Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9359.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xiao Min , Greg Mirsky , Lei Bo | ||
| Last updated | 2021-10-24 | ||
| Replaces | draft-xiao-ippm-ioam-conf-state | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-06)
by Gyan Mishra
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9359 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-01
IPPM Working Group X. Min
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky
Expires: 27 April 2022 Ericsson
L. Bo
China Telecom
24 October 2021
Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-01
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the echo request/reply
mechanisms used in IPv6 (including SRv6), MPLS (including SR-MPLS),
SFC and BIER environments, which can be used within the IOAM domain,
allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM
capabilities of each IOAM transit node and IOAM decapsulating node.
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 27 April 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IOAM Capabilities Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. IOAM Capabilities Query Container . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. IOAM Capabilities Response Container . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object . . . 7
3.2.2. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object . . . . 8
3.2.3. IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object . . . . . . 9
3.2.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.5. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.6. IOAM End-of-Domain Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Operational Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. IOAM SoR Capability Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. IOAM TSF+TSL Capability Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
In-situ OAM (IOAM) ([I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]) defines data fields that record
OAM information within the packet while the packet traverses a
particular network domain, called an IOAM domain. IOAM can be used
to complement OAM mechanisms based on, e.g., ICMP or other types of
probe packets, and IOAM mechanisms can be leveraged where mechanisms
using, e.g., ICMP, do not apply or do not offer the desired results.
As specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], within the IOAM domain,
the IOAM data may be updated by network nodes that the packet
traverses. The device which adds an IOAM header to the packet is
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
called an "IOAM encapsulating node". In contrast, the device which
removes an IOAM header is referred to as an "IOAM decapsulating
node". Nodes within the domain that are aware of IOAM data and read
and/or write and/or process IOAM data are called "IOAM transit
nodes". IOAM encapsulating or decapsulating nodes can also serve as
IOAM transit nodes at the same time. IOAM encapsulating or
decapsulating nodes are also referred to as IOAM domain edge devices,
which can be hosts or network devices.
To add the correct IOAM header to the data packet, the IOAM
encapsulating node needs to know the enabled IOAM capabilities at the
IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating nodes as a whole. For example,
how many IOAM transit nodes will add tracing data and what kinds of
data fields will be added. A centralized controller which owns the
enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM device could be used in some
IOAM deployments. The IOAM encapsulating node can discover the
enabled IOAM capabilities info from the centralized controller,
using, for example, NETCONF/YANG, PCEP, or BGP. In the IOAM
deployment scenario where there is no centralized controller,
NETCONF/YANG or IGP may be used by the IOAM encapsulating node to
discover these IOAM capabilities information. However, NETCONF/YANG
or IGP has some limitations:
* When NETCONF/YANG is used in this scenario, each IOAM
encapsulating node (including the host when it takes the role of
an IOAM encapsulating node) needs to implement a NETCONF Client,
each IOAM transit node and IOAM decapsulating node (including the
host when it takes the role of an IOAM decapsulating node) needs
to implement a NETCONF Server, the complexity can be an issue.
Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish
NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit node and IOAM
decapsulating node, the scalability can be an issue.
* When IGP is used in this scenario, the IGP and IOAM domains don't
always have the same coverage. For example, when the IOAM
encapsulating node or the IOAM decapsulating node is a host, the
availability can be an issue. Furthermore, it might be too
challenging to reflect enabled IOAM capabilities at the IOAM
transit node and IOAM decapsulating node if these are controlled
by a local policy depending on the identity of the IOAM
encapsulating node.
This document describes an extension to the echo request/reply
mechanisms used in IPv6 (including SRv6), MPLS (including SR-MPLS),
SFC and BIER environments, which can be used within the IOAM domain,
allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM
capabilities of each IOAM transit node and IOAM decapsulating node.
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
The following documents contain references to the echo request/reply
mechanisms used in IPv6 (including SRv6), MPLS (including SR-MPLS),
SFC and BIER environments:
* [RFC4443] ("Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification"), [RFC4884]
("Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages") and [RFC8335]
("PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces")
* [RFC8029] ("Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-
Plane Failures")
* [I-D.ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam] ("Active OAM for Service Function
Chains in Networks")
* [I-D.ietf-bier-ping] ("BIER Ping and Trace")
The precondition for the feature described in this document to work
is that the echo request reaches each IOAM transit node as the data
packet traverses, so the feature is assumedly applied to explicit
path (strict or loose), or there is only one path between the IOAM
encapsulating node and the IOAM decapsulating node, or the echo
request can experience the same ECMP processing as the data packet.
2. Conventions
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication
BGP: Border Gateway Protocol
ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath
E2E: Edge to Edge
ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
LSP: Label Switched Path
MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
MBZ: Must Be Zero
MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit
NTP: Network Time Protocol
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
PCEP: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
POSIX: Portable Operating System Interface
POT: Proof of Transit
PTP: Precision Time Protocol
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane
SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane
SFC: Service Function Chain
TTL: Time to Live
3. IOAM Capabilities Formats
3.1. IOAM Capabilities Query Container
For echo request, IOAM Capabilities Query uses container which has
the following format:
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM Capabilities Query Container Header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of Namespace-IDs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IOAM Capabilities Query Container of Echo Request
When this container is present in or equal to the echo request sent
by an IOAM encapsulating node, that means the IOAM encapsulating node
requests the receiving node to reply with its enabled IOAM
capabilities. If there is no IOAM capability to be reported by the
receiving node, then this container SHOULD be ignored by the
receiving node, which means the receiving node SHOULD send an echo
reply without IOAM capabilities or no echo reply, in the light of
whether the echo request includes other containers than the IOAM
Capabilities Query Container. A list of Namespace-IDs (one or more
Namespace-IDs) MUST be included in this container in the echo
request. The IOAM encapsulating node requests only the enabled IOAM
capabilities that match one of the Namespace-IDs. The Namespace-ID
has the same definition as what's specified in Section 5.3 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
The IOAM Capabilities Query Container has a container header that is
used to identify the type and optionally length of the container
payload, and the container payload (List of Namespace-IDs) is zero-
padded to align to a 4-octet boundary.
The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities Query
Container Header depends on the specific environment it is applied
at.
3.2. IOAM Capabilities Response Container
For echo reply, IOAM Capabilities Response uses container which has
the following format:
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM Capabilities Response Container Header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of Objects .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: IOAM Capabilities Response Container of Echo Reply
When this container is present in or equal to the echo reply sent by
an IOAM transit node or IOAM decapsulating node, that means the IOAM
function is enabled at this node, and this container contains the
enabled IOAM capabilities of the sender. A list of objects (one or
more objects) which contains the enabled IOAM capabilities SHOULD be
included in this container of echo reply.
The IOAM Capabilities Response Container has a container header that
is used to identify the type and optionally length of the container
payload, and the container payload (List of Objects) is zero-padded
to align to a 4-octet boundary.
The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities
Response Container Header depends on the specific environment it is
applied at.
Based on the IOAM data fields defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
and [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export], six types of objects are
defined in this document. The same type of object MAY be present in
the IOAM Capabilities Response Container more than once, only if with
a different Namespace-ID.
Similar to the container, each object has an object header that is
used to identify the type and length of the object payload, and the
object payload is zero-padded to align to a 4-octet boundary.
The length, structure, and definition of Object Header depends on the
specific environment it is applied at.
3.2.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object Header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Egress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object
When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
IOAM pre-allocated tracing function is enabled at this IOAM transit
node.
IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.
W flag indicates whether Egress_if_id is in short or wide format.
The W-bit is set if the Egress_if_id is in wide format. The W-bit is
clear if the Egress_if_id is in short format.
Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
echo request.
Egress_MTU field has 16 bits and specifies the MTU (in octets) of the
egress direction out of which the sending node would forward the
received echo request, it should be the MTU of the egress interface
or the MTU between the sending node and the downstream IOAM transit
node.
Egress_if_id field has 16 bits (in short format) or 32 bits (in wide
format) and specifies the identifier of the egress interface out of
which the sending node would forward the received echo request.
3.2.2. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object Header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Egress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Egress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object
When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
IOAM incremental tracing function is enabled at this IOAM transit
node.
IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.
W flag indicates whether Egress_if_id is in short or wide format.
The W-bit is set if the Egress_if_id is in wide format. The W-bit is
clear if the Egress_if_id is in short format.
Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
echo request.
Egress_MTU field has 16 bits and specifies the MTU (in octets) of the
egress direction out of which the sending node would forward the
received echo request, it should be the MTU of the egress interface
or the MTU between the sending node and the downstream IOAM transit
node.
Egress_if_id field has 16 bits (in short format) or 32 bits (in wide
format) and specifies the identifier of the egress interface out of
which the sending node would forward the received echo request.
3.2.3. IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object Header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | IOAM-POT-Type |P|SoR|Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object
When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
IOAM Proof of Transit function is enabled at this IOAM transit node.
Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
echo request.
IOAM-POT-Type field and P bit have the same definition as what's
specified in Section 5.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. If the IOAM
encapsulating node receives IOAM-POT-Type and/or P bit values from an
IOAM transit node that are different from its own, then the IOAM
encapsulating node MAY choose to abandon the proof of transit
function or to select one kind of IOAM-POT-Type and P bit, it's based
on the policy applied to the IOAM encapsulating node.
SoR field has two bits, which means the size of "Random" and
"Cumulative" data that are specified in Section 5.5 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. This document defines SoR as follow:
0b00 means 64-bit "Random" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data.
0b01~0b11: Reserved for future standardization
Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.
3.2.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object Header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | IOAM-E2E-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|TSF|TSL| Reserved | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node
and IOAM edge-to-edge function is enabled at this IOAM decapsulating
node.
Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
echo request.
IOAM-E2E-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
TSF field specifies the timestamp format used by the sending node.
This document defines TSF as follows:
0b00: PTP timestamp format
0b01: NTP timestamp format
0b10: POSIX timestamp format
0b11: Reserved for future standardization
TSL field specifies the timestamp length used by the sending node.
This document defines TSL as follow.
When the TSF field is set to 0b00, which indicates the PTP
timestamp format, the values of the TSL field are interpreted as
follows:
0b00: 64-bit PTPv1 timestamp as defined in IEEE1588-2008
[IEEE1588v2]
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
0b01: 80-bit PTPv2 timestamp as defined in IEEE1588-2008
[IEEE1588v2]
0b10~0b11: Reserved for future standardization
When the TSF field is set to 0b01, which indicates the NTP
timestamp format, the values of the TSL field are interpreted as
follows:
0b00: 32-bit NTP timestamp as defined in NTPv4 [RFC5905]
0b01: 64-bit NTP timestamp as defined in NTPv4 [RFC5905]
0b10: 128-bit NTP timestamp as defined in NTPv4 [RFC5905]
0b11: Reserved for future standardization
When the TSF field is set to 0b10 or 0b11, the TSL field would be
ignored.
Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.
3.2.5. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM DEX Capabilities Object Header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: IOAM DEX Capabilities Object
When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
the IOAM direct exporting function is enabled at this IOAM transit
node.
IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export].
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
echo request.
Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.
3.2.6. IOAM End-of-Domain Object
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM End-of-Domain Object Header .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: IOAM End-of-Domain Object
When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node.
Unless the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object is present, which
also indicates that the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node,
the End-of-Domain Object MUST be present in the IOAM Capabilities
Response Container sent by an IOAM decapsulating node. When the IOAM
edge-to-edge function is enabled at the IOAM decapsulating node, it's
RECOMMENDED to include only the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
but not the IOAM End-of-Domain Object.
Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it SHOULD be one of the
Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Container.
4. Operational Guide
Once the IOAM encapsulating node is triggered to discover the enabled
IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit node and IOAM decapsulating
node, the IOAM encapsulating node will send echo requests that
include the IOAM Capabilities Query Container. First, with TTL equal
to 1 to reach the closest node, which may be an IOAM transit node or
not. Then with TTL equal to 2 to reach the second nearest node,
which also may be an IOAM transit node or not. And further,
increasing by 1 the TTL every time the IOAM encapsulating node sends
a new echo request, until the IOAM encapsulating node receives an
echo reply sent by the IOAM decapsulating node, which should contain
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
the IOAM Capabilities Response Container including the IOAM Edge-to-
Edge Capabilities Object or the IOAM End-of-Domain Object.
Alternatively, if the IOAM encapsulating node knows precisely all the
IOAM transit nodes and IOAM decapsulating node beforehand, once the
IOAM encapsulating node is triggered to discover the enabled IOAM
capabilities, it can send an echo request to each IOAM transit node
and IOAM decapsulating node directly, without TTL expiration.
The IOAM encapsulating node may be triggered by the device
administrator, the network management system, the network controller,
or data traffic. The specific triggering mechanisms are outside the
scope of this document.
Each IOAM transit node and IOAM decapsulating node that receives an
echo request containing the IOAM Capabilities Query Container will
send an echo reply to the IOAM encapsulating node. For the echo
reply, there should be an IOAM Capabilities Response Container
containing one or more Objects. The IOAM Capabilities Query
Container of the echo request would be ignored by the receiving node
unaware of IOAM.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests the following IANA Actions.
IANA is requested to create a registry group named "In-Situ OAM
(IOAM) Capabilities Parameters".
This group will include the following registries:
* IOAM SoR Capability
* IOAM TSF+TSL Capability
New registries in this group can be created via RFC Required process
as per [RFC8126].
The subsequent sub-sections detail the registries herein contained.
Considering the Containers/Objects defined in this document would be
carried in different types of Echo Request/Reply messages, such as
ICMPv6 or LSP Ping, it is intended that the registries for Container/
Object Type would be requested in subsequent documents.
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
5.1. IOAM SoR Capability Registry
This registry defines 4 code points for the IOAM SoR Capability field
for identifying the size of "Random" and "Cumulative" data as
explained in Section 5.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The following
code points are defined in this document:
SoR Description
---- -----------
0b00 64-bit "Random" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data
0b01 - 0b11 are available for assignment via RFC Required process as
per [RFC8126].
5.2. IOAM TSF+TSL Capability Registry
This registry defines 3 code points for the IOAM TSF Capability field
for identifying the timestamp format as explained in Section 6 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
* When the code point for the IOAM TSF Capability field equals 0b00
which means PTP timestamp format, this registry defines 2 code
points for the IOAM TSL Capability field for identifying the
timestamp length.
* When the code point for the IOAM TSF Capability field equals 0b01
which means NTP timestamp format, this registry defines 3 code
points for the IOAM TSL Capability field for identifying the
timestamp length.
The following code points are defined in this document:
TSF TSL Description
---- ---- -----------
0b00 PTP Timestamp Format
0b00 64-bit PTPv1 timestamp
0b01 80-bit PTPv2 timestamp
0b01 NTP Timestamp Format
0b00 32-bit NTP timestamp
0b01 64-bit NTP timestamp
0b10 128-bit NTP timestamp
0b10 POSIX Timestamp Format
Unassigned code points of TSF+TSL are available for assignment via
RFC Required process as per [RFC8126].
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
6. Security Considerations
Queries and responses about the state of an IOAM domain should be
processed only from a trusted source. An unauthorized query MUST be
discarded by an implementation that supports this specification.
Similarly, an unsolicited echo response with the IOAM Capabilities
Container MUST be discarded. Authentication of echo request/reply
that includes the IOAM Capabilities Container is one of the integrity
protection methods. Implementations could also provide a means of
filtering based on the source address of the received echo request/
reply. The integrity protection for enabled IOAM capabilities
information collection can also be achieved using mechanisms in the
underlay data plane. For example, if the underlay is an IPv6
network, IP Authentication Header [RFC4302] or IP Encapsulating
Security Payload Header [RFC4303] can be used to provide integrity
protection.
Information about the state of the IOAM domain collected in the IAOM
Capabilities Container is confidential. An implementation can use
secure transport to provide privacy protection. For example, if the
underlay is an IPv6 network, confidentiality can be achieved using
the IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC4303].
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Tianran Zhou, Dhruv Dhody,
Frank Brockners, Cheng Li and Gyan Mishra for their careful review
and helpful comments.
The authors appreciate the f2f discussion with Frank Brockners on
this document.
The authors would like to acknowledge Tommy Pauly and Ian Swett for
their good suggestion and guidance.
8. References
8.1. 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-15, 3 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-15.txt>.
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
[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>.
[IEEE1588v2]
IEEE, "IEEE Std 1588-2008 - IEEE Standard for a Precision
Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement
and Control Systems", IEEE Std 1588-2008, 2008,
<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/1588-2008.html>.
[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>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-ping]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-ping-07, 11 May 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bier-ping-
07.txt>.
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
[I-D.ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam]
Mirsky, G., Meng, W., Ao, T., Leung, K., and G. Mishra,
"Active OAM for Service Function Chaining", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-
16, 19 October 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-16.txt>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8335] Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M.
Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces",
RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8335>.
Authors' Addresses
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Phone: +86 25 88013062
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities October 2021
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Lei Bo
China Telecom
Beijing
China
Phone: +86 10 50902903
Email: leibo@chinatelecom.cn
Min, et al. Expires 27 April 2022 [Page 19]