In-situ OAM IPv6 Options
The information below is for an old version of the document.
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|Authors||Shwetha Bhandari , Frank Brockners , Carlos Pignataro , Hannes Gredler , John Leddy , Stephen Youell , Tal Mizrahi , Aviv Kfir , Barak Gafni , Petr Lapukhov , Mickey Spiegel , Suresh Krishnan , Rajiv Asati|
|RFC stream||Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)|
GENART Last Call review (of -08) by Joel Halpern Ready w/issues
|Additional resources||Mailing list discussion|
|Stream||WG state||WG Document|
|IESG||IESG state||I-D Exists|
|Send notices to||(None)|
ippm S. Bhandari Internet-Draft F. Brockners Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro Expires: March 29, 2020 Cisco H. Gredler RtBrick Inc. J. Leddy Comcast S. Youell JMPC T. Mizrahi Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab A. Kfir B. Gafni Mellanox Technologies, Inc. P. Lapukhov Facebook M. Spiegel Barefoot Networks S. Krishnan Kaloom R. Asati Cisco September 26, 2019 In-situ OAM IPv6 Options draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-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 outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in IPv6. 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 Bhandari, et al. Expires March 29, 2020 [Page 1] Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation September 2019 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 March 29, 2020. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction 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 outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in the IPv6 [RFC8200]. 2. Conventions Bhandari, et al. Expires March 29, 2020 [Page 2] Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation September 2019 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 Abbreviations used in this document: E2E: Edge-to-Edge IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance POT: Proof of Transit 3. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6 In-situ OAM in IPv6 is used to enhance diagnostics of IPv6 networks. It complements other mechanisms proposed to enhance diagnostics of IPv6 networks, such as the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics Destination Option described in [RFC8250]. IOAM data fields are encapsulated in "option data" fields of two types of extension headers in IPv6 packets - either Hop-by-Hop Options header or Destination options header. The selection of a particular extension header type depends on IOAM usage, as described in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Multiple options with the same Option Type MAY appear in the same Hop-by-Hop Options or Destination Options header, with varying content. In order for IOAM to work in IPv6 networks, IOAM MUST be explicitly enabled per interface on every node within the IOAM domain. Unless a particular interface is explicitly enabled (i.e. explicitly configured) for IOAM, a router MUST drop packets which contain extension headers carrying IOAM data-fields. This is the default behavior and is independent of whether the Hop-by-Hop options or Destination options are used to encode the IOAM data. This ensures that IOAM data does not unintentionally get forwarded outside the IOAM domain. An IPv6 packet carrying IOAM data in an Extension header can have other extension headers, compliant with [RFC8200]. Bhandari, et al. Expires March 29, 2020 [Page 3] Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation September 2019 IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option format for carrying in-situ OAM data fields: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type | Opt Data Len | Reserved | IOAM Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ | | | . . I . Option Data . O . . A . . M . . . . . O . . P . . T . . I . . O . . N . . | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+ Option Type: 8-bit identifier of the type of option. Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the Reserved and Option Data field of this option, in octets. Reserved: 8-bit field MUST be set to zero upon transmission and ignored upon reception. IOAM Type: 8-bit field as defined in section 7.2 in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Option Data: Variable-length field. Option-Type-specific data. In-situ OAM Options are inserted as Option data as follows: 1. Pre-allocated Tracing Option: The in-situ OAM Preallocated Tracing option defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a IPv6 option in hop by hop extension header: Option Type: 001xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of option. xxxxx=TBD. IOAM Type: IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Type. Bhandari, et al. Expires March 29, 2020 [Page 4] Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation September 2019 2. Incremental Tracing Option: The in-situ OAM Incremental Tracing option defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a IPv6 option in hop by hop extension header: Option Type: 001xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of option. xxxxx=TBD. IOAM Type: IOAM Incremental Trace Option Type. 3. Proof of Transit Option: The in-situ OAM POT option defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a IPv6 option in hop by hop extension header: Option Type: 001xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of option. xxxxx=TBD. IOAM Type: IOAM POT Option Type. 4. Edge to Edge Option: The in-situ OAM E2E option defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a IPv6 option in IPv6 option in destination options extension header: Option Type: 000xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of option. xxxxx=TBD. IOAM Type: IOAM E2E Option Type. All the in-situ OAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment requirements. Specifically, they all require 4n alignment. This ensures that 4 octet fields specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] such as transit delay are aligned at a multiple-of-4 offset from the start of the Hop-by-Hop Options header. In addition, to maintain IPv6 extension header 8-octet alignment and avoid the need to add or remove padding at every hop, the Trace-Type for Incremental Tracing Option in IPv6 MUST be selected such that the IOAM node data length is a multiple of 8-octets. An outline of how the options defined here can be enabled and used in an IPv6 network is provided in [I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment]. 4. Security Considerations This document describes the encapsulation of IOAM data fields in IPv6. Security considerations of the specific IOAM data fields for each case (i.e., Trace, Proof of Transit, and E2E) are described in defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Bhandari, et al. Expires March 29, 2020 [Page 5] Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation September 2019 As this document describes new options for IPv6 , these are similar to the security considerations of [RFC8200] and the new weakness documented in [RFC8250]. 5. IANA Considerations This draft requests the following IPv6 Option Type assignments from the Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options sub-registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6- parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2 Hex Value Binary Value Description Reference act chg rest ---------------------------------------------------------------- TBD_1_0 00 0 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft] TBD_1_1 00 1 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft] 6. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Tom Herbert, Eric Vyncke, Nalini Elkins, Srihari Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra Babu, Akshaya Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik Nordmark, LJ Wobker, Mark Smith, and Andrew Yourtchenko for the comments and advice. For the IPv6 encapsulation, this document leverages concepts described in [I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route]. The authors would like to acknowledge the work done by the author Hiroshi Kitamura and people involved in writing it. 7. References 7.1. 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., and d. email@example.com, "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-01 (work in progress), October 2017. [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>. Bhandari, et al. Expires March 29, 2020 [Page 6] Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation September 2019 [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>. 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment] Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., and M. Smith, "Deployment Considerations for In-situ OAM with IPv6 Options", draft- ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment-01 (work in progress), March 2019. [I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route] Kitamura, H., "Record Route for IPv6 (PR6) Hop-by-Hop Option Extension", draft-kitamura-ipv6-record-route-00 (work in progress), November 2000. [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. [RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>. Authors' Addresses Shwetha Bhandari Cisco Systems, Inc. Cessna Business Park, Sarjapura Marathalli Outer Ring Road Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 087 India Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Frank Brockners Cisco Systems, Inc. Kaiserswerther Str. 115, RATINGEN, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40880 Germany Email: email@example.com Bhandari, et al. Expires March 29, 2020 [Page 7] Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation September 2019 Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems, Inc. 7200-11 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 United States Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Hannes Gredler RtBrick Inc. Email: email@example.com John Leddy Comcast Email: John_Leddy@cable.comcast.com Stephen Youell JP Morgan Chase 25 Bank Street London E14 5JP United Kingdom Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Tal Mizrahi Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab Israel Email: email@example.com Aviv Kfir Mellanox Technologies, Inc. 350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 U.S.A. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Bhandari, et al. Expires March 29, 2020 [Page 8] Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation September 2019 Barak Gafni Mellanox Technologies, Inc. 350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 U.S.A. Email: email@example.com Petr Lapukhov Facebook 1 Hacker Way Menlo Park, CA 94025 US Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Mickey Spiegel Barefoot Networks 4750 Patrick Henry Drive Santa Clara, CA 95054 US Email: email@example.com Suresh Krishnan Kaloom Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Rajiv Asati Cisco Systems, Inc. 7200 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 US Email: email@example.com Bhandari, et al. Expires March 29, 2020 [Page 9]