Approaches on Supporting IOAM in IPv6
draft-song-ippm-ioam-ipv6-support-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-03-03
Replaces draft-song-ioam-ipv6-support
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
IPPM                                                             H. Song
Internet-Draft                                                 Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Z. Li
Expires: September 4, 2020                                       S. Peng
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           March 3, 2020

                 Approaches on Supporting IOAM in IPv6
                  draft-song-ippm-ioam-ipv6-support-00

Abstract

   It has been proposed to encapsulate IOAM tracing option data fields
   in IPv6 HbH options header.  However, due to size of the trace data
   and its location in the IPv6 header packets, this arrangement creates
   practical challenges for implementation, especially when other
   extension headers, such as routing header, also exist and require in-
   network processing.  We propose several alternative approaches to
   address this challenge, including separating the IOAM trace data to a
   different extension header, using the postcard-based telemetry (e.g.,
   IOAM DEX) instead, and applying the segment IOAM trace export scheme,
   based on the network scenario and application requirements.  We
   discuss the pros and cons of each approach and foster standard
   convergence and industry adoption.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 September 4, 2020.

Song, et al.            Expires September 4, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              IOAM IPv6 Support                 March 2020

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  IOAM Data Separate and Postpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  IOAM Trace Data Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Segment IOAM Data Export  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Independent of SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Export at SRv6 node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Direct Export Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Comparison  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   In-situ OAM (IOAM) [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] defines two options,
   pre-allocated tracing option and incremental tracing option, which
   record hop-by-hop data along a packet's forwarding path.  The draft
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options] proposes the method to encapsulate
   IOAM trace option data fields in IPv6.  Because the tracing options
   requires per hop processing, such options can only be encapsulated in
   IPv6 Hop-by-Hop (HbH) options header.  The draft
   [I-D.ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-deployment] further describes some
   deployment approaches.

   [RFC8200] mandates that the HbH options header, if exists, must be
   the first extension header following the IPv6 header.  However, the
   IOAM trace data can be large, which easily amount to tens to hundreds
   of bytes, making accessing other headers after it difficult.  There
   are practical limitations on how far the hardware can reach into a
   packet in forwarding hardware.  Even if the other headers can be
Show full document text