In-situ OAM Flags
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ippm WG)
Last updated 2019-10-12
Replaces draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
IPPM                                                          T. Mizrahi
Internet-Draft                               Huawei Smart Platforms iLab
Intended status: Standards Track                            F. Brockners
Expires: April 14, 2020                                      S. Bhandari
                                                          R. Sivakolundu
                                                            C. Pignataro
                                                                   Cisco
                                                                 A. Kfir
                                                                B. Gafni
                                             Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
                                                              M. Spiegel
                                                       Barefoot Networks
                                                                J. Lemon
                                                                Broadcom
                                                        October 12, 2019

                           In-situ OAM Flags
                     draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-00

Abstract

   In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
   operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet
   traverses a path between two points in the network.  This document
   presents new flags in the IOAM Trace Option headers.  Specifically,
   the document defines the Loopback and Active flags.

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 April 14, 2020.

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                 IOAM Flags                   October 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.  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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirement Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  New IOAM Trace Option Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Loopback in IOAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Active Measurement with IOAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Performance Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   IOAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is used for monitoring traffic in the
   network by incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data
   packets.

   IOAM data may be represented in one of four possible IOAM options:
   Pre-allocated Trace Option, Incremental Trace Option, Proof of
   Transit (POT) Option, and Edge-to-Edge Option.  This document defines
   two new flags in the Pre-allocated and Incremental Trace options: the
   Loopback and Active flags.

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                 IOAM Flags                   October 2019

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].

2.2.  Terminology

   Abbreviations used in this document:

   IOAM:      In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   OAM:       Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

3.  New IOAM Trace Option Flags

   This document defines two new flags in the Pre-allocated and
   Incremental Trace options:

   Bit 1  "Loopback" (L-bit).  Loopback mode is used to send a copy of a
      packet back towards the source, as further described in Section 4.

   Bit 2  "Active" (A-bit).  When set, this indicates that this is an
      active IOAM packet, where "active" is used in the sense defined in
      [RFC7799], rather than a data packet.  The packet may be an IOAM
      probe packet, or a replicated data packet (the second and third
      use cases of Section 5).

4.  Loopback in IOAM

   Loopback is used for trigerring each transit device along the path to
   loop back a copy of the data packet.  Loopback mode assumes that a
   return path from transit nodes and destination nodes towards the
   source exists.  Loopback allows an IOAM encapsulating node to trace
   the path to a given destination, and to receive per-hop data about
   both the forward and the return path.

   The encapsulating node decides (e.g., using a filter) which packets
   loopback mode is enabled for by setting the loopback bit.  The
   encapsulating node also needs to ensure that sufficient space is
   available in the IOAM header for loopback operation, which includes
   transit nodes adding trace data on the original path and then again
   on the return path.

   A loopback bit that is set indicates to the transit nodes processing
   this option that they are to create a copy of the received packet and

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                 IOAM Flags                   October 2019

   send the copy back to the source of the packet.  The copy has its
   data fields added after being copied in order to allow any egress-
   dependent information to be set based on the egress of the copy
   rather than the original.  The original packet continues towards its
   destination.  The source address of the original packet is used as
   the destination address in the copied packet.  The address of the
   node performing the copy operation is used as the source address.
   The L-bit MUST be cleared in the copy of the packet that a node sends
   back towards the source.  On its way back towards the source, the
   copied packet is processed like any other packet with IOAM
   information, including adding any requested data at each transit node
   (assuming there is sufficient space).

   Once the return packet reaches the IOAM domain boundary, IOAM
   decapsulation occurs as with any other packet containing IOAM
   information.  Because any intermediate node receiving such a packet
   would not know how to process the original packet, and because there
   would be a risk of the original packet leaking past the initiator of
   the IOAM loopback, the initiator of an IOAM loopback MUST be the
   initiator of the packet.  Once a loopback packet is received back at
   the initiator, it is a local matter how it is recognized as a
   loopback packet.

5.  Active Measurement with IOAM

   Active measurement methods [RFC7799] make use of synthetically
   generated packets in order to facilitate the measurement.  This
   section presents use cases of active measurement using the IOAM
   Active flag.

   The active flag indicates that a packet is used for active
   measurement.  An IOAM decapsulating node that receives a packet with
   the Active flag set in one of its Trace options must terminate the
   packet.

   An example of an IOAM deployment scenario is illustrated in Figure 1.
   The figure depicts two endpoints, a source and a destination.  The
   data traffic from the source to the destination is forwarded through
   a set of network devices, including an IOAM encapsulating node, which
   incorporates one or more IOAM option, a decapsulating node, which
   removes the IOAM options, optionally one or more transit nodes.  The
   IOAM options are encapsulated in one of the IOAM encapsulation types,
   e.g., [I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh], or
   [I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options].

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                 IOAM Flags                   October 2019

 +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
 |        |     |  IOAM  |.....|  IOAM  |.....|  IOAM  |     |        |
 +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
 | L2/L3  |<===>| L2/L3  |<===>| L2/L3  |<===>| L2/L3  |<===>| L2/L3  |
 +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
   Source      Encapsulating    Transit      Decapsulating   Destination
                   Node           Node           Node

                       Figure 1: Network using IOAM.

   This draft focuses on three possible use cases of active measurement
   using IOAM.  These use cases are described using the example of
   Figure 1.

   o  Endpoint active measurement: synthetic probe packets are sent
      between the source and destination, traversing the IOAM domain.
      Since the probe packets are sent between the endpoints, these
      packets are treated as data packets by the IOAM domain, and do not
      require special treatment at the IOAM layer.

   o  IOAM active measurement using probe packets: probe packets are
      generated and transmitted by the IOAM encapsulating node, and are
      expected to be terminated by the decapsulating node.  IOAM data
      related to probe packets may be exported by one or more nodes
      along its path, by an exporting protocol that is outside the scope
      of this document (e.g., [I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]).  Probe
      packets include a Trace Option which has its Active flag set,
      indicating that the decapsulating node must terminate them.

   o  IOAM active measurement using replicated data packets: probe
      packets are created by the encapsulating node by selecting some or
      all of the en route data packets and replicating them.  A selected
      data packet that is replicated, and its (possibly truncated) copy
      is forwarded with one or more IOAM option, while the original
      packet is forwarded normally, without IOAM options.  To the extent
      possible, the original data packet and its replica are forwarded
      through the same path.  The replica includes a Trace Option that
      has its Active flag set, indicating that the decapsulating node
      should terminate it.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate the following bits in the "IOAM Trace
   Flags Registry" as follows:

   Bit 1  "Loopback" (L-bit)

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                 IOAM Flags                   October 2019

   Bit 2  "Active" (A-bit)

   Note that bit 0 is the most significant bit in the Flags Registry.

7.  Performance Considerations

   Each of the flags that are defined in this document may have
   performance implications.  When using the loopback mechanism a copy
   of the data packet is sent back to the sender, thus generating more
   traffic than originally sent by the endpoints.  Using active
   measurement with the active flag requires the use of synthetic
   (overhead) traffic.

   Each of the mechanisms that use the flags above has a cost in terms
   of the network bandwidth, and may potentially load the node that
   analyzes the data.  Therefore, it MUST be possible to use each of the
   mechanisms on a subset of the data traffic; an encapsulating node
   needs to be able to set the Loopback and Active flag selectively, in
   a way that considers the effect on the network performance.
   Similarly, transit and decapsulating nodes need to be able to
   selectively loop back packets with the Loopback flag, and to
   selectively export packets to the collector.  Specifically, rate
   limiting may be enabled so as to ensure that the mechanisms are used
   at a rate that does not significantly affect the network bandwidth,
   and does not overload the collector (or the source node in the case
   of loopback).

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].  Specifically, an attacker may try to use
   the functionality that is defined in this document to attack the
   network.

   An attacker may attempt to overload network devices by injecting
   synthetic packets that include an IOAM Trace Option with one or more
   of the flags defined in this document.  Similarly, an on-path
   attacker may maliciously set one or more of the flags of transit
   packets.

   o  Loopback flag: an attacker that sets this flag, either in
      synthetic packets or transit packet, can potentially cause an
      amplification, since each device along the path creates a copy of
      the data packet and sends it back to the source.  The attacker can
      potentially leverage the loopback flag for a Distributed Denial of
      Service (DDoS) attack, as multiple devices send looped-back copies
      of a packet to a single source.

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                 IOAM Flags                   October 2019

   o  Active flag: the impact of synthetic packets with the active flag
      is no worse than synthetic data packets in which the Active flag
      is not set.  By setting the active flag in en route packets an
      attacker can prevent these packets from reaching their
      destination, since the packet is terminated by the decapsulating
      device; however, note that an on-path attacker may achieve the
      same goal by changing the destination address of a packet.
      Another potential threat is amplification; if an attacker causes
      transit switches to replicate more packets than they are intended
      to replicate, either by setting the Active flag or by sending
      synthetic packets, then traffic is amplified, causing bandwidth
      degredation.

   In order to mitigate the attacks described above, as described in
   Section 7 it should be possible for IOAM-enabled devices to
   selectively apply the mechanisms that use the flags defined in this
   document to a subset of the traffic, and to limit the performance of
   synthetically generated packets to a configurable rate; specifically,
   network devices should be able to limit the rate of: (i) looped-back
   traffic, (ii) replicated active packets, and (iii) packets that are
   exported to a collector.

   IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain,
   thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their affect.  This
   is a fundamental assumtion with respect to the security aspects of
   IOAM, as further discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
              Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
              P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
              "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
              data-07 (work in progress), September 2019.

   [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>.

9.2.  Informative References

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                 IOAM Flags                   October 2019

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh]
              Brockners, F. and S. Bhandari, "Network Service Header
              (NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data", draft-
              ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-02 (work in progress), September 2019.

   [I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options]
              Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
              Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B.,
              Lapukhov, P., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., and R. Asati,
              "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-
              ipv6-options-02 (work in progress), March 2019.

   [I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]
              Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R.
              Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX",
              draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-02 (work in progress),
              July 2019.

   [RFC7799]  Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
              Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
              May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.

Authors' Addresses

   Tal Mizrahi
   Huawei Smart Platforms iLab
   Israel

   Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com

   Frank Brockners
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
   DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN  40549
   Germany

   Email: fbrockne@cisco.com

   Shwetha Bhandari
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Cessna Business Park, Sarjapura Marathalli Outer Ring Road
   Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 087
   India

   Email: shwethab@cisco.com

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                 IOAM Flags                   October 2019

   Ramesh Sivakolundu
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Dr.
   SAN JOSE, CA 95134
   U.S.A.

   Email: sramesh@cisco.com

   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200-11 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   United States

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com

   Aviv Kfir
   Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
   350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
   Sunnyvale, CA  94085
   U.S.A.

   Email: avivk@mellanox.com

   Barak Gafni
   Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
   350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
   Sunnyvale, CA  94085
   U.S.A.

   Email: gbarak@mellanox.com

   Mickey Spiegel
   Barefoot Networks
   4750 Patrick Henry Drive
   Santa Clara, CA  95054
   US

   Email: mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                 IOAM Flags                   October 2019

   Jennifer Lemon
   Broadcom
   270 Innovation Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com

Mizrahi, et al.          Expires April 14, 2020                [Page 10]