DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen Expires: September 28, 2020 Huawei March 27, 2020 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-00 Abstract This document lists functional requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Deterministic Networks (DetNet) and, using these requirements; defines format and use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS 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 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 28, 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 Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 5 4.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub- functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . . . 9 7. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . . . 9 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction [RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet) architecture and how the Packet Replication and Elimination function (PREF) can be used to ensure low packet drop ratio in DetNet domain. Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used to detect, localize defects in the network, and monitor network performance. Some OAM functions, e.g., failure detection, work in the network proactively, while others, e.g., defect localization, usually performed on-demand. These tasks achieved by a combination of active and hybrid, as defined in [RFC7799], OAM methods. This document lists the functional requirements toward OAM for DetNet domain. The list can further be used for gap analysis of available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing or whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on-demand path monitoring and service validation. Also, this document defines format and use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 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". CW Control Word DetNet Deterministic Networks d-ACH DetNet Associated Channel Header d-CW DetNet Control Word DNH DetNet Header GAL Generic Associated Channel Label G-ACh Generic Associated Channel OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance PREF Packet Replication and Elimination Function POF Packet Ordering Function PW Pseudowire RDI Remote Defect Indication TSN Time-Sensitive Network F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers (LSR). S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at DetNet service sub- layer. Underlay Network or Underlay Layer: The network that provides connectivity between the DetNet nodes. MPLS network providing LSP connectivity between DetNet nodes is an example of the underlay layer. Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 DetNet Node - a node that is an actor in the DetNet domain. DetNet domain edge node and node that performs PREF within the domain are examples of DetNet node. 2.2. Keywords 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. 3. Requirements This section lists requirements for OAM in DetNet domain with MPLS data plane: 1. It MUST be possible to initiate DetNet OAM session from any DetNet node towards another DetNet node(s) within given domain. 2. It SHOULD be possible to initialize DetNet OAM session from a centralized controller. 3. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring and measurement methods. 4. DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the same path as DetNet data plane traffic. 5. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, continuity check, connectivity verification, and performance measurement. 6. DetNet OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such OAM methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the forward direction and out-of-bound notification in the reverse direction, i.e., from egress to ingress end point of the OAM test session. 7. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of a DetNet node availability in the given DetNet domain. 8. DetNet OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery. 9. DetNet OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication (RDI) notification to the DetNet node performing continuity checking. 10. DetNet OAM MUST support performance measurement methods. Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 11. DetNet OAM MAY support hybrid performance measurement methods. 12. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement methods. Calculated performance metrics MUST include but are not limited to throughput, packet loss, delay and delay variation metrics. [RFC6374] provides excellent details on performance measurement and performance metrics. 13. DetNet OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like Alarm Indication Signal. Any DetNet node in the given DetNet domain MAY originate a defect notification addressed to any subset of nodes within the domain. 14. DetNet OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of the DetNet domain. These recovery methods MAY use protection switching and restoration. 15. DetNet OAM MUST support the discovery of Packet Replication, Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions locations in the domain. 16. DetNet OAM MUST support testing of Packet Replication, Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions in the domain. 17. DetNet OAM MUST support monitoring any sub-set of paths traversed through the DetNet domain by the DetNet flow. 4. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the particular networking layer. And thus it is critical that the data plane encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms in such a way to comply with the above-listed requirements. One of such examples that require special consideration is requirement #5: DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the same path as DetNet data plane traffic both for unidirectional and bi-directional DetNet paths. The Det Net data plane encapsulation in transport network with MPLS encapsulation specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. For the MPLS underlay network, DetNet flows to be encapsulated analogous to pseudowires (PW) over MPLS packet switched network, as described in [RFC3985], [RFC4385]. Generic PW MPLS Control Word (CW), defined in [RFC4385], for DetNet displayed in Figure 1. Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 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 0| Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: DetNet Control Word Format PREF in the DetNet domain composed by a combination of nodes that perform replication and elimination sub-functions. The elimination sub-function always uses the S-Label and packet sequencing information, e.g., the value in the Sequence Number field of DetNet CW (d-CW). The replication sub-function uses the S-Label information only. For data packets Figure 2 presents an example of PREF in DetNet domain. 1111 11111111 111111 112212 112212 132213 CE1----EN1--------R1-------R2-------R3--------EN2----CE2 \2 22222/ 3 / \2222222 /----+ 3 / +------R4------------------------+ 333333333333333333333333 Figure 2: DetNet Data Plane Based on PW 4.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses PW Associated Channel Header defined in [RFC4385]. Figure 3 displays the encapsulation of a DetNet MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] active OAM packet. Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 +---------------------------------+ | | | DetNet App-Flow | | Payload Packet | | | +---------------------------------+ <--\ | DetNet Associated Channel Header| | +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM | S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation +---------------------------------+ | | [ F-Label(s) ] | | +---------------------------------+ <--/ | Data-Link | +---------------------------------+ | Physical | +---------------------------------+ Figure 3: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS Data Plane Figure 4 displays encapsulation of a test packet of an active DetNet OAM protocol in case of MPLS-over-UDP/IP [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip]. +---------------------------------+ | | | DetNet App-Flow | | Payload Packet | | | +---------------------------------+ <--\ | DetNet Associated Channel Header| | +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM | S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation +---------------------------------+ | | [ F-label(s) ] | | +---------------------------------+ <--+ | UDP Header | | +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane | IP Header | | IP encapsulation +---------------------------------+ <--/ | Data-Link | +---------------------------------+ | Physical | +---------------------------------+ Figure 4: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS-over-UDP/IP Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 Figure 5 displays the format of the DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number| Channel Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Format The meanings of the fields in the d-ACH are: Bits 0..3 MUST be 0b0001. This value of the first nibble allows the packet to be distinguished from an IP packet [RFC4928] and a DetNet data packet [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Version: this is the version number of the d-ACH. This specification defines version 0. Sequence Number: this is unsigned eight bits-long field. The originating DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence Number field to a non-zero before packet being transmitted. The originating node MUST monotonically increase the value of the Sequence Number field for the every next active OAM packet. Channel Type: the value of DetNet Associated Channel Type is one of values defined in the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry. The DetNet flow, according to [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], is identified by the S-label that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. Active OAM packet MUST have d-ACH immediately following the S-label. Special consideration for DetNet active OAM with MPLS data plane interworking with OAM in IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) domain based on [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]: o Active OAM test packet MUST be mapped to the same TSN Stream ID as the monitored DetNet flow . o Active OAM test packets MUST be treated in the TSN domain based on its S-label and CoS marking (TC field value). Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-functions Interaction with Active OAM At the DetNet service layer, special functions MAY be applied to the particular DetNet flow - PREF to potentially lower packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and Packet Ordering Function (POF) to ensure in-order packet delivery. As data and the active OAM packets have the same Flow ID, S-label, sub- functions that rely on sequencing information in the DetNet service layer MUST process 28 MSBs of the d-ACH as the source of the sequencing information for the OAM packet. 5. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet Hybrid OAM methods are used in performance monitoring and defined in [RFC7799] as: Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination of Active Methods and Passive Methods. A hybrid measurement method may produce metrics as close to passive, but it still alters something in a data packet even if that is the value of a designated field in the packet encapsulation. One example of such a hybrid measurement method is the Alternate Marking method described in [RFC8321]. Reserving the field for the Alternate Marking method in the DetNet Header will enhance available to an operator set of DetNet OAM tools. 6. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP TBA 7. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN TBA 8. IANA Considerations TBA 9. Security Considerations This document lists the OAM requirements for a DetNet domain and does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common to networking. Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 10. Acknowledgment Authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve the document. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05 (work in progress), February 2020. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-02 (work in progress), March 2020. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP", draft-ietf- detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-05 (work in progress), February 2020. [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>. [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>. 11.2. Informational References [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>. Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAM for DetNet over MPLS March 2020 [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>. [RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>. [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>. [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>. [RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>. Authors' Addresses Greg Mirsky ZTE Corp. Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Mirsky & Chen Expires September 28, 2020 [Page 11]