DetNet G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational F. Theoleyre
Expires: 17 April 2022 CNRS
G.Z. Papadopoulos
IMT Atlantique
CJ. Bernardos
UC3M
B. Varga
J. Farkas
Ericsson
14 October 2021
Framework of Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for
Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-05
Abstract
Deterministic Networking (DetNet), as defined in RFC 8655, is aimed
to provide a bounded end-to-end latency on top of the network
infrastructure, comprising both Layer 2 bridged and Layer 3 routed
segments. This document's primary purpose is to detail the specific
requirements of the Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
recommended to maintain a deterministic network. With the
implementation of the OAM framework in DetNet, an operator will have
a real-time view of the network infrastructure regarding the
network's ability to respect the Service Level Objective, such as
packet delay, delay variation, and packet loss ratio, assigned to
each DetNet flow.
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 17 April 2022.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
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 (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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Role of OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Continuity Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Connectivity Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Route Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Fault Verification/detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Fault Localization and Characterization . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Collection of metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Worst-case metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Replication / Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Resource Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Soft transition after reconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Requirements on OAM for DetNet Forwarding Sub-layer . . . 12
6.2. Requirements on OAM for DetNet Service Sub-layer . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) [RFC8655] has proposed to provide a
bounded end-to-end latency on top of the network infrastructure,
comprising both Layer 2 bridged and Layer 3 routed segments. That
work encompasses the data plane, OAM, time synchronization,
management, control, and security aspects.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Tools are of
primary importance for IP networks [RFC7276]. DetNet OAM should
provide a toolset for fault detection, localization, and performance
measurement.
This document's primary purpose is to detail the specific
requirements of the OAM features recommended to maintain a
deterministic/reliable network. Specifically, it investigates the
requirements for a deterministic network, supporting critical flows.
In this document, the term OAM will be used according to its
definition specified in [RFC6291]. DetNet expects to implement an
OAM framework to maintain a real-time view of the network
infrastructure, and its ability to respect the Service Level
Objectives (SLO), such as in-order packet delivery, packet delay,
delay variation, and packet loss ratio, assigned to each DetNet flow.
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.
1.1. Terminology
This document uses definitions, particularly of a DetNet flow,
provided in Section 2.1 [RFC8655]. The following terms are used
throughout this document as defined below:
* DetNet OAM domain: a DetNet network used by the monitored DetNet
flow. A DetNet OAM domain (also referred to in this document as
"OAM domain") may have MEPs on its edge and MIPs within.
* DetNet OAM instance: a function that monitors a DetNet flow for
defects and/or measures its performance metrics. Within this
document, a shorter version, OAM instance, is used
interchangeably.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
* Maintenance End Point (MEP): an OAM instance that is capable of
generating OAM test packets in the particular sub-layer of the
DetNet OAM domain.
* Maintenance Intermediate endPoint (MIP): an OAM instance along the
DetNet flow in the particular sub-layer of the DetNet OAM domain.
A MIP MAY respond to an OAM message generated by the MEP at its
sub-layer of the same DetNet OAM domain.
* Control and management plane: the control and management planes
are used to configure and control the network (long-term).
Relative to a DetNet flow, the control and/or management plane can
be out-of-band.
* Active measurement methods (as defined in [RFC7799]) modify a
DetNet flow by inserting novel fields, injecting specially
constructed test packets [RFC2544]).
* Passive measurement methods [RFC7799] infer information by
observing unmodified existing flows.
* Hybrid measurement methods [RFC7799] is the combination of
elements of both active and passive measurement methods.
* In-band OAM is an active OAM is considered in-band in the
monitored DetNet OAM domain when it traverses the same set of
links and interfaces receiving the same QoS and Packet
Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) treatment
as the monitored DetNet flow.
* Out-of-band OAM is an active OAM whose path through the DetNet
domain is not topologically identical to the path of the monitored
DetNet flow, or its test packets receive different QoS and/or
PREOF treatment, or both.
* On-path telemetry can be realized as a hybrid OAM method. The
origination of the telemetry information is inherently in-band as
packets in a DetNet flow are used as triggers. Collection of the
on-path telemetry information can be performed using in-band or
out-of-band OAM methods.
1.2. Acronyms
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
DetNet: Deterministic Networking
PREOF: Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
SLO: Service Level Objective
1.3. 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. Role of OAM in DetNet
DetNet networks expect to provide communications with predictable low
packet delay and packet loss. Most critical applications will define
an SLO to be required for the DetNet flows it generates.
To respect strict guarantees, DetNet can use an orchestrator able to
monitor and maintain the network. Typically, a Software-Defined
Network (SDN) controller places DetNet flows in the deployed network
based on their SLO. Thus, resources have to be provisioned a priori
for the regular operation of the network. OAM represents the
essential elements of the network operation and necessary for OAM
resources that need to be accounted for to maintain the network
operational.
Many legacy OAM tools can be used in DetNet networks, but they are
not able to cover all the aspects of deterministic networking.
Fulfilling strict guarantees is essential for DetNet flows, resulting
in new DetNet specific functionalities that must be covered with OAM.
Filling these gaps is inevitable and needs accurate consideration of
DetNet specifics. Similar to DetNet flows itself, their OAM needs
careful end-to-end engineering as well.
For example, appropriate placing of MEPs along the path of a DetNet
flow is not always a trivial task and may require proper design
together with the design of the service component of a given DetNet
flow.
There are several DetNet specific challenges for OAM. Bounded
network characteristics (e.g., delay, loss) are inseparable service
parameters; therefore, PM is a key topic for DetNet. OAM tools are
needed to prove the SLO without impacting the DetNet flow
characteristics. A further challenge is the strict resource
allocation. Resources used by OAM must be considered and allocated
to avoid disturbing DetNet flow(s).
The DetNet Working Group has defined two sub-layers:
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
DetNet service sub-layer, at which a DetNet service (e.g., service
protection) is provided.
DetNet forwarding sub-layer, which optionally provides resource
allocation for DetNet flows over paths provided by the underlying
network.
OAM mechanisms exist for the DetNet forwarding sub-layer,
nonetheless, OAM for the service sub-layer requires new OAM
procedures. These new OAM functions must allow, for example, to
recognize/discover DetNet relay nodes, to get information about their
configuration, and to check their operation or status.
DetNet service sub-layer functions using a sequence number. That
creates a challenge for inserting OAM packets in the DetNet flow.
Fault tolerance also assumes that multiple paths could be provisioned
to maintain an end-to-end circuit by adapting to the existing
conditions. The central controller/orchestrator typically controls
the PREOF on a node. OAM is expected to support monitoring and
troubleshooting PREOF on a particular node and within the domain.
Note that distributed controllers can also control PREOF in those
scenarios where DetNet solutions involve more than one single central
controller.
DetNet forwarding sub-layer is based on legacy technologies and has a
much better coverage regarding OAM. However, the forwarding sub-
layer is terminated at DetNet relay nodes, so the end-to-end OAM
state of forwarding may be created only based on the status of
multiple forwarding sub-layer segments serving a given DetNet flow
(e.g., in case of DetNet MPLS, there may be no end-to-end LSP below
the DetNet PW).
3. Operation
OAM features will enable DetNet with robust operation both for
forwarding and routing purposes.
It is worth noting that the test and data packets MUST follow the
same path, i.e., the connectivity verification has to be conducted
in-band without impacting the data traffic. Test packets MUST share
fate with the monitored data traffic without introducing congestion
in normal network conditions.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
3.1. Information Collection
Information about the state of the network can be collected using
several mechanisms. Some protocols, e.g., Simple Network Management
Protocol, send queries. Others, e.g., YANG-based data models,
generate notifications based on the publish-subscribe method. In
either way, information is collected and sent to the controller.
Also, we can characterize methods of transporting OAM information
relative to the path of data. For instance, OAM information may be
transported in-band or out-of-band relative to the DetNet flow. In
case of the former, the telemetry information uses resources
allocated for the monitored DetNet flow. If an in-band method of
transporting telemetry is used, the amount of generated information
needs to be carefully analyzed, and additional resources must be
reserved. [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] defines the in-band transport
mechanism where telemetry information is collected in the data packet
on which information is generated. Two tracing methods are described
- end-to-end, i.e., from the ingress and egress nodes, and hop-by-
hop, i.e., like end-to-end with additional information from transit
nodes. [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] and
[I-D.mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step] are examples of out-of-band
telemetry transport. In the former case, information is transported
by each node traversed by the data packet of the monitored DetNet
flow in a specially constructed packet. In the latter, information
is collected in a sequence of follow-up packets that traverse the
same path as the data packet of the monitored DetNet flow. In both
methods, transport of the telemetry can avoid using resources
allocated for the DetNet domain.
3.2. Continuity Check
Continuity check is used to monitor the continuity of a path, i.e.,
that there exists a way to deliver the packets between two MEP A and
MEP B. The continuity check detects a network failure in one
direction, from the MEP transmitting test packets to the remote
egress MEP.
3.3. Connectivity Verification
In addition to the Continuity Check, DetNet solutions have to verify
the connectivity. This verification considers additional
constraints, i.e., the absence of misconnection. The misconnection
error state is entered after several consecutive test packets from
other DetNet flows are received. The definition of the conditions of
entry and exit for misconnection error state is outside the scope of
this document.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
3.4. Route Tracing
Ping and traceroute are two ubiquitous tools that help localize and
characterize a failure in the network. They help to identify a
subset of the list of routers in the route. However, to be
predictable, resources are reserved per flow in DetNet. Thus, DetNet
needs to define route tracing tools able to track the route for a
specific flow. Also, tracing can be used for the discovery of the
Path Maximum Transmission Unit or location of elements of PREOF for
the particular route in the DetNet domain.
DetNet is NOT RECOMMENDED to use multiple paths or links, i.e.,
Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) [RFC8939]. As the result, OAM in ECMP
environment is outside the scope of this document.
3.5. Fault Verification/detection
DetNet expects to operate fault-tolerant networks. Thus, mechanisms
able to detect faults before they impact the network performance are
needed.
The network has to detect when a fault occurred, i.e., the network
has deviated from its expected behavior. While the network must
report an alarm, the cause may not be identified precisely. For
instance, the end-to-end reliability has decreased significantly, or
a buffer overflow occurs.
DetNet OAM mechanisms SHOULD allow a fault detection in real time.
They MAY, when possible, predict faults based on current network
conditions. They MAY also identify and report the cause of the
actual/predicted network failure.
3.6. Fault Localization and Characterization
An ability to localize the network defect and provide its
characterization are necessary elements of network operation.
Fault localization, a process of deducing the location of a
network failure from a set of observed failure indications, might
be achieved, for example, by tracing the route of the DetNet flow
in which the network failure was detected. Another method of
fault localization can correlate reports of failures from a set of
interleaving sessions monitoring path continuity.
Fault characterization is a process of identifying the root cause
of the problem. For instance, misconfiguration or malfunction of
PREOF elements can be the cause of erroneous packet replication or
extra packets being flooded in the DetNet domain.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
3.7. 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
(AMM) described in [RFC8321]. As with all on-path telemetry methods,
AMM in a DetNet domain with the IP data plane is natively in-band in
respect to the monitored DetNet flow. Because the marking is applied
to a data flow, measured metrics are directly applicable to the
DetNet flow. AMM minimizes the additional load on the DetNet domain
by using nodal collection and computation of performance metrics in
combination with optionally using out-of-band telemetry collection
for further network analysis.
4. Administration
The network SHOULD expose a collection of metrics to support an
operator making proper decisions, including:
* Queuing Delay: the time elapsed between a packet enqueued and its
transmission to the next hop.
* Buffer occupancy: the number of packets present in the buffer, for
each of the existing flows.
The following metrics SHOULD be collected:
* per a DetNet flow to measure the end-to-end performance for a
given flow. Each of the paths has to be isolated in multipath
routing strategies.
* per path to detect misbehaving path when multiple paths are
applied.
* per device to detect misbehaving device, when it relays the
packets of several flows.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
4.1. Collection of metrics
DetNet OAM SHOULD optimize the number of statistics / measurements to
collected, frequency of collecting. Distributed and centralized
mechanisms MAY be used in combination. Periodic and event-triggered
collection information characterizing the state of a network MAY be
used.
4.2. Worst-case metrics
DetNet aims to enable real-time communications on top of a
heterogeneous multi-hop architecture. To make correct decisions, the
controller needs to know the distribution of packet losses/delays for
each flow, and each hop of the paths. In other words, the average
end-to-end statistics are not enough. The collected information must
be sufficient to allow the controller to predict the worst-case.
5. Maintenance
In the face of events that impact the network operation (e.g., link
up/down, device crash/reboot, flows starting and ending), the DetNet
Controller need to perform repair and re-optimization actions in
order to permanently ensure the SLO of all active flows with minimal
waste of resources The controller MUST be able to continuously
retrieve the state of the network, to evaluate conditions and trends
about the relevance of a reconfiguration, quantifying:
the cost of the sub-optimality: resources may not be used
optimally (e.g., a better path exists).
the reconfiguration cost: the controller needs to trigger some
reconfigurations. For this transient period, resources may be
twice reserved, and control packets have to be transmitted.
Thus, reconfiguration may only be triggered if the gain is
significant.
5.1. Replication / Elimination
When multiple paths are reserved between two MEPs, packet replication
may be used to introduce redundancy and alleviate transmission errors
and collisions. For instance, in Figure 1, the source device S is
transmitting the packet to both parents, devices A and B. Each MEP
will decide to trigger the packet replication, elimination or the
ordering process when a set of metrics passes a threshold value.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
===> (A) => (C) => (E) ===
// \\// \\// \\
source (S) //\\ //\\ (R) (root)
\\ // \\ // \\ //
===> (B) => (D) => (F) ===
Figure 1: Packet Replication: S transmits twice the same data
packet, to DP(A) and AP (B).
5.2. Resource Reservation
Because the quality of service criteria associated with a path may
degrade, the network has to provision additional resources along the
path. We need to provide mechanisms to patch the network
configuration.
5.3. Soft transition after reconfiguration
Since DetNet expects to support real-time flows, DetNet OAM MUST
support soft-reconfiguration, where the the additional resources are
reserved before the those previously reserved but not in use are
released. Some mechanisms have to be proposed so that packets are
forwarded through the novel track only when the resources are ready
to be used, while maintaining the global state consistent (no packet
reordering, duplication, etc.)
6. Requirements
According to [RFC8655], DetNet functionality is divided into
forwarding and service sub-layers. The DetNet forwarding sub-layer
includes DetNet transit nodes and may allocate resources for a DetNet
flow over paths provided by the underlay network. The DetNet service
sub-layer includes DetNet relay nodes and provides a DetNet service
(e.g., service protection). This section lists general requirements
for DetNet OAM as well as requirements in each of the DetNet sub-
layers of a DetNet domain.
1. It MUST be possible to initiate a DetNet OAM session from a MEP
located at a DetNet node towards downstream MEP(s) within the
given domain at a particular DetNet sub-layer. [Ed.note: FT: A
MEP may be inside the detnet domain: for instance, for PREOF, an
OAM session may be maintained between any pair of replicator /
eliminator / egress / ingress.]
2. It MUST be possible to initialize a DetNet OAM session from a
centralized controller.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
3. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring
and measurement methods.
4. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, continuity
check, connectivity verification, and performance measurement.
5. OAM methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the
forward direction and out-of-bound notification in the reverse
direction, i.e., towards the ingress MEP.
6. DetNet OAM MUST support bi-directional DetNet flows.
7. DetNet OAM MAY support bi-directional OAM methods for
bidirectional DetNet flows. OAM test packets used for
monitoring and measurements MUST be in-band in both directions.
8. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of a DetNet device
reachability for a given DetNet flow.
9. DetNet OAM MAY support hybrid performance measurement methods.
10. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement
methods. Calculated performance metrics MUST include but are
not limited to throughput, packet loss, out of order, delay and
delay variation metrics. [RFC6374] provides detailed
information on performance measurement and performance metrics.
6.1. Requirements on OAM for DetNet Forwarding Sub-layer
1. DetNet OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery.
2. DetNet OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication notification to
the DetNet OAM instance performing continuity checking.
3. DetNet OAM MUST support monitoring levels of resources allocated
for the particular DetNet flow. Such resources include but not
limited to buffer utilization, scheduler transmission calendar.
4. DetNet OAM MUST support monitoring any sub-set of paths traversed
through the DetNet domain by the DetNet flow.
6.2. Requirements on OAM for DetNet Service Sub-layer
The OAM functions for the DetNet service sub-layer allow, for
example, to recognize/discover DetNet relay nodes, to get information
about their configuration, and to check their operation or status.
The requirements on OAM for a DetNet relay node are:
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
1. DetNet OAM MUST provide OAM functions for the DetNet service sub-
layer.
2. DetNet OAM MUST support the discovery of DetNet relay nodes in a
DetNet network.
3. DetNet OAM MUST support the discovery of Packet Replication,
Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions locations in
the domain.
4. DetNet OAM MUST support the collection of the DetNet service sub-
layer specific (e.g., configuration/operation/status) information
from DetNet relay nodes.
5. DetNet OAM MUST support excercising functionality of Packet
Replication, Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions in
the domain.
6. DetNet OAM MUST work for DetNet data planes - MPLS and IP.
7. DetNet OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like Alarm
Indication Signal. Any DetNet relay node within the given DetNet
flow MAY originate a defect notification addressed to any subset
of DetNet relay nodes within that flow.
8. DetNet OAM MUST be able to measure metrics (e.g. delay) inside a
collection of OAM sessions, specially for complex DetNet flows,
with PREOF features.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actionable requirements for IANA. This section
can be removed before the publication.
8. 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 and those specific to a DetNet discussed in [RFC9055].
9. Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation and gratitude to Pascal
Thubert for the review, insightful questions, and helpful comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 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>.
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-ippm-ioam-data-15, 3 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
ioam-data-15>.
[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", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-06, 8 August 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
ioam-direct-export-06>.
[I-D.mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step]
Mirsky, G., Lingqiang, W., Zhui, G., and H. Song, "Hybrid
Two-Step Performance Measurement Method", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-
step-11, 8 July 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mirsky-ippm-
hybrid-two-step-11>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
[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>.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[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>.
[RFC8939] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
IP", RFC 8939, DOI 10.17487/RFC8939, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8939>.
[RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Fabrice Theoleyre
CNRS
300 boulevard Sebastien Brant - CS 10413
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Framework of OAM for DetNet October 2021
67400 Illkirch - Strasbourg
France
Phone: +33 368 85 45 33
Email: theoleyre@unistra.fr
URI: http://www.theoleyre.eu
Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
IMT Atlantique
Office B00 - 102A
2 Rue de la Châtaigneraie
35510 Cesson-Sévigné - Rennes
France
Phone: +33 299 12 70 04
Email: georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Janos Farkas
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires 17 April 2022 [Page 16]