Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over IP February 2024
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 August 2024 [Page]
DetNet Working Group
Intended Status:
G. Mirsky
M. Chen
D. Black
Dell EMC

Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with IP Data Plane


This document discusses the use of existing IP Operations, Administration, and Maintenance protocols and mechanisms in Deterministic Networking networks that use the IP data plane.

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

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 17 August 2024.

1. Introduction

[RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet) architecture.

Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used to detect and localize defects in the network as well as to monitor network performance. Some OAM functions (e.g., failure detection), work in the network proactively, while others (e.g., defect localization) are usually performed on-demand. These tasks are achieved by a combination of active and hybrid OAM methods, as defined in [RFC7799].

[I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework] lists the OAM functional requirements for DetNet, and defines the principles for OAM use within DetNet networks utilizing the IP data plane. The functional requirements can be compared against current OAM tools to identify gaps and potential enhancements required to enable proactive and on-demand path monitoring and service validation.

This document discusses the use of existing IP OAM protocols and mechanisms in DetNet networks that use the IP data plane.

2. Conventions used in this document

2.1. Terminology

The term "DetNet OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for Deterministic Networks".

DetNet: Deterministic Networks

OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol

Underlay Network or Underlay Layer: The network that provides connectivity between DetNet nodes. MPLS networks providing LSP connectivity between DetNet nodes are an example of the DetNet IP network underlay layer.

DetNet Node: a node that is an actor in the DetNet domain. DetNet domain edge nodes and nodes that perform the Packet Replication and Elimination Function within the domain are examples of a DetNet node.

3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with the IP Data Plane

OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the particular networking layer. Thus, it is critical that the data plane encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms and enables them to be configured so that DetNet OAM packets follow the same path (unidirectional or bidirectional) through the network and receive the same forwarding treatment in the DetNet forwarding sub-layer as the DetNet flow being monitored.

The DetNet data plane encapsulation in a transport network with IP encapsulations is specified in Section 6 of [RFC8939]. For the IP underlay network, DetNet flows are identified by the ordered match to the provisioned information set that, among other elements, includes the IP protocol, source port number, destination port number. Active IP OAM protocols like Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] or Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762], use UDP transport and the well-known UDP port numbers as the destination port. For BFD, the UDP destination port is specific to the BFD variant, e.g., Multihop BFD uses port 4784 [RFC5883].

Thus a DetNet node must be able to associate an IP DetNet flow with the particular test session to ensure that test packets experience the same treatment as the DetNet flow packets. For example, in a network where path selection and DetNet functionality are based on 3-tuples (destination and source IP addresses in combination with the Differentiated Services Code Point value) that association can be achieved by having the OAM traffic use the same 3-tuple as the monitored IP DetNet flow. In such a scenario, an IP OAM session between the same pair of IP nodes would share the network treatment with the monitored IP DetNet flow regardless of whether ICMP, BFD, or STAMP protocol is used.

In IP networks, the majority of on-demand failure detection and localization is achieved through the use of the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP), utilizing Echo Request and Echo Reply messages, along with a set of defined error messages such as Destination Unreachable, which provide detailed information through assigned code points. [RFC0792] and [RFC4443] define the ICMP for IPv4 and IPv6 networks, respectively. To utilize ICMP effectively for these purposes within DetNet, DetNet nodes must establish the association of ICMP traffic between DetNet nodes with IP DetNet traffic. This entails ensuring that such ICMP traffic traverses the same interfaces and receives identical QoS treatment as the monitored DetNet IP flow. Failure to do so may result in ICMP being unable to detect and localize failures specific to the DetNet IP data plane.

3.1. Mapping Active OAM and IP DetNet flows

IP OAM protocols are used to detect failures (e.g., BFD [RFC5880]) and performance degradation (e.g., STAMP [RFC8762]) that affect an IP DetNet flow. It is essential to ensure that specially constructed OAM packets traverse the same set of nodes and links and receive the same network QoS treatment as the monitored data flow, e.g., a DetNet flow, for making active OAM useful. When the UDP destination port number used by the OAM protocol is assigned by IANA, then judicious selection of the UDP source port may be able to achieve co-routedness of OAM with the monitored IP DetNet flow in multipath environments, e.g., Link Aggregation Group or Equal Cost Multipath, via use of a UDP source port value that results in the OAM traffic and the monitored IP DetNet flow hashing to the same path based on the packet header hashes used for path selection. This does assume that forwarding equipment along the multipath makes consistent hashing decisions, which might not always be true in a heterogeneous environment. (That also applies to encapsulation techniques described in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3.) To ensure the accuracy of OAM results in detecting failures and monitoring the performance of IP DetNet, it is essential that test packets not only traverse the same path as the monitored IP DetNet flow but also receive the same treatment by the nodes, e.g., shaping, filtering, policing, and availability of the pre-allocated resources, as experienced by the IP DetNet packet. That correlation between the particular IP OAM session and the monitored IP DetNet flow can be achieved by using DetNet provisioning information (e.g., [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]). Each IP OAM protocol session is presented as a DetNet Application with related service and forwarding sub-layers. The forwarding sub-layer of the IP OAM session is identical to the forwarding sub-layer of the monitored IP DetNet flow, except for information in the grouping ip-header, defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang].

3.2. Active OAM Using IP-in-UDP Encapsulation

As described above, active IP OAM is realized through several protocols. Some protocols use UDP transport, while ICMP is a network-layer protocol. The amount of operational work mapping IP OAM protocols to the monitored DetNet flow can be reduced by using an IP/UDP tunnel to carry IP test packets ([RFC2003]). Then, to ensure that OAM packets traverse the same set of nodes and links, the IP/UDP tunnel must be mapped to the monitored DetNet flow. Note that the DetNet domain for the test packet is seen as a single IP link in such a case. As a result, transit DetNet IP nodes cannot be traced using the usual traceroute procedure, and a modification of the traceroute may be required.

3.3. Active OAM Using DetNet-in-UDP Encapsulation

Active OAM in IP DetNet can be realized using DetNet-in-UDP encapsulation. Using DetNet-in-UDP tunnel between IP DetNet nodes ensures that active OAM test packets follow the same path through the network as the monitored IP DetNet flow packets and receive the same forwarding treatment in the DetNet forwarding sub-layer (see Section 4.1.2 of [RFC8655]) as the IP DetNet flow being monitored.

[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof] describes how DetNet with MPLS over UDP/IP data plane [RFC9025] can be used to support Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions to potentially lower packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and ensure in-order packet delivery in IP DetNet's service sub-layer. To ensure that an active OAM test packet follows the path of the monitored DetNet flow in the DetNet service sub-layer the encapsulation shown in Figure 1 is used.

      |                                 |
      |         DetNet App-Flow         |
      |       (original IP) Packet      |
      |                                 |
      +---------------------------------+ <--\
      |            DetNet ACH           |    |
      +---------------------------------+    +--> PREOF capable
      |       Service-ID (S-Label)      |    |    DetNet IP data
      +---------------------------------+    |    plane encapsulation
      |            UDP Header           |    |
      +---------------------------------+    |
      |            IP Header            |    |
      +---------------------------------+ <--/
      |            Data-Link            |
      |             Physical            |

Figure 1: DetNet Associated Channel Header Format


  • DetNet ACH is the DetNet Associated Channel Header defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam].
  • PREOF - Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions if DetNet service sub-layer defined in [RFC8655].

3.4. The Application of Y.1731/G.8013 Using GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation

[RFC8086] has defined the method of encapsulating GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation) headers in UDP. GRE-in-UDP encapsulation can be used for IP DetNet OAM as it eases the task of mapping an OAM test session to a particular IP DetNet flow that is identified by N-tuple. Matching a GRE-in-UDP tunnel to the monitored IP DetNet flow enables the use of Y.1731/G.8013 [ITU-T.1731] as a comprehensive toolset of OAM. The Protocol Type field in GRE header must be set to 0x8902, assigned by IANA to IEEE 802.1ag Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) Protocol / ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731. Y.1731/G.8013 supports the necessary functions required for IP DetNet OAM, i.e., continuity check, one-way packet loss and packet delay measurement.

4. Active OAM for DetNet IP Interworking with OAM of non-IP DetNet domains

A domain in which IP data plane provides DetNet service could be used in conjunction with a TSN and a DetNet domain with MPLS data plane to deliver end-to-end service. In such scenarios, the ability to detect defects and monitor performance using OAM is essential. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam] identified two OAM interworking models - peering and tunneling. Interworking between DetNet domains with IP and MPLS data planes analyzed in Section 4.2 of [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam]. In addition, OAM interworking requirements and recommendations that apply between a DetNet Domain with the MPLS dataplane and an adjacent TSN network also apply between a DetNet domain with the IP dataplane and an adjacent TSN network.

5. IANA Considerations

This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation. This section can be deleted before the publication of the draft.

6. Security Considerations

This document describes the applicability of the existing Fault Management and Performance Monitoring IP OAM protocols. It does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common to networking or already documented in [RFC0792], [RFC4443], [RFC5880], and [RFC8762] for the referenced DetNet and OAM protocols.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

Mirsky, G., Chen, M., and B. Varga, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-15, , <>.
Geng, X., Ryoo, Y., Fedyk, D., Rahman, R., and Z. Li, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) YANG Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-yang-19, , <>.
Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, , <>.
Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, , <>.
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, , <>.
Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086, , <>.
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, , <>.
Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S. Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, , <>.
Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, , <>.

7.2. Informational References

Varga, B., Farkas, J., and A. G. Malis, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09, , <>.
Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Bernardos, C. J., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11, , <>.
ITU-T, "Operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks", ITU-T G.8013/Y.1731, .
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, , <>.
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, DOI 10.17487/RFC5883, , <>.
Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, , <>.
Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, , <>.

Authors' Addresses

Greg Mirsky
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
David Black
Dell EMC
176 South Street
Hopkinton, MA, 01748
United States of America