk.
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 16 April 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 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 Extension Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. MNA Header for Post-Stack Network Action Presence Indicator
and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Edge-to-Edge IOAM Network Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. MNA Header for Edge-To-Edge IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Procedure for Edge-to-Edge IOAM Network Action . . . . . 7
5. Hop-By-Hop IOAM Network Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. MNA Header for Hop-By-Hop IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Procedure for Hop-By-Hop IOAM Network Action . . . . . . 9
5.3. Hop-By-Hop and Edge-To-Edge IOAM Extension Headers . . . 9
5.4. Procedure for Select IOAM Network Action . . . . . . . . 10
6. Considerations for IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Considerations for ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Node Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. Nested MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 [RFC9197]. The IOAM data fields are further updated in
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
[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 MPLS Network Action (MNA) and follows
the framework defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk].
[I-D.jags-mpls-mna-hdr] defines mechanisms for carrying MNA header
and Network Actions Sub-stack (NASS) above the Bottom of the label
stack (BOS) and [I-D.song-mpls-extension-header] defines mechanisms
for carrying Post-Stack Data (PSD) in MPLS extension headers (EHs)
after the Bottom of the label stack. This document uses these two
mechanisms and describes the procedures for carrying IOAM data fields
in an MPLS header.
Note: This document uses MNA encoding solutions defined in Individual
Internet Drafts as examples. The MNA encoding will be updated to
align with the MNA solutions in the WG adopted Internet Drafts when
they are available.
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
The MPLS Network Action (MNA) terminology defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] are used in this document.
Abbreviations used in this document:
PNI Post-Stack Network Action Presence Indicator (P flag)
ECMP Equal Cost Multi-Path
E2E Edge-To-Edge
HBH Hop-By-Hop
IHS Ingress-to-Egress, Hop-By-Hop or Select Scope
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
IOAM In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
MNA MPLS Network Action
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
POT Proof-of-Transit
3. MPLS Extensions for IOAM Data Fields
3.1. IOAM Extension Header
The IOAM extension headers containing different IOAM-Data-Fields are
added in the MPLS packet as shown in Figure 1. The IOAM-Data-Fields
MUST follow the definitions corresponding to the IOAM-Option-Types
(e.g., see Section 4.4 of [RFC9197] and Section 3 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]).
An IOAM extension header uses Extension Header (EH) defined in
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header].
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|1ST-NIB| EH-CN | EH-TOTAL-LEN |ORG-UL-PROTOCOL|NEXT-HDR = IOAM| CH
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|NEXT-HDR = IOAM| IOAM-HDR-LEN |R|IOAM-OPT-TYPE| BLOCK-NUMBER | EH
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| | I
| | O
~ IOAM Option and Data Space [RFC9197] ~ A
| [draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] | M
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| NEXT-HDR | IOAM-HDR-LEN |R|IOAM-OPT-TYPE| BLOCK-NUMBER | EH
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| | I
| | O
~ IOAM Option and Data Space [RFC9197] ~ A
| [draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] | M
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| |
| |
~ Optional Payload + Padding ~
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Extension Headers with IOAM Data Fields
The 4-Octet Common Header CH) is added with the following fields in
the MPLS header as defined in [I-D.song-mpls-extension-header]:
1ST-NIBBLE (R): The first 4-bit is Reserved (value TBA4).
EH-CN (EHC): The EH Count, number of EHs carried in the packet.
EH-TOTAL-LEN (EHTL): Total Length of EHs in the packet in 4-octet
units.
ORIG-UL-PROTOCOL (OUL): The Original Upper Layer Protocol.
NEXT-HDR (NH): The Next Header protocol. For IOAM as Next Header,
value TBA2 is to be assigned by IANA.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
IOAM-Data-Fields are added in EHs containing the following fields:
IOAM-OPT-TYPE: 8-bit field defining the IOAM Option type, as defined
in the "IOAM Option-Type Registry" specified in [RFC9197] and
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]).
IOAM-HDR-LEN: 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 4.4 of [RFC9197] and
Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export].
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.
3.2. MNA Header for Post-Stack Network Action Presence Indicator and
Scope
The P flag for PNI (Post-Stack Network Action Presence Indicator)
defined in [I-D.jags-mpls-mna-hdr] is used in this document to
indicate the presence of IOAM Post-Stack Network Action and Ancillary
Data.
A Post-Stack Network Action Presence Indicator (P flag) MUST be set
to "1" to indicate the presence of IOAM-Data-Fields in the MPLS
header.
The IHS scope field defined in [I-D.jags-mpls-mna-hdr] is used to
indicate that E2E or HBH or Select processing is required for the
Post-Stack Network Action and Ancillary Data.
If both edge and intermediate nodes need to process the IOAM data
fields then IHS scope MUST be set to "HBH, value 0x1". If only edge
nodes need to process the IOAM data fields then IHS scope MUST be set
to "I2E, value 0x0". The HBH scope allows to optimize the IOAM data
processing on the intermediate nodes and avoids the need to parse all
IOAM-Data-Fields to detect HBH option types.
The MNA Label used in this document is a Base Special Purpose Label
(bSPL value TBA1 to be assigned by IANA), and is referred to as
Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator (NASI) in [I-D.jags-mpls-mna-hdr].
4. Edge-to-Edge IOAM Network Action
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
4.1. MNA Header for Edge-To-Edge IOAM
The Post-Stack Network Action Presence Indicator is set to "1" to
indicate the presence of IOAM-Data-Fields and the IHS scope is set to
"I2E, value 0x0" to indicate the scope of E2E IOAM-Data-Fields in the
MPLS header as shown in Figure 2.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MNA Label (bSPL value TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |S| P=1, IHS=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Example MNA Header for E2E 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 (value
3) [RFC9197] as well as Direct Export (DEX) Option-Type (value 4, yet
to be assigned by IANA) defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]. 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 since IHS
scope is set to "I2E, value 0x0".
4.2. Procedure for Edge-to-Edge IOAM Network Action
The E2E IOM Network Action procedure is summarized as following:
* The encapsulating node inserts the MNA Label (bSPL value TBA1)
with the Post-Stack Network Action Presence Indicator (P flag) set
to "1" below the label whose FEC is the decapsulating node and one
or more IOAM-Data-Fields in the MPLS packet.
* The intermediate nodes do not process IOAM-Data-Fields.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
* The penultimate node MUST NOT remove the MNA Sub-stack from the
MPLS header so that the MNA Sub-stack is received at the
decapsulating node. This encapsulating node adds required MPLS
header so that the received packet on the penultimate node does
not have MNA Sub-stack at the top of the Label stack.
* 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 P flag is set to "1". 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 [RFC9197]. An example of IOAM processing is
to export the IOAM-Data-Fields, send IOAM-Data-Fields via
streaming telemetry, etc.
* 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 Network Action
5.1. MNA Header for Hop-By-Hop IOAM
The Post-Stack Network Action Presence Indicator is set to "1" to
indicate the presence of IOAM-Data-Fields and the IHS scope is set to
"HBH, value 0x1" to indicate the scope of 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MNA Label (bSPL value TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |S| P=1, IHS=1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
Figure 3: Example MNA Header 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 (value 0), IOAM Incremental Trace Option-Type (value 1)
and IOAM Proof of Transit (POT) Option-Type (value 2), and Edge-to-
Edge Option-Type (value 3) defined in [RFC9197] as well as Direct
Export (DEX) Option-Type (value 4, yet to be assigned by IANA)
defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export].
5.2. Procedure for Hop-By-Hop IOAM Network Action
The Hop-By-Hop IOAM Network Action procedure is summarized as
following:
* The encapsulating node inserts the MNA Label (bSPL value TBA1)
with the Post-Stack Network Action Presence Indicator (P flag) and
IHS scope set to "HBH, value 0x1" below the label whose FEC is the
decapsulating node and one or more IOAM-Data-Fields in the MPLS
packet.
* The intermediate node enabled with HBH IOAM function processes the
data packet including the IOAM-Data-Fields as defined in [RFC9197]
and [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] when the node recognizes
the HBH Processing Indicator in the MPLS header.
* 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 Processing 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 behavior on the penultimate node is same as E2E case.
* The processing on the decapsulating node is same as E2E case.
5.3. Hop-By-Hop and Edge-To-Edge IOAM Extension Headers
Both HBH and E2E IOAM EHs may be added in an MPLS header. In this
case the HBH IOAM EHs MUST be added after the BOS and before the E2E
IOAM EHs. When an intermediate node that processes the HBH IOAM EHs,
encounters the first E2E IOAM EH, it will stop processing of the E2E
EH.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
5.4. Procedure for Select IOAM Network Action
The procedure for carrying the IOAM for Select is the same as HBH
IOAM except the IHS scope is set to "Select, value 0x2". In this
case, only the select nodes will process the IOAM-Data-Fields.
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 Common Header (CH) with
a different IP Version Number (value TBA4) after the MPLS label
stack.
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.
The node that does not recognize the MNA Label received at the top of
the label stack will drop the packet.
6.3. Nested MPLS Encapsulation
When a packet is received with MPLS Encapsulated IOAM Network Action,
the nested MPLS encapsulating node that supports a different IOAM
Network Action, the node MUST add a new MNA Label (with Sub-Stack)
with the supported IOAM Network Action as part of the new MPLS
encapsulation.
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
[RFC9197] 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
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
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.
8. IANA Considerations
The encoding of Next-Header uses the same value registry for IPv4/
IPv6 protocol numbers. The value TBA2 for IOAM as Next Header shall
be assigned by IANA from the "Protocol Numbers" registry
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-
numbers.xhtml).
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
Mizrahi, "In-situ OAM Direct Exporting", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-11, 23
September 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-11.txt>.
[I-D.jags-mpls-mna-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Zigler, R., Ed.,
Song, H., Ed., and K. Kompella, Ed., "MPLS Network Action
Header Encodings", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr-02, 10 October 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr-
02.txt>.
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header]
Song, H., Li, Z., Zhou, T., Andersson, L., Zhang, Z.,
Gandhi, R., Rajamanickam, J., and J. Bhattacharya, "MPLS
Extension Header", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-song-mpls-extension-header-10, 10 September 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-song-mpls-
extension-header-10.txt>.
[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>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
[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>.
[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance",
RFC 9197, May 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS
Network Actions Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-01.txt, 8 September 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-
01.txt>.
[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>.
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
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane October 2022
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
Haoyu Song
Futurewei Technologies
United States of America
Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Voitek Kozak
Comcast
Email: Voitek_Kozak@comcast.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires 16 April 2023 [Page 13]