Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) features for RAW
draft-ietf-raw-oam-support-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (raw WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Fabrice Theoleyre , Georgios Z. Papadopoulos , Greg Mirsky , Carlos J. Bernardos | ||
| Last updated | 2022-01-17 | ||
| Replaces | draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestones |
|
||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-raw-oam-support-03
RAW F. Theoleyre
Internet-Draft CNRS
Intended status: Informational G.Z. Papadopoulos
Expires: 21 July 2022 IMT Atlantique
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
CJ. Bernardos
UC3M
17 January 2022
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) features for RAW
draft-ietf-raw-oam-support-03
Abstract
Some critical applications may use a wireless infrastructure.
However, wireless networks exhibit a bandwidth of several orders of
magnitude lower than wired networks. Besides, wireless transmissions
are lossy by nature; the probability that a packet cannot be decoded
correctly by the receiver may be quite high. In these conditions,
providing high reliability and a low delay is challenging. This
document lists the requirements of the Operation, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) features are recommended to construct a predictable
communication infrastructure on top of a collection of wireless
segments. This document describes the benefits, problems, and trade-
offs for using OAM in wireless networks to achieve Service Level
Objectives (SLO).
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 21 July 2022.
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Role of OAM in RAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Link concept and quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Broadcast Transmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Complex Layer 2 Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. End-to-end delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Continuity Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Connectivity Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Route Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Fault Verification/detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6. Fault Isolation/identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Worst-case metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Efficient measurement retrieval (Passive OAM) . . . . . . 11
4.3. Reporting OAM packets to the source (Active OAM) . . . . 12
5. Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Soft transition after reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Predictive maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
1. Introduction
Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) is an effort that extends
DetNet to approach end-to-end deterministic performances over a
network that includes scheduled wireless segments. In wired
networks, many approaches try to enable Quality of Service (QoS) by
implementing traffic differentiation so that routers handle each type
of packets differently. However, this differentiated treatment was
expensive for most applications.
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) [RFC8655] has proposed to provide a
bounded end-to-end latency on top of the network infrastructure,
comprising both Layer 2 bridged and Layer 3 routed segments. Their
work encompasses the data plane, OAM, time synchronization,
management, control, and security aspects.
However, wireless networks create specific challenges. First of all,
radio bandwidth is significantly lower than in wired networks. In
these conditions, the volume of signaling messages has to be very
limited. Even worse, wireless links are lossy: a Layer 2
transmission may or may not be decoded correctly by the receiver,
depending on a broad set of parameters. Thus, providing high
reliability through wireless segments is particularly challenging.
Wired networks rely on the concept of _links_. All the devices
attached to a link receive any transmission. The concept of a link
in wireless networks is somewhat different from what many are used to
in wireline networks. A receiver may or may not receive a
transmission, depending on the presence of a colliding transmission,
the radio channel's quality, and the external interference. Besides,
a wireless transmission is broadcast by nature: any _neighboring_
device may be able to decode it. This document includes detailed
information on the implications for the OAM features.
Last but not least, radio links present volatile characteristics. If
the wireless networks use an unlicensed band, packet losses are not
anymore temporally and spatially independent. Typically, links may
exhibit a very bursty characteristic, where several consecutive
packets may be dropped because of, e.g., temporary external
interference. Thus, providing availability and reliability on top of
the wireless infrastructure requires specific Layer 3 mechanisms to
counteract these bursty losses.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Tools are of
primary importance for IP networks [RFC7276]. They define a toolset
for fault detection, isolation, and performance measurement.
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
The primary purpose of this document is to detail the specific
requirements of the OAM features recommended to construct a
predictable communication infrastructure on top of a collection of
wireless segments. This document describes the benefits, problems,
and trade-offs for using OAM in wireless networks to provide
availability and predictability.
1.1. Terminology
In this document, the term OAM will be used according to its
definition specified in [RFC6291]. We expect to implement an OAM
framework in RAW networks to maintain a real-time view of the network
infrastructure, and its ability to respect the Service Level
Objectives (SLO), such as delay and reliability, assigned to each
data flow.
We re-use here the same terminology as
[I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework]:
* OAM entity: a data flow to be monitored for defects and/or its
performance metrics measured.;
* Test End Point (TEP): OAM devices crossed when entering/exiting
the network. In RAW, it corresponds mostly to the source or
destination of a data flow. OAM message can be exchanged between
two TEPs;
* Monitoring endPoint (MonEP): an OAM system along the flow; a MonEP
MAY respond to an OAM message generated by the TEP;
* control/management/data plane: the control and management planes
are used to configure and control the network (long-term). The
data plane takes the individual decision. Relative to a data
flow, the control and/or management plane can be out-of-band;
* Active measurement methods (as defined in [RFC7799]) modify a
normal data flow by inserting novel fields, injecting specially
constructed test packets [RFC2544]). It is critical for the
quality of information obtained using an active method that
generated test packets are in-band with the monitored data flow.
In other words, a test packet is required to cross the same
network nodes and links and receive the same Quality of Service
(QoS) treatment as a data packet. Active methods may implement
one of these two strategies:
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
- In-band: control information follows the same path as the data
packets. In other words, a failure in the data plane may
prevent the control information from reaching the destination
(e.g., end-device or controller).
- out-of-band: control information is sent separately from the
data packets. Thus, the behavior of control vs. data packets
may differ;
* Passive measurement methods [RFC7799] infer information by
observing unmodified existing flows.
We also adopt the following terminology, which is particularly
relevant for RAW segments.
* piggybacking vs. dedicated control packets: control information
may be encapsulated in specific (dedicated) control packets.
Alternatively, it may be piggybacked in existing data packets,
when the MTU is larger than the actual packet length.
Piggybacking makes specifically sense in wireless networks, as the
cost (bandwidth and energy) is not linear with the packet size.
* router-over vs. mesh under: a control packet is either forwarded
directly to the layer-3 next hop (mesh under) or handled hop-by-
hop by each router. While the latter option consumes more
resources, it allows collecting additional intermediary
information, particularly relevant in wireless networks.
* Defect: a temporary change in the network (e.g., a radio link
which is broken due to a mobile obstacle);
* Fault: a definite change which may affect the network performance,
e.g., a node runs out of energy.
* End-to-end delay: the time between the packet generation and its
reception by the destination.
1.2. Acronyms
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
DetNet Deterministic Networking
PSE Path Selection Engine [I-D.pthubert-raw-architecture]
QoS Quality of Service
RAW Reliable and Available Wireless
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
SLO Service Level Objective
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol
SDN Software-Defined Network
1.3. 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. Role of OAM in RAW
RAW networks expect to make the communications reliable and
predictable over a wireless network infrastructure. Most critical
applications will define an SLO required for the data flows it
generates. RAW considers network plane protocol elements such as OAM
to improve the RAW operation at the service and the forwarding sub-
layers.
To respect strict guarantees, RAW relies on the Path Selection Engine
(PSE) (as defined in [I-D.pthubert-raw-architecture] to monitor and
maintain the L3 network. An L2 scheduler may be used to allocate
transmission opportunities, based on the radio link characteristics,
SLO of the flows, the number of packets to forward. The PSE exploits
the L2 resources reserved by the scheduler and organizes the L3 paths
to introduce redundancy, fault tolerance and create backup paths.
OAM represents the core of the pre-provisioning process by
supervising the network. It maintains a global view of the network
resources to detect defects, faults, over-provisioning, anomalies.
Fault tolerance also assumes that multiple paths must be provisioned
so that an end-to-end circuit remains operational regardless of the
conditions. The Packet Replication and Elimination Function
([I-D.thubert-bier-replication-elimination]) on a node is typically
controlled by the PSE. OAM mechanisms can be used to monitor that
PREOF is working correctly on a node and within the domain.
To be energy-efficient, out-of-band OAM SHOULD only be used to report
aggregated statistics (e.g., counters, histograms) from the nodes
using, e.g., SNMP or Netconf/Restconf using YANG-based data models.
The out-of-band OAM flow MAY use a dedicated control and management
channel, dedicated for this purpose.
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
RAW supports both proactive and on-demand troubleshooting.
Proactively, it is necessary to detect anomalies, report defects, or
reduce over-provisioning if it is not required. However, on-demand
may also be required to identify the cause of a specific defect.
Indeed, some specific faults may only be detected with a global,
detailed view of the network, which is too expensive to acquire in
the normal operating mode.
The specific characteristics of RAW are discussed below.
2.1. Link concept and quality
In wireless networks, a _link_ does not exist physically. A device
has a set of *neighbors* that correspond to all the devices that have
a non-null probability of receiving its packets correctly. We make a
distinction between:
* point-to-point (p2p) link with one transmitter and one receiver.
These links are used to transmit unicast packets.
* point-to-multipoint (p2mp) link associates one transmitter and a
collection of receivers. For instance, broadcast packets assume
the existence of p2mp links to avoid duplicating a broadcast
packet to reach each possible radio neighbor.
In scheduled radio networks, p2mp and p2p links are commonly not
scheduled simultaneously to save energy and/or to reduce the number
of collisions. More precisely, only one part of the neighbors may
wake up at a given instant.
Anycast is used in p2mp links to improve the reliability. A
collection of receivers are scheduled to wake up simultaneously, so
that the transmission fails only if none of the receivers can decode
the packet.
Each wireless link is associated with a link quality, often measured
as the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), i.e., the probability that the
receiver can decode the packet correctly. It is worth noting that
this link quality depends on many criteria, such as the level of
external interference, the presence of concurrent transmissions, or
the radio channel state. This link quality is even time-variant.
For p2mp links, consequently, we have a collection of PDR (one value
per receiver). Other more sophisticated, aggregated metrics exist
for these p2mp links, such as [anycast-property]
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
2.2. Broadcast Transmissions
The unicast transmission is delivered exclusively to the destination
in modern switching networks. Wireless networks are much closer to
the traditional *shared access* networks. Practically, unicast and
broadcast frames are handled similarly at the physical layer. The
link layer is just in charge of filtering the frames to discard
irrelevant receptions (e.g., different unicast MAC addresses).
However, contrary to wired networks, we cannot ensure that a packet
is received by *all* the devices attached to the Layer 2 segment. It
depends on the radio channel state between the transmitter(s) and the
receiver(s). In particular, concurrent transmissions may be possible
or not, depending on the radio conditions (e.g., do the different
transmitters use a different radio channel or are they sufficiently
spatially separated?)
2.3. Complex Layer 2 Forwarding
Multiple neighbors may receive a transmission. Thus, anycast Layer 2
forwarding helps to maximize reliability by assigning multiple
receivers to a single transmission. That way, the packet is lost
only if *none* of the receivers decode it. Practically, it has been
proven that different neighbors may exhibit very different radio
conditions, and that reception independence may hold for some of them
[anycast-property].
2.4. End-to-end delay
In a wireless network, additional transmissions opportunities are
provisioned to accommodate packet losses. Thus, the end-to-end delay
consists of:
* Transmission delay, which is fixed and depends mainly on the data
rate, and the presence or absence of an acknowledgement.
* Residence time, corresponds to the buffering delay and depends on
the schedule. To account for retransmissions, the residence time
is equal to the difference between the time of last reception from
the previous hop (among all the retransmissions) and the time of
emission of the last retransmission.
3. Operation
OAM features will enable RAW with robust operation both for
forwarding and routing purposes.
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
3.1. Information Collection
The model for exchanging information should be the same as for a
DetNet network to ensure inter-operability. YANG may typically
fulfill this objective.
However, RAW networks imply specific constraints (e.g., low
bandwidth, packet losses, cost of medium access) that may require to
minimize the volume of information to collect. Thus, we discuss in
Section 4.2 different ways to collect information, i.e., transfer the
OAM information physically from the emitter to the receiver. This
corresponds to passive OAM as defined in [RFC7799]
3.2. Continuity Check
Similarly to DetNet, we need to verify that the source and the
destination are connected (at least one valid path exists)
3.3. Connectivity Verification
As in DetNet, we have to verify the absence of misconnection. We
focus here on the RAW specificities.
Because of radio transmissions' broadcast nature, several receivers
may be active at the same time to enable anycast Layer 2 forwarding.
Thus, the connectivity verification must test any combination. We
also consider priority-based mechanisms for anycast forwarding, i.e.,
all the receivers have different probabilities of forwarding a
packet. To verify a delay SLO for a given flow, we must also
consider all the possible combinations, leading to a probability
distribution function for end-to-end transmissions. If this
verification is implemented naively, the number of combinations to
test may be exponential and too costly for wireless networks with low
bandwidth.
3.4. Route Tracing
Wireless networks are broadcast by nature: a radio transmission can
be decoded by any radio neighbor. In multihop wireless networks,
several paths exist between two endpoints. In hub networks, a device
may be covered by several Access Points. We should choose the most
efficient path or AP, concerning specifically the reliability, and
the delay.
Thus, multipath routing / multi-attachment can be viewed as making
the network more fault-tolerant. Even better, we can exploit the
broadcast nature of wireless networks: we may have multiple
Monitoring Endpoints (MonEP) for each of these kinds of hop. While
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
it may be reasonable in the multi-attachment case, the complexity
quickly increases with the path length. Indeed, each Maintenance
Intermediate Endpoint has several possible next hops in the
forwarding plane. Thus, all the possible paths between two
maintenance endpoints should be retrieved, which may quickly become
intractable if we apply a naive approach.
3.5. Fault Verification/detection
Wired networks tend to present stable performances. On the contrary,
wireless networks are time-variant. We must consequently make a
distinction between normal evolutions and malfunction.
3.6. Fault Isolation/identification
The network has isolated and identified the cause of the fault.
While DetNet already expects to identify malfunctions, some problems
are specific to wireless networks. We must consequently collect
metrics and implement algorithms tailored for wireless networking.
For instance, the decrease in the link quality may be caused by
several factors: external interference, obstacles, multipath fading,
mobility. It is fundamental to be able to discriminate the different
causes to make the right decision.
4. Administration
The RAW network has to expose a collection of metrics to support an
operator making proper decisions, including:
* Packet losses: the time-window average and maximum values of the
number of packet losses have to be measured. Many critical
applications stop working if a few consecutive packets are
dropped;
* Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) is a very common metric
in wireless to denote the link quality. The radio chipset is in
charge of translating a received signal strength into a normalized
quality indicator;
* Delay: the time elapsed between a packet generation / enqueuing
and its reception by the next hop;
* Buffer occupancy: the number of packets present in the buffer, for
each of the existing flows.
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
* Battery lifetime: the expected remaining battery lifetime of the
device. Since many RAW devices might be battery-powered, this is
an important metric for an operator to make proper decisions.
* Mobility: if a device is known to be mobile, this might be
considered by an operator to take proper decisions.
These metrics should be collected per device, virtual circuit, and
path, as DetNet already does. However, in RAW, we have to deal with
them at a finer granularity:
* per radio channel to measure, e.g., the level of external
interference, and to be able to apply counter-measures (e.g.,
blacklisting).
* per physical radio technology / interface, if a device has
multiple NICs.
* per link to detect misbehaving link (asymmetrical link,
fluctuating quality).
* per resource block: a collision in the schedule is particularly
challenging to identify in radio networks with spectrum reuse. In
particular, a collision may not be systematic (depending on the
radio characteristics and the traffic profile).
4.1. Worst-case metrics
RAW inherits the same requirements as DetNet: we need to know the
distribution of a collection of metrics. However, wireless networks
are known to be highly variable. Changes may be frequent, and may
exhibit a periodical pattern. Collecting and analyzing this amount
of measurements is challenging.
Wireless networks are known to be lossy, and RAW has to implement
strategies to improve reliability on top of unreliable links.
Reliability is typically achieved through Automatic Repeat Request
(ARQ), and Forward Error Correction (FEC). Since the different flows
don't have the same SLO, RAW must adjust the ARQ and FEC based on the
link and path characteristics.
4.2. Efficient measurement retrieval (Passive OAM)
We have to minimize the number of statistics / measurements to
exchange:
* energy efficiency: low-power devices have to limit the volume of
monitoring information since every bit consumes energy.
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
* bandwidth: wireless networks exhibit a bandwidth significantly
lower than wired, best-effort networks.
* per-packet cost: it is often more expensive to send several
packets instead of combining them in a single link-layer frame.
In conclusion, we have to take care of power and bandwidth
consumption. The following techniques aim to reduce the cost of such
maintenance:
* on-path collection: some control information is inserted in the
data packets if they do not fragment the packet (i.e., the MTU is
not exceeded). Information Elements represent a standardized way
to handle such information. IP hop by hop extension headers may
help to collect metrics all along the path;
* flags/fields: we have to set-up flags in the packets to monitor to
be able to monitor the forwarding process accurately. A sequence
number field may help to detect packet losses. Similarly, path
inference tools such as [ipath] insert additional information in
the headers to identify the path followed by a packet a
posteriori.
* hierarchical monitoring: localized and centralized mechanisms have
to be combined together. Typically, a local mechanism should
continuously monitor a set of metrics and trigger remote OAM
exchanges only when a fault is detected (but possibly not
identified). For instance, local temporary defects must not
trigger expensive OAM transmissions. Besides, the wireless
segments often represent the weakest parts of a path: the volume
of control information they produce has to be fixed accordingly.
Several passive techniques can be combined. For instance, the DetNet
forwarding sublayer MAY combine In-band Network Telemetry (INT) with
P4, iOAM and iPath to compute and report different statistics in the
track (e.g., number of link-layer retransmissions, link reliability).
4.3. Reporting OAM packets to the source (Active OAM)
The Test EndPoint will collect measurements from the OAM probes
received in the monitored track. However, the aggregated statistics
must then be reported to the other Test Endpoint that injected the
probes. Unfortunately, the monitored track MAY be unidirectional.
In this case, the statistics have to be reported out-of-band
(through, e.g., a dedicated control or management channel).
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
It is worth noting that Active OAM and Passive OAM techniques are not
mutually exclusive. In particular, Active OAM is useful when a
statistic cannot be acquired accurately passively.
5. Maintenance
Maintenance needs to facilitate the maintenance (repairs and
upgrades). In wireless networks, repairs are expected to occur much
more frequently, since the link quality may be highly time-variant.
Thus, maintenance represents a key feature for RAW.
5.1. Soft transition after reconfiguration
Because of the wireless medium, the link quality may fluctuate, and
the network needs to reconfigure itself continuously. During this
transient state, flows may begin to be gradually re-forwarded,
consuming resources in different parts of the network. OAM has to
make a distinction between a metric that changed because of a legal
network change (e.g., flow redirection) and an unexpected event
(e.g., a fault).
5.2. Predictive maintenance
RAW needs to implement self-optimization features. While the network
is configured to be fault-tolerant, a reconfiguration may be required
to keep on respecting long-term objectives. Obviously, the network
keeps on respecting the SLO after a node's crash, but a
reconfiguration is required to handle future faults. In other words,
the reconfiguration delay MUST be strictly smaller than the inter-
fault time.
The network must continuously retrieve the state of the network, to
judge about the relevance of a reconfiguration, quantifying:
* the cost of the sub-optimality: resources may not be used
optimally (e.g., a better path exists);
* the reconfiguration cost: the controller needs to trigger some
reconfigurations. For this transient period, resources may be
twice reserved, and control packets have to be transmitted.
Thus, reconfiguration may only be triggered if the gain is
significant.
6. Requirements
This section lists requirements for OAM in a RAW domain:
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
1. Each Test and Monitoring Endpoint device MUST expose a list of
available metrics per track. It MUST at least provide the end-
to-end Packet Delivery Ratio, end-to-end latency, and Maximum
Consecutive Failures (MCF).
2. PREOF functions MUST guarantee order preservation in the
(sub)track.
3. OAM nodes MUST provide aggregated statistics to reduce the volume
of traffic for measurements. They MAY send a compressed
distribution of measurements, or MIN / MAX values over a time
interval.
4. Monitoring Endpoints SHOULD support route tracing with passive
OAM techniques.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actionable requirements for IANA. This section
can be removed before the publication.
8. Security Considerations
This section will be expanded in future versions of the draft.
9. Acknowledgments
TBD
10. Informative References
[anycast-property]
Teles Hermeto, R., Gallais, A., and F. Theoleyre, "Is
Link-Layer Anycast Scheduling Relevant for IEEE
802.15.4-TSCH Networks?", 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/LCNSymposium47956.2019.9000679>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework]
Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Bernardos,
C. J., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-05, 14 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
oam-framework-05>.
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
[I-D.pthubert-raw-architecture]
Thubert, P., Papadopoulos, G. Z., and L. Berger, "Reliable
and Available Wireless Architecture/Framework", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-
09, 7 July 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-09>.
[I-D.thubert-bier-replication-elimination]
Thubert, P., Eckert, T., Brodard, Z., and H. Jiang, "BIER-
TE extensions for Packet Replication and Elimination
Function (PREF) and OAM", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-thubert-bier-replication-elimination-03, 3
March 2018, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
thubert-bier-replication-elimination-03>.
[ipath] Gao, Y., Dong, W., Chen, C., Bu, J., Wu, W., and X. Liu,
"iPath: path inference in wireless sensor networks.",
2016, <https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2014.2371459>.
[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>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[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>.
[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>.
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OAM features for RAW January 2022
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
Authors' Addresses
Fabrice Theoleyre
CNRS
Building B
300 boulevard Sebastien Brant - CS 10413
67400 Illkirch - Strasbourg
France
Phone: +33 368 85 45 33
Email: fabrice.theoleyre@cnrs.fr
URI: http://www.theoleyre.eu
Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 102A
2 Rue de la Chataigneraie
35510 Cesson-Sevigne - Rennes
France
Phone: +33 299 12 70 04
Email: georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
Theoleyre, et al. Expires 21 July 2022 [Page 16]