Active OAM for Service Function Chaining
draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-13
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9516.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Greg Mirsky , Wei Meng , Bhumip Khasnabish , Cui(Linda) Wang | ||
| Last updated | 2021-06-16 (Latest revision 2021-06-03) | ||
| Replaces | draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
INTDIR Telechat review
(of
-26)
by Carlos Jesús Bernardos
Ready w/issues
GENART Last Call review
(of
-23)
by Behcet Sarikaya
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9516 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-13
SFC WG G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Updates: 8300 (if approved) W. Meng
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: 18 December 2021 B. Khasnabish
C. Wang
Individual contributor
16 June 2021
Active OAM for Service Function Chaining
draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-13
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. Particularly, it updates the
definition of O (OAM) bit in the Network Service Header (NSH) (RFC
8300) 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 18 December 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements for Active OAM in SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Active OAM Identification in the NSH . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Active SFC OAM Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Authentication in Echo Request/Reply . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. SFC Echo Request Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3.1. Source TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. SFC Echo Request Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4.1. Errored TLVs TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.5. SFC Echo Reply Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.6. SFC Echo Reply Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.7. Tracing an SFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. SFC Active OAM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. SFC Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2.1. Version in the Active SFC OAM Header . . . . . . . . 18
9.2.2. SFC Active OAM Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2.3. SFC Active OAM Header Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.3. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters . . . . . . . . . 19
9.3.1. SFC Echo Request/Reply Version . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.3.2. SFC Echo Request Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.3.3. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types . . . . . . 20
9.3.4. SFC Echo Reply Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.3.5. SFC Echo Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.4. SFC Active OAM TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
1. Introduction
[RFC7665] defines data plane elements necessary to implement a
Service Function Chaining (SFC). These include:
1. Classifiers that perform the classification of incoming packets.
Such classification may result in associating a received packet
to a service function chain.
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
encapsulation and handling traffic coming back from the SFs and
forwarding it to the next SFF.
3. SFs that are responsible for executing specific service treatment
on received packets.
There are different views from different levels of the SFC. One is
the service function chain, 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 data plane elements.
This document defines how active Operation, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM), per [RFC7799] definition of active OAM, is
identified when Network Service Header (NSH) is used as the SFC
encapsulation. Following the analysis of SFC OAM in [RFC8924], this
document applies and, when necessary, extends requirements listed in
Section 4 of [RFC8924] for the use of active OAM in an SFP supporting
fault management and performance monitoring. Active OAM tools,
conformant to the requirements listed in Section 3, improve, for
example, troubleshooting efficiency and defect localization in SFP
because they specifically address the architectural principles of
NSH. For that purpose, SFC Echo Request and Echo Reply are specified
in Section 6. This mechanism enables on-demand Continuity Check,
Connectivity Verification among other operations over SFC in
networks, addresses functionalities discussed in Sections 4.1, 4.2,
and 4.3 of [RFC8924]. SFC Echo Request and Echo Reply, defined in
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
this document, can be used with encapsulations other than NSH, for
example, using MPLS encapsulation, as described in [RFC8595]. The
applicability of the SFC Echo Request/Reply mechanism in SFC
encapsulations other than NSH is outside the scope of this document.
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. The reader is expected to be familiar with it.
In this document, SFC OAM refers to an active OAM [RFC7799] in an SFC
architecture.
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
RSP: Rendered Service Path
SF: Service Function
SFC: Service Function Chain
SFF: Service Function Forwarder
SFP: Service Function Path
MAC: Message Authentication Code
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
3. Requirements for Active OAM in SFC
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.
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
|SFI11| |SFI12| |SFI21| |SFI22| |SFI31| |SFI32|
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
\ / \ / \ /
+----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|Classifier|---|SFF1|---------|SFF2|----------|SFF3|
+----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Figure 1: An Example of SFC Data Plane Architecture
The architecture example depicted in Figure 1 considers 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 has the Classifier as the ingress and SFF3 as its
egress. Segment SFC OAM is 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 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-encapsulated packet (e.g., NSH).
REQ#2: SFC OAM MUST support monitoring of the continuity of the
SFP between any of its elements.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
An SFC failure might be declared when several consecutive test
packets are not received within a pre-determined time. For example,
in the E2E FM SFC OAM 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 notification
by the egress to the ingress.
REQ#4: SFC OAM MUST support connectivity verification of the SFP.
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 that use different instances of SF
of the same type. For example, RSP1(SFI11--SFI21--SFI31) and
RSP2(SFI12--SFI22--SFI32). Available RSPs can be discovered using
the trace function discussed in Section 4.3 [RFC8924] or the
procedure defined in Section 6.7.
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 approach for
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.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
4. Active OAM Identification in the NSH
The O bit in the NSH 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.
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 MUST be
set to Active SFC OAM (TBA1) (Section 9.1). The rules for
interpreting the values of the O bit and the "Next Protocol" field
are as follows:
* O bit set and the "Next Protocol" value does not match one of
identifying active or hybrid OAM protocols (per classification
defined in [RFC7799]), e.g., defined in Section 9.1 Active SFC OAM
(TBA1).
- 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 matches one of identifying
active or hybrid OAM protocols:
- the payload that immediately follows the 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 MUST be
present.
* O bit is clear, and the "Next Protocol" field identifies active or
hybrid OAM protocol MUST be identified and reported as an
erroneous combination. An implementation MAY have control to
enable processing of the OAM payload.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
One conclusion from the above-listed rules of processing the O bit
and the "Next Protocol" field is to avoid the combination of OAM in
an NSH Context Header (Fixed-Length or Variable-Length) and the
payload immediately following the NSH because there is no unambiguous
way to identify such combination using the O bit and the Next
Protocol field.
5. Active SFC OAM Header
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. The version number is
to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the
ability of an implementation to parse or process the SFC Active
OAM header correctly. For example, if syntactic or semantic
changes are made to any of the fixed fields.
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. No flags are defined
in this document. Thus, the bit flags MUST be zeroed on
transmission and ignored on receipt.
Length - two octets long field that is the length of the SFC
active OAM control packet in octets.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
6. Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC
Echo Request/Reply is a well-known active OAM mechanism 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 the Echo Request/Reply principle. The
SFC Echo Request/Reply defined in this document addresses several
requirements listed in Section 3. Specifically, it can be used to
check the continuity of an SFP, trace an SFP, or localize the failure
within an SFP. The SFC Echo Request/Reply control message format is
presented in Figure 3.
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 | Echo Request 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 the
control packet correctly. If a packet presumed to carry an SFC
Echo Request/Reply is received at an SFF, and the SFF does not
understand the Version field value, the packet MUST be discarded,
and the event SHOULD be logged.
Reserved - fourteen-bit field. It MUST be zeroed on transmission
and ignored on receipt.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
The Echo Request Flags is a two-octet bit vector field. Note that
a flag defined in the Flags field of the SFC Active OAM header in
Figure 2 has no implication of those defined in the Echo Request
Flags field of an Echo Request/Reply message.
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 provided in 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 MUST be filled in
by the sender of the Echo Request and returned unchanged by the
Echo Reply sender (if a reply mandated). The sender of the Echo
Request SHOULD use a pseudo-random number generator to set the
value of the Sender's Handle field.
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 initial Sequence Number MUST be randomly generated and then
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 9.4.
Figure 4 presents the format of an SFC Echo Request/Reply TLV, where
fields are defined as follows:
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
Type - a one-octet-long field that characterizes the
interpretation of the Value field. Type values allocated
according to Section 9.4.
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.
6.1. 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 (in cases when the reply is requested).
+=======+============================================+
| 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
6.2. 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 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.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
6.3. SFC Echo Request Transmission
SFC Echo Request control packet MUST use the appropriate transport
encapsulation of the monitored SFP. If the NSH is used, Echo Request
MUST set O bit, as defined in [RFC8300]. 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 9.2.2.
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. Note that ways
of learning the identity of that node are outside the scope of
this specification.
* 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.
* 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.
[I-D.ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified] provides an example of
communicating an explicit path for the Echo Reply.
6.3.1. Source TLV
Responder to the SFC Echo Request encapsulates the SFC Echo Reply
message in IP/UDP packet if the Reply mode is "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6
UDP Packet". Because the NSH does not identify the ingress node that
generated the Echo Request, the source ID MUST be included in the
message and used as the IP destination address and destination UDP
port number of the SFC Echo Reply. The sender of the SFC Echo
Request MUST include an SFC Source TLV (Figure 5).
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source ID | Reserved1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Port Number | Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: SFC Source TLV
where
Source ID Type is a one-octet-long field and has the value of
TBA13 Section 9.4.
Reserved1 - one-octet-long field.
Length is a two-octets-long field, and the value equals the length
of the Value field in octets. The value of the Length field can
be 8 or 20. If the value of the field is neither, the Source TLV
is considered to be malformed.
Port Number is a two-octets-long field. It contains the UDP port
number of the sender of the SFC OAM control message. The value of
the field MUST be used as the destination UDP port number in the
IP/UDP encapsulation of the SFC Echo Reply message.
Reserved2 is a two-octets-long field. The field MUST be zeroed on
transmit and ignored on receipt.
IP Address field contains the IP address of the sender of the SFC
OAM control message, IPv4 or IPv6. The value of the field MUST be
used as the destination IP address in the IP/UDP encapsulation of
the SFC Echo Reply message.
A single Source ID TLV for each address family, i.e., IPv4 and IPv6,
MAY be present in an SFC Echo Request message. If the Source TLVs
for both address families are present in an SFC Echo Request message,
the SFF MUST NOT replicate an SFC Echo Reply but choose the
destination IP address for the SFC Echo Reply based on the local
policy. If more than one Source ID TLV per the address family is
present, the receiver MUST use the first TLV and ignore the rest.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
6.4. SFC Echo Request Reception
Punting received 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 integrity-protected, the
receiving SFF first MUST verify the authentication. Then the
receiver SFF MUST validate the Source TLV, as defined in
Section 6.3.1. If the authentication validation has failed and the
Source TLV is considered properly formatted, the SFF MUST send to the
system identified in the Source TLV (see Section 6.5), according to a
rate-limit control mechanism, an SFC Echo Reply with the Return Code
set to "Authentication failed" and the Subcode set to zero. If the
Source TLV is determined malformed, the received SFC Echo Request
processing is stopped, the message is dropped, and the event SHOULD
be logged, according to a rate-limiting control for logging. Then,
the SFF that has received an SFC Echo Request verifies the rest of
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 under the control of the rate-limiting mechanism to the
system identified in the Source TLV (see Section 6.5). If there are
any TLVs that the 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 6.4.1) that, as sub-
TLVs, contains only the misunderstood TLVs. Sender's Handle and
Sequence Number fields are not examined but are included in the SFC
Echo Reply message. If the sanity check of the received Echo Request
succeeded, then the SFF at the end of the SFP MUST set the Return
Code value to 5 ("End of the SFP") and the Subcode set to zero. If
the SFF is not at the end of the SFP and the TTL value is 1, the
value of the Return Code MUST be set to 4 ("TTL Exceeded") and the
Subcode set to zero. In all other cases, SFF MUST set the Return
Code value to 0 ("No Return Code") and the Subcode set to zero.
6.4.1. Errored TLVs TLV
If the Return Code for the Echo Reply is determined as 2 ("One or
more TLVs was not understood"), the Errored TLVs TLV might be
included in an Echo Reply. The use of this TLV is meant to inform
the sender of an Echo Request of TLVs either not supported by an
implementation or parsed and found to be in error.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Errored TLVs | Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Errored TLVs TLV
where
The Errored TLVs Type MUST be set to TBA14 Section 9.4.
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.
6.5. 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. [I-D.ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified] provides an
example of a TLV that can be used to specify the return path of the
Echo Reply. 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.
6.6. SFC Echo Reply Reception
An SFF SHOULD NOT accept SFC Echo Reply unless the received message
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;
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
* if the matching to the Echo Request found, the value of the
Sender's Handle in 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.
6.7. Tracing an SFP
SFC Echo Request/Reply can be used to isolate a defect detected in
the SFP and trace an RSP. As for ICMP echo request/reply [RFC0792]
and MPLS echo request/reply [RFC8029], this mode is referred to as
"traceroute". In the traceroute mode, the sender transmits a
sequence of SFC Echo Request messages starting with the NSH TTL value
set to 1 and is incremented by 1 in each next Echo Request packet.
The sender stops transmitting SFC Echo Request packets when the
Return Code in the received Echo Reply equals 5 ("End of the SFP").
Suppose a specialized information element (e.g., IPv6 Flow Label
[RFC6437] or Flow ID [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv]) is used for distributing
the load across Equal Cost Multi-Path or Link Aggregation Group
paths. In that case, such an element MAY also be used for the SFC
OAM traffic. Doing so is meant to control whether the SFC Echo
Request follows the same RSP as the monitored flow.
7. 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 the 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].
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,
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
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.
8. Acknowledgments
Authors greatly appreciate thorough review and the most helpful
comments from Dan Wing, Dirk von Hugo, and Mohamed Boucadair.
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. 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
9.2. SFC Active OAM
IANA is requested to create a new SFC Active OAM registry.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
9.2.1. Version in the Active SFC OAM Header
IANA is requested to create in the SFC Active OAM registry a new sub-
registry called "SFC Active OAM Header Version". All code points are
assigned according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in
[RFC8126]. The remaining code points to be allocated according to
Table 3:
+==============+=======================+===============+
| Version | Description | Reference |
+==============+=======================+===============+
| Version 0b00 | Protocol as defined | This document |
| | by this specification | |
+--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| Version 0b01 | Unassigned | This document |
+--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| Version 0b10 | Unassigned | This document |
+--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| Version 0b11 | Unassigned | This document |
+--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
Table 3: SFC Active OAM Header Version
9.2.2. SFC Active OAM Message Type
IANA is requested to create in the SFC Active OAM registry a new sub-
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 4:
+===============+=============+=========================+
| 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 4: SFC Active OAM Message Type
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
IANA is requested to assign a new type from the SFC Active OAM
Message Type sub-registry as follows:
+=======+=============================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=============================+===============+
| TBA2 | SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply | This document |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
Table 5: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Type
9.2.3. SFC Active OAM Header Flags
IANA is requested to create in the SFC Active OAM registry the new
sub-registry SFC Active OAM Flags.
This sub-registry tracks the assignment of 8 flags in the Flags field
of the SFC Active OAM Header. The flags are numbered from 0 (most
significant bit, transmitted first) to 7.
New entries are assigned by Standards Action.
+============+=============+===============+
| Bit Number | Description | Reference |
+============+=============+===============+
| 7-0 | Unassigned | This document |
+------------+-------------+---------------+
Table 6: SFC Active OAM Header Flags
9.3. SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters
IANA is requested to create a new SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Parameters registry.
9.3.1. SFC Echo Request/Reply Version
IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Parameters registry a new sub-registry called "SFC Echo Request/Reply
Version". All code points assigned according to the "IETF Review"
procedure specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points to be
allocated according to Table 7:
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
+==============+=======================+===============+
| Version | Description | Reference |
+==============+=======================+===============+
| Version 0b00 | Protocol as defined | This document |
| | by this specification | |
+--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| Version 0b01 | Unassigned | This document |
+--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| Version 0b10 | Unassigned | This document |
+--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
| Version 0b11 | Unassigned | This document |
+--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
Table 7: SFC Echo Request/Reply Version
9.3.2. SFC Echo Request Flags
IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Parameters registry the new sub-registry SFC Echo Request Flags.
This sub-registry tracks the assignment of 16 flags in the SFC Echo
Request Flags field of the SFC Echo Request message. The flags are
numbered from 0 (most significant bit, transmitted first) to 15.
New entries are assigned by Standards Action.
+============+=============+===============+
| Bit Number | Description | Reference |
+============+=============+===============+
| 15-0 | Unassigned | This document |
+------------+-------------+---------------+
Table 8: SFC Echo Request Flags
9.3.3. 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
specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points are allocated as
specified in Table 9.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 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 9: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Message Types
IANA is requested to assign values as listed in Table 10.
+=======+==================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+==================+===============+
| TBA3 | SFC Echo Request | This document |
+-------+------------------+---------------+
| TBA4 | SFC Echo Reply | This document |
+-------+------------------+---------------+
Table 10: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
Message Types Values
9.3.4. 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 11.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 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 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 12.
+=======+====================================+===============+
| 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 12: SFC Echo Reply Mode Values
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
9.3.5. 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 13.
+=========+=============+=========================+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=========+=============+=========================+
| 0-191 | Unassigned | IETF Review |
+---------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 192-251 | Unassigned | First Come First Served |
+---------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 252-254 | Unassigned | Private Use |
+---------+-------------+-------------------------+
| 255 | Reserved | |
+---------+-------------+-------------------------+
Table 13: SFC Echo Return Codes
Values defined for the Return Codes sub-registry are listed in
Table 14.
+=======+=================================+===============+
| 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 |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 4 | TTL Exceeded | This document |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 5 | End of the SFP | This document |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
Table 14: SFC Echo Return Codes Values
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
9.4. SFC Active OAM TLV Type
IANA is requested to create the SFC Active 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 15:
+===========+==============+===============+
| 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 15: SFC Active OAM TLV Type Registry
This document defines the following new values in SFC Active 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 16: SFC OAM Type Values
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified]
Mirsky, G., Ao, T., Chen, Z., and G. Mishra, "Controlled
Return Path for Service Function Chain (SFC) OAM", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-
specified-09, 30 March 2021, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified-09>.
[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>.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv]
Wei, Y. (., Elzur, U., Majee, S., and C. Pignataro,
"Network Service Header Metadata Type 2 Variable-Length
Context Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-06, 12 May 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-06>.
[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>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
[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>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8595] Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", RFC 8595,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8595, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8595>.
[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
Mirsky, et al. Expires 18 December 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Active OAM for SFC June 2021
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 18 December 2021 [Page 27]