MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In Situ OAM Data
draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-10
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 , Frank Brockners , Bin Wen , Bruno Decraene , Haoyu Song | ||
| Last updated | 2023-03-10 | ||
| 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-10
MPLS Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft F. Brockners
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 11 September 2023 B. Wen
Comcast
B. Decraene
Orange
H. Song
Futurewei Technologies
10 March 2023
MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In Situ OAM Data
draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-10
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).
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 11 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
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. Post-Stack Network Action for IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. MNA Sub-Stack for IOAM Post-Stack Network Action . . . . 6
4. Edge-To-Edge IOAM Network Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. MNA Sub-Stack for Edge-To-Edge IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Procedure for Edge-To-Edge IOAM Network Action . . . . . 8
5. Hop-By-Hop IOAM Network Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. MNA Sub-Stack for Hop-By-Hop IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Procedure for Hop-By-Hop IOAM Network Action . . . . . . 9
5.3. Hop-By-Hop and Edge-To-Edge IOAM Network Actions . . . . 10
6. Select IOAM Network Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Considerations for IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Considerations for ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Node Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. Nested MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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
[RFC9326] for direct export use-cases.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
This document defines how IOAM data fields are transported with MPLS
data plane encapsulations using MPLS Network Action (MNA).
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] defines mechanisms for carrying MNA Sub-Stack
(NAS) above the Bottom of the label stack (BOS) and
[I-D.jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr] defines mechanisms for carrying Post-Stack
Network Actions in MPLS packets 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 packet.
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-hdr] are used in this document.
Abbreviations used in this document:
ECMP Equal Cost Multi-Path
E2E Edge-To-Edge
HBH Hop-By-Hop
IHS Ingress-To-Egress (I2E), Hop-By-Hop (HBH) or Select Scope
IOAM In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
MNA MPLS Network Action
NAI Network Action Indicator
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
NASL Network Action Sub-Stack Length
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
POT Proof-of-Transit
3. MPLS Extensions for IOAM Data Fields
3.1. Post-Stack Network Action for IOAM
The Post-Stack Network Action for IOAM is defined using the
specification from [I-D.jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr].
The Post-Stack Network Action encoding contains IOAM Post-Stack
Network Action Opcode (value TBA2 allocated by IANA), length in
number of 4-Octet units, and IOAM Option-Type with IOAM-Data-Fields
in ancillary data as shown in Figure 1. The IOAM-Data-Fields MUST
follow the definitions corresponding to their IOAM-Option-Types
(e.g., see Section 4.4 of [RFC9197] and Section 3 of [RFC9326]).
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|N N N N|Version| PS-MNA-LEN | TYPE = POST-STACK-MNA | TH
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|<-+
|PS-NA-OP=IOAM| BLOCK-NUMBER |IOAM-OPT-TYPE|R|R|R| IOAM-HDR-LEN| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| | O
| | A
~ IOAM Option and Data Space [RFC9197] [RFC9326] ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|PS-NA-OP=IOAM| BLOCK-NUMBER |IOAM-OPT-TYPE|R|R|R| IOAM-HDR-LEN| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| | O
| | A
~ IOAM Option and Data Space [RFC9197] [RFC9326] ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| |
| |
~ Optional Payload + Padding ~
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Post-Stack Network Action with IOAM Data Fields
The 4-Octet Top Header is added with the following fields in the the
Post-Stack Network Action as defined in [I-D.jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr]
NNNN: The first 4-bit (value TBA3 allocated by IANA) as defined in
[I-D.jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr]. As specified in
[I-D.jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr], the NNNN value can be 0001b for Generic
Associated Channel (G-ACH) [RFC5586].
PS-MNA-LEN: Length of the Post-Stack Network Action Stack in the
packet in 4-Octet units including the Top Header.
TYPE: TYPE is defined for POST-STACK-MNA (value TBA4 allocated by
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
IANA) in [I-D.jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr]. As specified in
[I-D.jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr], the POST-STACK-MNA Type can be a
Generic Associated Channel (G-ACH) Type [RFC5586] (value TBA5
allocated by IANA).
An IOAM-Data-Field is added in the Post-Stack Network Action
containing the following fields:
IOAM-OPT-TYPE: 7-bit field defining the IOAM Option-Type, as defined
in the "IOAM Option-Type Registry" specified in [RFC9197] and
[RFC9326]).
IOAM-HDR-LEN: 7-bit unsigned integer. Length of the IOAM Data-
Fields 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 [RFC9326].
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 Sub-Stack for IOAM Post-Stack Network Action
The P flag defined in [I-D.jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr] is used to indicate
the presence of Post-Stack Network Action and Ancillary Data.
A Post-Stack Network Action Indicator (P flag) MUST be set to "1" to
indicate the presence of the Post-Stack Network Action with IOAM-
Data-Fields in the Post-Stack Network Action (after the Bottom of the
Stack).
The IHS scope field defined in [I-D.ietf-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 skip the IOAM data
processing on the intermediate nodes i.e., avoids the need to parse
all IOAM-Data-Fields to detect the HBH option type.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
The MNA Label used in this document is a Base Special Purpose Label
(bSPL value TBA1 to be allocated by IANA), which is also called
Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].
Opcode 2 is used to carry the Flag-Based Network Action Indicators
(NAIs) in the Ancillary Data field [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. The
Flag-Based Network Action Indicators is set to 0x0 to indicate that
no Network Action other than the Post-Stack Network Action(s) is
required for the packet.
The U Flag for Unknown Action Handling is specified in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].
The Network Action Sub-Stack Length (NASL) is set to 0 if no
additional Label Stack Entry (LSE) is added after the LSE carrying
the P Flag.
4. Edge-To-Edge IOAM Network Action
4.1. MNA Sub-Stack for Edge-To-Edge IOAM
The IHS scope is set to "I2E, value 0x0" to indicate the scope of E2E
IOAM-Data-Fields in the MPLS Sub-Stack as shown in Figure 2. Note
that there may be additional Network Action (NA) LSEs added in the
MNA Sub-Stack and NASL is updated based on the number of LSEs after
the LSE with P flag.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |1|E2E|S| Res |U|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Example MNA Sub-Stack for E2E IOAM
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
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) defined in [RFC9197] as well as Direct Export (DEX) Option-Type
(value 4) defined in [RFC9326]. 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 IOAM Network Action procedure is summarized as following:
* The encapsulating node inserts an MNA Sub-Stack with the MNA Label
(bSPL value TBA1) with the Post-Stack Network Action Indicator (P
flag) set to "1" and IHS scope set to "I2E, value 0x0" and one or
more IOAM-Data-Fields in the Post-Stack Network Action in the MPLS
packet.
* The intermediate nodes do not process IOAM-Data-Fields.
* 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.
* The decapsulating node MAY punt the IOAM data from the packet with
the receive timestamp to the slow path for IOAM-Data-Fields
processing. 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 Post-Stack Network Action
with IOAM-Data-Fields from the received packet. The decapsulated
packet is forwarded downstream or terminated locally similar to
the regular data packets.
5. Hop-By-Hop IOAM Network Action
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
5.1. MNA Sub-Stack for Hop-By-Hop IOAM
The IHS scope is set to "HBH, value 0x1" to indicate the scope of HBH
IOAM-Data-Fields in the MNA Sub-Stack as shown in Figure 3. Note
that there may be additional Network Action (NA) LSEs added in the
MNA Sub-Stack and NASL is updated based on the number of LSEs after
the LSE with P flag.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |1|HBH|S| Res |U|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Example MNA Sub-Stack 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) defined in [RFC9326].
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 an MNA Sub-Stack containing MNA
Label (bSPL value TBA1) with the Post-Stack Network Action
Indicator (P flag) set to "1" and IHS scope set to "HBH, value
0x1" and one or more IOAM-Data-Fields in the Post-Stack Network
Action in the MPLS packet.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
* The intermediate node enabled with HBH IOAM function processes the
data packet including the IOAM-Data-Fields as defined in [RFC9197]
and [RFC9326] when the node recognizes the HBH scope in the MNA
Sub-Stack.
* The intermediate node MAY punt the IOAM data from the packet with
the receive timestamp to the slow path for IOAM-Data-Fields
processing when the node recognizes the HBH scope. 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 the data packet downstream.
* The processing 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 Network Actions
Both HBH and E2E IOAM NAs may be added in an MNA Sub-Stack. In this
case, the HBH IOAM NAs MUST be added after the BOS and before the E2E
IOAM NAs. When an intermediate node that processes the HBH IOAM NAs,
encounters the first E2E IOAM NA, it will stop processing of the E2E
NA.
6. Select IOAM Network Action
The procedure for carrying the IOAM NAs for Select Scope is the same
as HBH Scope IOAM except the IHS scope is set to "Select, value 0x2".
In this case, only the select nodes will process the IOAM-Data-
Fields.
7. Considerations for IOAM
7.1. 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 first nibble NNNN in
the Top Header with a different IP Version Number (value TBA3 to be
allocated by IANA or 0001b for G-ACH) after the MPLS label stack.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
7.2. 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.
7.3. 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 Post-Stack Network Action as part of the new MPLS
encapsulation.
8. 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
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.
9. IANA Considerations
The PS-NA-OPCODE for IOAM is allocated from the "Post-Stack Network
Action" registry.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
+=======+======+=============+===============+
| Value | Name | Description | Reference |
+=======+======+=============+===============+
| TBA2 | IOAM | In Situ OAM | This document |
+-------+------+-------------+---------------+
Table 1: Post-Stack Network Action Opcode
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Zigler, R., Ed.,
Song, H., Ed., and K. Kompella, Ed., "MPLS Network Action
Sub-Stack Solution", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-01, March 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-
01.txt>.
[I-D.jags-mpls-ps-mna-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Zigler, R., Li,
T., and J. Dong, "Post-Stack MPLS Network Action (MNA)
Solution", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-jags-
mpls-ps-mna-hdr-00, March 2023,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jags-mpls-ps-mna-
hdr-00.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>.
[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>.
[RFC9326] Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
Mizrahi, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance OAM Direct Exporting", RFC 9326, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326>.
10.2. Informative References
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
[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, Jaganbabu
Rajamanickam, 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 of the early version
of the draft.
Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document:
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Voitek Kozak
Comcast
Email: Voitek_Kozak@comcast.com
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@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
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft In Situ OAM for MPLS Data plane March 2023
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Haoyu Song
Futurewei Technologies
United States of America
Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires 11 September 2023 [Page 14]