MPLS Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Z. Ali
Updates: 5586 (if approved) F. Brockners
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: March 13, 2022 B. Wen
Comcast
B. Decraene
Orange
V. Kozak
Comcast
September 09, 2021
MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data
draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-01
Abstract
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
operational and telemetry information in the data packet while the
packet traverses a path between two nodes in the network. This
document defines how IOAM data fields are transported with MPLS data
plane encapsulation using new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh).
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 March 13, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. MPLS Extensions for IOAM Data Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IOAM Generic Associated Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. IOAM Presence Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Edge-to-Edge IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Edge-to-Edge IOAM Presence Indicator . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Procedure for Edge-to-Edge IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Hop-by-Hop IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Hop-by-Hop IOAM Presence Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Procedure for Hop-by-Hop IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Considerations for IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Considerations for ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Node Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Nested MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. MPLS Encapsulation with Control Word and Another G-ACh for
IOAM Data Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
operational and telemetry information within the packet while the
packet traverses a particular network domain. The term "in-situ"
refers to the fact that the IOAM data fields are added to the data
packets rather than being sent within the probe packets specifically
dedicated to OAM. The IOAM data fields are defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], and can be used for various use-cases for
OAM. The IOAM data fields are further updated in
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] for direct export use-cases and in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags] for Loopback and Active flags.
This document defines how IOAM data fields are transported with MPLS
data plane encapsulations using new Generic Associated Channel
(G-ACh).
2. Conventions
2.1. Requirement 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in this document:
ECMP Equal Cost Multi-Path
E2E Edge-To-Edge
EL Entropy Label
ELI Entropy Label Indicator
ELC Entropy Label Control
G-ACh Generic Associated Channel
HbH Hop-by-Hop
IOAM In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
POT Proof-of-Transit
PW PseudoWire
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
3. MPLS Extensions for IOAM Data Fields
3.1. IOAM Generic Associated Channel
The IOAM data fields are defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The
IOAM data fields are carried in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 1.
More than one trace options can be present in the IOAM data fields.
G-ACh [RFC5586] provides a mechanism to transport OAM and other
control messages over MPLS data plane. The IOAM G-ACh header
[RFC5586] with new IOAM G-ACh type MUST be added immediately after
the MPLS label stack in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 1, before
the IOAM data fields. The G-ACh label (GAL) [RFC5586] MUST not be
added in the MPLS label stack.
This document updates the following paragraph in Section 2.1 of
[RFC5586]: "The G-ACh MUST NOT be used to transport user traffic" to
"The G-ACh MAY be used with user traffic to transport OAM
information".
Note that the G-ACh is not really used to transport the user traffic
in this document but to transport the IOAM data fields with the user
traffic.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Length | IOAM G-ACh | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Reserved | Block Number | IOAM-OPT-Type |IOAM HDR Len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| | O
| | A
~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| |
| |
| Payload + Padding |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IOAM Generic Associated Channel with IOAM Data Fields
The IOAM data fields are encapsulated using the following fields in
the MPLS header:
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
IP Version Number 0001b: The first four octets are IP Version Field
part of a G-ACh header, as defined in [RFC5586].
Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in [RFC4385].
Length: Length of IOAM G-ACh data in 4-octet units. Note that this
field is marked as Reserved in [RFC5586] and is updated for the new
IOAM G-ACh type by this document.
IOAM G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Type (value TBA1) for
IOAM [RFC5586].
Reserved: Reserved Bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
ignored upon receipt.
Block Number: The Block Number can be used to aggregate the IOAM
data collected in data plane, e.g. to compute measurement metrics
for each block of a data flow. It is also used to correlate the
IOAM data on different nodes.
IOAM-OPT-Type: 8-bit field defining the IOAM Option type, as defined
in Section 8.1 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
IOAM HDR Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of IOAM Header in
4-octet units.
IOAM Option and Data Space: IOAM option header and data is present
as defined by the IOAM-OPT-Type field, and is defined in Section 5
of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
3.2. IOAM Presence Indicators
An IOAM Presence Indicator MUST be used to indicate the presence of
the IOAM data fields in the MPLS header. There are two IOAM types
defined in this document: Edge-to-Edge (E2E) and Hop-by-Hop (HbH)
IOAM. If only edge nodes need to process IOAM data then E2E IOAM
Presence Indicator MUST be used so that intermediate nodes can ignore
it. If both edge and intermediate nodes need to process IOAM data
then HbH IOAM Presence Indicator MUST be used. Different IOAM
Presence Indicators allow to optimize the IOAM processing on
intermediate nodes by checking if IOAM data fields need to be
processed.
[RFC6790] defines the MPLS Entropy Label (EL) and Entropy Label
Indicator (ELI). [I-D.decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id]
defines Entropy Label Control (ELC) field and is carried in the TTL
field of the Entropy Label. A flag (called E) in the ELC is defined
in this document to indicate the presence of E2E IOAM and another
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
flag (called H) in the ELC is defined to indicate the presence of HbH
IOAM. The bit positions of these flags in the ELC field can be user-
defined, consistently in the network. Alternatively, the bit
positions of these flag can be allocated by IANA.
4. Edge-to-Edge IOAM
4.1. Edge-to-Edge IOAM Presence Indicator
The E2E IOAM Presence Indicator (Flag E in the Entropy Label Control
field) is used to indicate the presence of the E2E IOAM data fields
in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 2.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entropy Label Indicator (7) | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entropy Label | TC |1| ELC(E) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Example MPLS Encapsulation for E2E IOAM
The E2E IOAM data fields carry the Option-Type(s) that require
processing on the encapsulating and decapsulating nodes only. The
IOAM Option-Type carried can be IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option-Type
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The E2E IOAM data fields SHOULD NOT carry
any IOAM Option-Type that require IOAM processing on the intermediate
nodes as it will not be processed by them.
4.2. Procedure for Edge-to-Edge IOAM
The E2E IOM procedure is summarized as following:
o The encapsulating node inserts the ELI, EL pair with the E2E IOAM
Presence Indicator below the label whose FEC is the end
(decapsulating) node and one or more IOAM data fields in the MPLS
header.
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
o The intermediate nodes do not process IOAM data field.
o The decapsulating node MAY punt a copy of the packet with the
receive timestamp to the slow path for IOAM data fields processing
when the node recognizes the E2E IOAM Presence Indicator. The
receive timestamp is required by the various E2E OAM use-cases,
including streaming telemetry. Note that the packet is not
necessarily punted to the control-plane.
o The decapsulating node processes the IOAM data fields using the
procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. An example of
IOAM processing is to export the data fields, send data fields via
streaming telemetry, etc.
o The decapsulating node MUST remove the IOAM data fields from the
received packet. The decapsulated packet is forwarded downstream
or terminated locally similar to the regular data packets.
5. Hop-by-Hop IOAM
5.1. Hop-by-Hop IOAM Presence Indicator
The HbH IOAM Presence Indicator (Flag H in the Entropy Label Control
field) is used to indicate the presence of the HbH IOAM data fields
in the MPLS header as shown 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entropy Label Indicator (7) | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entropy Label | TC |1| ELC(H) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Example MPLS Encapsulation for HbH IOAM
The HbH IOAM data fields carry the Option-Type(s) that require
processing at the intermediate and/or encapsulating and decapsulating
nodes. The IOAM Option-Type carried can be IOAM Pre-allocated Trace
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
Option-Type, IOAM Incremental Trace Option-Type and IOAM Proof of
Transit (POT) Option-Type, as well as Edge-to-Edge Option-Type
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
5.2. Procedure for Hop-by-Hop IOAM
The HbH IOAM procedure is summarized as following:
o The encapsulating node inserts the ELI, EL pair with the HbH IOAM
Presence Indicator below the label whose FEC is the end
(decapsulating) node and one or more IOAM data fields in the MPLS
header.
o The intermediate node enabled with HbH IOAM function processes the
data packet including the IOAM data fields as defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] when the node recognizes the HbH IOAM
Presence Indicator in the MPLS header.
o The intermediate node MAY punt a copy of the packet with the
receive timestamp to the slow path for IOAM data fields processing
when the node recognizes the HbH IOAM Presence Indicator. The
receive timestamp is required by the various HbH OAM use-cases,
including streaming telemetry. Note that the packet is not
necessarily punted to the control-plane.
o The intermediate node forwards a copy of the processed data packet
downstream.
o The decapsulating node MAY punt a copy of the packet with the
receive timestamp to the slow path for IOAM data fields processing
when the node recognizes the HbH IOAM Presence Indicator. The
receive timestamp is required by the various E2E OAM use-cases,
including streaming telemetry. Note that the packet is not
necessarily punted to the control-plane.
o The decapsulating node processes the IOAM data fields using the
procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. An example of
IOAM processing is to export the data fields, send data fields via
streaming telemetry, etc.
o The decapsulating node MUST remove the IOAM data fields from the
received packet. The decapsulated packet is forwarded downstream
or terminated locally similar to the regular data packets.
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
6. Considerations for IOAM
6.1. Considerations for ECMP
The encapsulating node needs to make sure the IOAM data fields do not
start with a well-known IP Version Number (e.g. 0x4 for IPv4 and 0x6
for IPv6) as that can alter the hashing function for ECMP that uses
the IP header. This is achieved by using the IOAM G-ACh with IP
Version Number 0001b after the MPLS label stack [RFC5586].
When entropy label [RFC6790] is used for hashing function for ECMP,
the procedure defined in this document does not alter the ECMP
behaviour.
6.2. Node Capability
The decapsulating node that has to remove the IOAM data fields and
perform the IOAM function may not be capable of supporting it. The
encapsulating node needs to know if the decapsulating node can
support the IOAM function. The signaling extension for this
capability exchange is outside the scope of this document.
The intermediate node that is not capable of supporting the IOAM
functions defined in this document, can simply skip the IOAM
processing.
6.3. Nested MPLS Encapsulation
The packets with IOAM data fields may carry one or more Entropy
Labels with IOAM Presence Indicators in the MPLS header. An
intermediate node SHOULD check the first Entropy Label in the label
stack for the IOAM Presence Indicator to process the IOAM data
fields.
An intermediate node that supports IOAM, SHOULD copy the ELC field
from the received Entropy Label to the new Entropy Label when
inserting the new Entropy Label in the MPLS header and this can be
based on a local policy.
When a packet is received with an IOAM Presence Indicator, the nested
MPLS encapsulating node that supports a different IOAM, the node MUST
add a new Entropy Label with the supported IOAM Presence Indicator.
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
7. MPLS Encapsulation with Control Word and Another G-ACh for IOAM Data
Fields
The IOAM data fields, including IOAM G-ACh header are added in the
MPLS encapsulation immediately after the MPLS header. Any Control
Word [RFC4385] or another G-ACh [RFC5586] MUST be added after the
IOAM data fields in the packet as shown in the Figure 4 and Figure 5,
respectively. This allows the intermediate nodes to easily access
the HbH IOAM data fields located immediately after the MPLS header.
The decapsulating node can remove the MPLS encapsulation including
the IOAM data fields and then process the Control Word or another
G-ACh following it. The subsequent G-ACh is located through the use
of the "Length" field in the G-ACh.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entropy Label Indicator (7) | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entropy Label | TC |1| ELC(H) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Length | IOAM G-ACh |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| Reserved | Block Number | IOAM-OPT-Type |IOAM HDR Len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| | O
| | A
~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|0 0 0 0| Specified by PW Encapsulation [RFC4385] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
~ Payload + Padding ~
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Example MPLS Encapsulation with Generic PW Control Word
with HbH IOAM
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entropy Label Indicator (7) | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Entropy Label | TC |1| ELC(H) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Length | IOAM G-ACh |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| Reserved | Block Number | IOAM-OPT-Type |IOAM HDR Len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| | O
| | A
~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
~ Payload + Padding ~
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Example MPLS Encapsulation with Another G-ACh with HbH IOAM
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and apply to the procedure defined in this
document.
IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where one or several
operators decide on configuring IOAM according to their needs. IOAM
is intended for deployment in limited domains [RFC8799]. As such, it
assumes that a node involved in IOAM operation has previously
verified the integrity of the path. Still, operators need to
properly secure the IOAM domain to avoid malicious configuration and
use, which could include injecting malicious IOAM packets into the
domain.
Routers that support G-ACh are subject to the same security
considerations as defined in [RFC4385] and [RFC5586].
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
9. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains G-ACh Type Registry (see
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/g-ach-
parameters.xhtml>). IANA is requested to allocate a value for IOAM
G-ACh Type from "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
(including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry.
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| TBA1 | IOAM G-ACh Type | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
Table 1: IOAM G-ACh Type
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id]
Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Henderickx, W., Saad, T.,
Beeram, V. P., and L. Jalil, "Using Entropy Label for
Network Slice Identification in MPLS networks.", draft-
decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id-02 (work in
progress), August 2021.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-14 (work in
progress), June 2021.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,
Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ
OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-
export-06 (work in progress), August 2021.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
Lemon, "In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags", draft-
ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-06 (work in progress), August 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>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Patrick Khordoc, Sagar Soni, Shwetha
Bhandari, Clarence Filsfils, and Vengada Prasad Govindan for the
discussions on IOAM. The authors would also like to thank Tarek
Saad, Loa Andersson, Greg Mirsky, Stewart Bryant, Xiao Min, and Cheng
Li for providing many useful comments. The authors would also like
to thank Mach Chen, Andrew Malis, Matthew Bocci, and Nick Delregno
for the MPLS-RT reviews.
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane September 2021
Frank Brockners
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40549
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Bin Wen
Comcast
Email: Bin_Wen@cable.comcast.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Voitek Kozak
Comcast
Email: Voitek_Kozak@comcast.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires March 13, 2022 [Page 14]