Active OAM for Service Function Chaining
draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-10
SFC WG G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Updates: 8300 (if approved) W. Meng
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: 1 October 2021 B. Khasnabish
C. Wang
Individual contributor
30 March 2021
Active OAM for Service Function Chaining
draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-10
Abstract
A set of requirements for active Operation, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) of Service Function Chains (SFCs) in a network is
presented in this document. Based on these requirements, an
encapsulation of active OAM messages in SFC and a mechanism to detect
and localize defects are described.
This document updates RFC 8300 in the definition of O (OAM) bit in
the Network Service Header (NSH) and defines how an active OAM
message is identified in the NSH.
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 1 October 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 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. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements for Active OAM in SFC Network . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Active OAM Identification in SFC NSH . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Authentication in Echo Request/Reply . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. SFC Echo Request Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. SFC Echo Request Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4.1. Errored TLVs TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. SFC Echo Reply Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.6. SFC Echo Reply Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. SFC Active OAM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. SFC Active OAM Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters . . . . . . . . . 16
8.4. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types . . . . . . . . 16
8.5. SFC Echo Reply Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.6. SFC Echo Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.7. SFC TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.8. SFC OAM UDP Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
[RFC7665] defines components necessary to implement a Service
Function Chain (SFC). These include:
1. a classifier that performs the classification of incoming packets
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
2. Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) that are responsible for
forwarding traffic to one or more connected Service Functions
(SFs) according to the information carried in the SFC service
encapsulation and handling traffic coming back from the SF and
forwarding it to the next SFF.
3. SFs that are responsible for the executing specific service
treatment on received packets.
There are different views from different levels of the SFC. One is
the SFC, an entirely abstract view, which defines an ordered set of
SFs that must be applied to packets selected based on classification
rules. But service function chain doesn't specify the exact mapping
between SFFs and SFs. Thus, another logical construct used in SFC is
a Service Function Path (SFP). According to [RFC7665], SFP is the
instantiation of the SFC in the network and provides a level of
indirection between the entirely abstract SFCs and a fully specified
ordered list of SFFs and SFs identities that the packet will visit
when it traverses the SFC. The latter entity is referred to as
Rendered Service Path (RSP). The main difference between SFP and RSP
is that the former is the logical construct, while the latter is the
realization of the SFP via the sequence of specific SFC elements.
This document defines how active Operation, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM), per [RFC7799] definition of active OAM, is
identified in Network Service Header (NSH) SFC. Following the
analysis of SFC OAM in [RFC8924], this document lists requirements to
improve troubleshooting efficiency and defect localization in SFP.
For that purpose, SFC Echo Request and Echo Reply are specified in
the document. This mechanism enables on-demand Continuity Check,
Connectivity Verification among other operations over SFC in
networks, thus providing one of the most common SFC OAM functions
identified in [RFC8924]. Also, this document updates Section 2.2 of
[RFC8300] in part of the definition of O bit in the (NSH).
2. Terminology and Conventions
The terminology defined in [RFC7665] is used extensively throughout
this document. A reader is expected to be familiar with it.
In this document, SFC OAM refers to an active OAM, as defined in
[RFC7799]. in an SFC architecture.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
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. Acronyms
E2E: End-to-End
FM: Fault Management
NSH: Network Service Header
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
PRNG: Pseudorandom number generator
RDI: Remote Defect Indication
RSP: Rendered Service Path
SMI Structure of Management Information
SF: Service Function
SFC: Service Function Chain
SFF: Service Function Forwarder
SFP: Service Function Path
MAC: Message Authentication Code
3. Requirements for Active OAM in SFC Network
As discussed in [RFC8924], SFC-specific means are needed to perform
the OAM task of fault management (FM) in an SFC architecture,
including failure detection, defect characterization, and
localization. This document defines the set of requirements for
active FM OAM mechanisms to be used in an SFC architecture.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|SF1| |SF2| |SF3| |SF4| |SF5| |SF6|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
\ / \ / \ /
+----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|Classifier|-------|SFF1|---------|SFF2|--------|SFF3|
+----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Figure 1: SFC Data Plane Reference Model
Regarding the reference model depicted in Figure 1, consider a
service function chain that includes three distinct service
functions. In this example, the SFP traverses SFF1, SFF2, and SFF3,
each SFF being connected to two instances of the same service
function. End-to-end (e2e) SFC OAM, in this example, has the
Classifier as the ingress of the SFC OAM domain, and SFF3 - as its
egress. Segment SFC OAM is always within the E2E SFC OAM domain
between two elements that are part of the same SFP. Following are
the requirements for an FM SFC OAM, whether with the E2E or segment
scope:
REQ#1: Packets of active SFC OAM in SFC SHOULD be fate sharing
with the monitored SFC data, in the forward direction from ingress
toward egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test.
The fate sharing, in the SFC environment, is achieved when a test
packet traverses the same path and receives the same treatment in the
transport layer as an SFC NSH packet.
REQ#2: SFC OAM MUST support pro-active monitoring of the
continuity of the SFP between any of its elements.
A network failure might be declared when several consecutive test
packets are not received within a pre-determined time. For example,
in the E2E SFC OAM FM case, the egress, SFF3, in the example in
Figure 1, could be the entity that detects the SFP's failure by
monitoring a flow of periodic test packets. The ingress may be
capable of recovering from the failure, e.g., using redundant SFC
elements. Thus, it is beneficial for the egress to signal the new
defect state to the ingress, which in this example is the Classifier.
Hence the following requirement:
REQ#3: SFC OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication (RDI)
notification by the egress to the ingress.
REQ#4: SFC OAM MUST support connectivity verification of the SFP.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
Definition of the misconnection defect, entry and exit criteria
are outside the scope of this document.
Once the SFF1 detects the defect, the objective of the SFC OAM
changes from the detection of a defect to defect characterization and
localization.
REQ#5: SFC OAM MUST support fault localization of the Loss of
Continuity Check within an SFP.
REQ#6: SFC OAM MUST support an SFP tracing to discover the RSP.
In the example presented in Figure 1, two distinct instances of the
same service function share the same SFF. In this example, the SFP
can be realized over several RSPs, for instance, RSP1(SF1--SF3--SF5)
and RSP2(SF2--SF4--SF6). Available RSPs can be discovered using the
trace function discussed in Section 4.3 [RFC8924].
REQ#7: SFC OAM MUST have the ability to discover and exercise all
available RSPs in the network.
The SFC OAM layer model described in [RFC8924] offers an efficient
approach for a defect localization within a service function chain.
As the first step, the SFP's continuity for SFFs that are part of the
same SFP could be verified. After the reachability of SFFs has
already been verified, SFFs that serve an SF may be used as a test
packet source. In such a case, SFF can act as a proxy for another
element within the service function chain.
REQ#8: SFC OAM MUST be able to trigger on-demand FM with responses
being directed towards the initiator of such proxy request.
4. Active OAM Identification in SFC NSH
The O bit in the NSH header is defined in [RFC8300] as follows:
O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM packet.
This document updates that definition as follows:
O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM command and/or data in
the NSH Context Header or packet payload.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
Active SFC OAM is defined as a combination of OAM commands and/or
data included in a message that immediately follows the NSH. To
identify the active OAM message, the Next Protocol field's value MUST
be set to Active SFC OAM (TBA1) (Section 8.1). The rules for
interpreting the values of O bit and the Next Protocol field are as
follows:
* O bit set and the Next Protocol value is not one of identifying
active or hybrid OAM protocol (per [RFC7799] definitions), e.g.,
defined in this specification Active SFC OAM:
- a Fixed-Length Context Header or Variable-Length Context
Header(s) contain an OAM command or data.
- the type of payload is determined by the Next Protocol field.
* O bit set and the Next Protocol value is one of identifying active
or hybrid OAM protocol:
- the payload that immediately follows SFC NSH MUST contain an
OAM command or data.
* O bit is clear:
- no OAM in a Fixed-Length Context Header or Variable-Length
Context Header(s).
- the payload determined by the Next Protocol field's value
MUST be present.
* O bit is clear and the Next Protocol field's value identifies
active or hybrid OAM protocol MUST be identified and reported as
the erroneous combination. An implementation MAY have control to
enable processing of the OAM payload.
One conclusion from the above-listed rules of processing O bit and
the Next Protocol field's value is to avoid the combination of OAM in
an NSH Context Header (Fixed-Length or Variable-Length) and the
payload immediately following the SFC NSH because there is no
unambiguous way to identify such combination using the O bit and the
Next Protocol field.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
As demonstrated in Section 4 [RFC8924] and Section 3 of this
document, SFC OAM is required to perform multiple tasks. Several
active OAM protocols could be used to address all the requirements.
When IP/UDP encapsulation of an SFC OAM control message is used,
protocols can be demultiplexed using the Destination UDP port number.
But extra IP/UDP headers, especially in an IPv6 network, add
noticeable overhead. This document defines Active OAM Header
(Figure 2) to demultiplex active OAM protocols on an SFC.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| V | Msg Type | Flags | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SFC Active OAM Control Packet ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: SFC Active OAM Header
V - two-bit-long field indicates the current version of the SFC
active OAM header. The current value is 0.
Msg Type - six bits long field identifies OAM protocol, e.g., Echo
Request/Reply or Bidirectional Forwarding Detection.
Flags - eight bits long field carries bit flags that define
optional capability and thus processing of the SFC active OAM
control packet, e.g., optional timestamping.
Length - two octets long field that is the length of the SFC
active OAM control packet in octets.
5. Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC
Echo Request/Reply is a well-known active OAM mechanism that is
extensively used to verify a path's continuity, detect
inconsistencies between a state in control and the data planes, and
localize defects in the data plane. ICMP ([RFC0792] for IPv4 and
[RFC4443] for IPv6 networks respectively) and [RFC8029] are examples
of broadly used active OAM protocols based on Echo Request/Reply
principle. The SFC NSH Echo Request/Reply control message format is
presented in Figure 3.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| V | Reserved | Global Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type | Reply mode | Return Code |Return Subcode |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: SFC Echo Request/Reply Format
The interpretation of the fields is as follows:
Version (V) is a two-bit field that indicates the current version
of the SFC Echo Request/Reply. The current value is 0. The
version number is to be incremented whenever a change is made that
affects the ability of an implementation to parse or process
control packet correctly.
Reserved - fourteen-bit field. It MUST be zeroed on transmission
and ignored on receipt.
The Global Flags is a two-octet bit vector field.
The Message Type is a one-octet field that reflects the packet
type. Value TBA3 identifies Echo Request and TBA4 - Echo Reply.
The Reply Mode is a one-octet field. It defines the type of the
return path requested by the sender of the Echo Request.
Return Codes and Subcodes are one-octet fields each. These can be
used to inform the sender about the result of processing its
request. Initial Return Code values are according to Table 1.
For all Return Code values defined in this document, the value of
the Return Subcode field MUST be set to zero.
The Sender's Handle is a four-octet field. It is filled in by the
sender of the Echo Request and returned unchanged by the Echo
Reply sender. The sender of the Echo Request MAY use a pseudo-
random number generator (PRNG) to set the value of the Sender's
Handle field.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
The Sequence Number is a four-octet field. It is assigned by the
sender and can be (for example) used to detect missed replies.
The value of the Sequence Number field SHOULD be monotonically
increasing in the course of the test session.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SFC Echo Request/Reply TLV Format
TLV is a variable-length field. Multiple TLVs MAY be placed in an
SFC Echo Request/Reply packet. Additional TLVs may be enclosed
within a given TLV, subject to the semantics of the (outer) TLV in
question. If more than one TLV is to be included, the value of the
Type field of the outmost outer TLV MUST be set to Multiple TLVs Used
(TBA12), as assigned by IANA according to Section 8.7. Figure 4
presents the format of an SFC Echo Request/Reply TLV, where fields
are defined as the following:
Type - a one-octet-long field that characterizes the
interpretation of the Value field. Type values allocated
according to Section 8.7.
Reserved - one-octet-long field. The value of the Type field
determines its interpretation and encoding.
Length - two-octet-long field equal to the Value field's length in
octets.
Value - a variable-length field. The value of the Type field
determines its interpretation and encoding.
5.1. Return Codes
The value of the Return Code field is set to zero by the sender of an
Echo Request. The receiver of said Echo Request can set it to one of
the values listed in Table 1 in the corresponding Echo Reply that it
generates.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
+=======+============================================+
| Value | Description |
+=======+============================================+
| 0 | No Return Code |
+-------+--------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Malformed Echo Request received |
+-------+--------------------------------------------+
| 2 | One or more of the TLVs was not understood |
+-------+--------------------------------------------+
| 3 | Authentication failed |
+-------+--------------------------------------------+
Table 1: SFC Echo Return Codes
5.2. Authentication in Echo Request/Reply
Authentication can be used to protect the integrity of the
information in SFC Echo Request and/or Echo Reply. In the
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity] a variable-length Context Header has
been defined to protect the integrity of the NSH and the payload.
The header can also be used for the optional encryption of the
sensitive metadata. MAC#1 Context Header is more suitable for the
integrity protection of active SFC OAM, particularly of the defined
in this document SFC Echo Request and Echo Reply. On the other hand,
using MAC#2 Context Header allows the detection of mishandling of the
O-bit by a transient SFC element.
5.3. SFC Echo Request Transmission
SFC Echo Request control packet MUST use the appropriate
encapsulation of the monitored SFP. If the NSH is used, Echo Request
MUST set O bit, as defined in [RFC8300]. SFC NSH MUST be immediately
followed by the SFC Active OAM Header defined in Section 4. The
Message Type field's value in the SFC Active OAM Header MUST be set
to SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply value (TBA2) per Section 8.2.
Value of the Reply Mode field MAY be set to:
* Do Not Reply (TBA5) if one-way monitoring is desired. If the Echo
Request is used to measure synthetic packet loss; the receiver may
report loss measurement results to a remote node.
* Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet (TBA6) value likely will be the
most used.
* Reply via Application Level Control Channel (TBA7) value if the
SFP may have bi-directional paths.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
* Reply via Specified Path (TBA8) value to enforce the use of the
particular return path specified in the included TLV to verify bi-
directional continuity and also increase the robustness of the
monitoring by selecting a more stable path.
5.4. SFC Echo Request Reception
Sending an SFC Echo Request to the control plane is triggered by one
of the following packet processing exceptions: NSH TTL expiration,
NSH Service Index (SI) expiration or the receiver is the terminal SFF
for an SFP.
Firstly, if the SFC Echo Request is authenticated, the receiving SFF
MUST verify the authentication. If the verification fails, the
receiver SFF MUST send an SFC Echo Reply with the Return Code set to
"Authentication failed" and the Subcode set to zero. Then, the SFF
that has received an SFC Echo Request verifies the received packet's
general sanity. If the packet is not well-formed, the receiver SFF
SHOULD send an SFC Echo Reply with the Return Code set to "Malformed
Echo Request received" and the Subcode set to zero. If there are any
TLVs that SFF does not understand, the SFF MUST send an SFC Echo
Reply with the Return Code set to 2 ("One or more TLVs was not
understood") and set the Subcode to zero. In the latter case, the
SFF MAY include an Errored TLVs TLV (Section 5.4.1) that as sub-TLVs
contains only the misunderstood TLVs. The header field's Sender's
Handle, Sequence Number are not examined but are included in the SFC
Echo Reply message.
5.4.1. Errored TLVs TLV
If the Return Code for the Echo Reply is determined as 2 ("One or
more TLVs was not understood"), then the Errored TLVs TLV MAY be
included in an Echo Reply. The use of this TLV allows informing the
sender of an Echo Request of mandatory TLVs either not supported by
an implementation or parsed and found to be in error.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Errored TLVs | Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
Figure 5: Errored TLVs TLV
where
The Errored TLVs Type MUST be set to TBA14 Section 8.7.
Reserved - one-octet-long field.
Length - two-octet-long field equal to the length of the Value
field in octets.
The Value field contains the TLVs, encoded as sub-TLVs, that were
not understood or failed to be parsed correctly.
5.5. SFC Echo Reply Transmission
The Reply Mode field directs whether and how the Echo Reply message
should be sent. The sender of the Echo Request MAY use TLVs to
request that the corresponding Echo Reply is transmitted over the
specified path. Value TBA3 is referred to as the "Do not reply" mode
and suppresses the Echo Reply packet transmission. The default value
(TBA6) for the Reply mode field requests the responder to send the
Echo Reply packet out-of-band as IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet.
Responder to the SFC Echo Request sends the Echo Reply over IP
network if the Reply mode is Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet.
Because SFC NSH does not identify the ingress of the SFP, the Echo
Request, the source ID MUST be included in the message and used as
the IP destination address for IP/UDP encapsulation of the SFC Echo
Reply. The sender of the SFC Echo Request MUST include SFC Source
TLV Figure 6.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source ID | Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: SFC Source TLV
where
Source ID Type is a one-octet-long field and has the value of
TBA13 Section 8.7.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
Reserved - one-octet-long field.
Length is a two-octets-long field, and the value equals the length
of the Value field in octets.
Value field contains the IP address of the sender of the SFC OAM
control message, IPv4 or IPv6.
The UDP destination port for SFC Echo Reply TBA15 will be allocated
by IANA Section 8.8.
5.6. SFC Echo Reply Reception
An SFF SHOULD NOT accept SFC Echo Reply unless the received passes
the following checks:
* the received SFC Echo Reply is well-formed;
* it has an outstanding SFC Echo Request sent from the UDP port that
matches destination UDP port number of the received packet;
* if the matching to the Echo Request found, the value of the
Sender's Handle n the Echo Request sent is equal to the value of
Sender's Handle in the Echo Reply received;
* if all checks passed, the SFF checks if the Sequence Number in the
Echo Request sent matches to the Sequence Number in the Echo Reply
received.
6. Security Considerations
When the integrity protection for SFC active OAM, and SFC Echo
Request/Reply in particular, is required, it is RECOMMENDED to use
one of Context Headers defined in [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity].
MAC#1 (Message Authentication Code) Context Header could be more
suitable for active SFC OAM because it does not require re-
calculation of the MAC when the value of the NSH Base Header's TTL
field is changed. The integrity protection for SFC active OAM 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. Confidentiality for the SFC
Echo Request/Reply exchanges can be achieved using the IP
Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC4303]. Also, the security
needs for SFC Echo Request/Reply are similar to those of ICMP ping
[RFC0792], [RFC4443] and MPLS LSP ping [RFC8029].
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
There are at least three approaches to attacking a node in the
overlay network using the mechanisms defined in the document. One is
a Denial-of-Service attack, sending an SFC Echo Request to overload
an element of the SFC. The second may use spoofing, hijacking,
replying, or otherwise tampering with SFC Echo Requests and/or
replies to misrepresent, alter the operator's view of the state of
the SFC. The third is an unauthorized source using an SFC Echo
Request/Reply to obtain information about the SFC and/or its
elements, e.g., SFF or SF.
It is RECOMMENDED that implementations throttle the SFC ping traffic
going to the control plane to mitigate potential Denial-of-Service
attacks.
Reply and spoofing attacks involving faking or replying to SFC Echo
Reply messages would have to match the Sender's Handle and Sequence
Number of an outstanding SFC Echo Request message, which is highly
unlikely. Thus the non-matching reply would be discarded.
To protect against unauthorized sources trying to obtain information
about the overlay and/or underlay, an implementation MAY check that
the source of the Echo Request is indeed part of the SFP.
7. Acknowledgments
Authors greatly appreciate thorough review and the most helpful
comments from Dan Wing, Dirk von Hugo, and Mohamed Boucadair.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. SFC Active OAM Protocol
IANA is requested to assign a new type from the SFC Next Protocol
registry as follows:
+=======+================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+================+===============+
| TBA1 | SFC Active OAM | This document |
+-------+----------------+---------------+
Table 2: SFC Active OAM Protocol
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
8.2. SFC Active OAM Message Type
IANA is requested to create a new registry called "SFC Active OAM
Message Type". All code points in the range 1 through 32767 in this
registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure
specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points to be allocated
according to Table 3:
+===============+=============+=========================+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+===============+=============+=========================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 1 - 32767 | Reserved | IETF Consensus |
+---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 32768 - 65530 | Reserved | First Come First Served |
+---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 65531 - 65534 | Reserved | Private Use |
+---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 65535 | Reserved | |
+---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
Table 3: SFC Active OAM Message Type
IANA is requested to assign a new type from the SFC Active OAM
Message Type registry as follows:
+=======+=============================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=============================+===============+
| TBA2 | SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply | This document |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
Table 4: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Type
8.3. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters
IANA is requested to create a new SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Parameters registry.
8.4. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types
IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Parameters registry the new sub-registry Message Types. All code
points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be allocated
according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126].
Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points are allocated
according to Table 5: as specified in Table 5.
+===========+==============+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+===========+==============+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 1- 175 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 176 - 239 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
Table 5: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Message Types
IANA is requested to assign values as listed in Table 6.
+=======+==================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+==================+===============+
| TBA3 | SFC Echo Request | This document |
+-------+------------------+---------------+
| TBA4 | SFC Echo Reply | This document |
+-------+------------------+---------------+
Table 6: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Message Types Values
8.5. SFC Echo Reply Modes
IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Parameters registry the new sub-registry Reply Mode. All code points
in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be allocated
according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126].
Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure
specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points are allocated
according to Table 7: as specified in Table 7.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
+===========+==============+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+===========+==============+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 1- 175 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 176 - 239 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
Table 7: SFC Echo Reply Mode
All code points in the range 1 through 191 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in
[RFC8126] and assign values as listed in Table 8.
+=======+====================================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+====================================+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA5 | Do Not Reply | This document |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA6 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet | This document |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA7 | Reply via Application Level | This document |
| | Control Channel | |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA8 | Reply via Specified Path | This document |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA9 | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet | This document |
| | with the data integrity protection | |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA10 | Reply via Application Level | This document |
| | Control Channel with the data | |
| | integrity protection | |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA11 | Reply via Specified Path with the | This document |
| | data integrity protection | |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
Table 8: SFC Echo Reply Mode Values
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
8.6. SFC Echo Return Codes
IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Parameters registry the new sub-registry Return Codes as described in
Table 9.
+=========+=============+=========================+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=========+=============+=========================+
| 0-191 | Unassigned | IETF Review |
+---------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First Served |
+---------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 252-254 | Unassigned | Private Use |
+---------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 255 | Reserved | |
+---------+-------------+-------------------------+
Table 9: SFC Echo Return Codes
Values defined for the Return Codes sub-registry are listed in
Table 10.
+=======+=================================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=================================+===============+
| 0 | No Return Code | This document |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | Malformed Echo Request received | This document |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | One or more of the TLVs was not | This document |
| | understood | |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | Authentication failed | This document |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
Table 10: SFC Echo Return Codes Values
8.7. SFC TLV Type
IANA is requested to create the SFC OAM TLV Type registry. All code
points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be allocated
according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126].
Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure
specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points are allocated
according to Table 11:
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
+===========+==============+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+===========+==============+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 1- 175 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 176 - 239 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
Table 11: SFC OAM TLV Type Registry
This document defines the following new values in SFC OAM TLV Type
registry:
+=======+====================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+====================+===============+
| TBA12 | Multiple TLVs Used | This document |
+-------+--------------------+---------------+
| TBA13 | Source ID TLV | This document |
+-------+--------------------+---------------+
| TBA14 | Errored TLVs | This document |
+-------+--------------------+---------------+
Table 12: SFC OAM Type Values
8.8. SFC OAM UDP Port
IANA is requested to allocate UDP port number according to
+=============+============+===================+============+=====================+=============+
|Service Name |Port Number |Transport Protocol |Description |Semantics Definition |Reference |
+=============+============+===================+============+=====================+=============+
|SFC OAM |TBA15 |UDP |SFC OAM Echo|Section 5.5 |This document|
| | | |Reply | | |
+-------------+------------+-------------------+------------+---------------------+-------------+
Table 13: SFC OAM Port
9. References
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity]
Boucadair, M., Reddy, T., and D. Wing, "Integrity
Protection for the Network Service Header (NSH) and
Encryption of Sensitive Context Headers", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-05,
23 March 2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
sfc-nsh-integrity-05>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[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>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC March 2021
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8924] Aldrin, S., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., Ed., Krishnan,
R., and A. Ghanwani, "Service Function Chaining (SFC)
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Framework", RFC 8924, DOI 10.17487/RFC8924, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8924>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com, gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
Wei Meng
ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing,
China
Email: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn
Bhumip Khasnabish
Individual contributor
Email: vumip1@gmail.com
Cui Wang
Individual contributor
Email: lindawangjoy@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires 1 October 2021 [Page 22]