\
IPPM Working Group                                                X. Min
Internet-Draft                                                 ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track                               G. Mirsky
Expires: 30 July 2022                                           Ericsson
                                                                   L. Bo
                                                           China Telecom
                                                         26 January 2022


        Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities
                   draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-03

Abstract

   This document describes an extension to the echo request/reply
   mechanisms used in IPv6 (including SRv6), MPLS (including SR-MPLS),
   SFC and BIER environments, which can be used within the IOAM domain,
   allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM
   capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node.

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 30 July 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.










Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  IOAM Capabilities Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  IOAM Capabilities Query Container . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  IOAM Capabilities Response Container  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object  . . .   7
       3.2.2.  IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object  . . . .   8
       3.2.3.  IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object . . . . . .   9
       3.2.4.  IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.5.  IOAM DEX Capabilities Object  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.2.6.  IOAM End-of-Domain Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  Operational Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.1.  IOAM SoP Capability Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.2.  IOAM TSF Capability Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   In-situ OAM (IOAM) ([I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]) defines data fields that record
   OAM information within the packet while the packet traverses a
   particular network domain, called an IOAM domain.  IOAM can be used
   to complement OAM mechanisms based on, e.g., ICMP or other types of
   probe packets, and IOAM mechanisms can be leveraged where mechanisms
   using, e.g., ICMP, do not apply or do not offer the desired results.

   As specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], within the IOAM domain,
   the IOAM data may be updated by network nodes that the packet
   traverses.  The device which adds an IOAM header to the packet is



Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


   called an "IOAM encapsulating node".  In contrast, the device which
   removes an IOAM header is referred to as an "IOAM decapsulating
   node".  Nodes within the domain that are aware of IOAM data and read
   and/or write and/or process IOAM data are called "IOAM transit
   nodes".  IOAM encapsulating or decapsulating nodes can also serve as
   IOAM transit nodes at the same time.  IOAM encapsulating or
   decapsulating nodes are also referred to as IOAM domain edge devices,
   which can be hosts or network devices.

   As specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], IOAM is focused on
   "limited domains" as defined in [RFC8799].  In a limited domain, a
   control entity that has control over every IOAM device may be
   deployed.  If that's the case, the control entity can provision both
   the explicit transport path and the IOAM header applied to data
   packet at every IOAM encapsulating node.

   In a case when a control entity that has control over every IOAM
   device is not deployed in the IOAM domain, the IOAM encapsulating
   node needs to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities at the IOAM
   transit and decapsulating nodes.  For example, what types of IOAM
   tracing data can be added by the transit nodes along the transport
   path of the data packet IOAM is applied to.  The IOAM encapsulating
   node can then add the correct IOAM header to the data packet
   according to the discovered IOAM capabilities.  Specifically, the
   IOAM encapsulating node first identifies the types and lengths of
   IOAM options included in the IOAM data according to the discovered
   IOAM capabilities.  Then the IOAM encapsulating node can add the IOAM
   header to the data packet based on the identified types and lengths
   of IOAM options included in the IOAM data.  The IOAM encapsulating
   node may use NETCONF/YANG or IGP to discover these IOAM capabilities.
   However, NETCONF/YANG or IGP has some limitations:

   *  When NETCONF/YANG is used in this scenario, each IOAM
      encapsulating node (including the host when it takes the role of
      an IOAM encapsulating node) needs to implement a NETCONF Client,
      each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node (including the host
      when it takes the role of an IOAM decapsulating node) needs to
      implement a NETCONF Server, the complexity can be an issue.
      Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish
      NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating
      node, the scalability can be an issue.










Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


   *  When IGP is used in this scenario, the IGP and IOAM domains don't
      always have the same coverage.  For example, when the IOAM
      encapsulating node or the IOAM decapsulating node is a host, the
      availability can be an issue.  Furthermore, it might be too
      challenging to reflect enabled IOAM capabilities at the IOAM
      transit and IOAM decapsulating node if these are controlled by a
      local policy depending on the identity of the IOAM encapsulating
      node.

   This document describes an extension to the echo request/reply
   mechanisms used in IPv6 (including SRv6), MPLS (including SR-MPLS),
   SFC and BIER environments, which can be used within the IOAM domain,
   allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM
   capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node.

   The following documents contain references to the echo request/reply
   mechanisms used in IPv6 (including SRv6), MPLS (including SR-MPLS),
   SFC and BIER environments:

   *  [RFC4443] ("Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the
      Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification"), [RFC4884]
      ("Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages") and [RFC8335]
      ("PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces")

   *  [RFC8029] ("Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-
      Plane Failures")

   *  [I-D.ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam] ("Active OAM for Service Function
      Chains in Networks")

   *  [I-D.ietf-bier-ping] ("BIER Ping and Trace")

   The precondition for the feature described in this document to work
   is that the echo request reaches each IOAM transit node as the data
   packet traverses, so the feature is applied to explicit path (strict
   or loose), or there is only one path between the IOAM encapsulating
   node and the IOAM decapsulating node, or the echo request can
   experience the same ECMP processing as the data packet.

2.  Conventions

2.1.  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.



Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


2.2.  Abbreviations

   BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication

   BGP: Border Gateway Protocol

   ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath

   E2E: Edge to Edge

   ICMP: Internet Control Message Protocol

   IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol

   IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   LSP: Label Switched Path

   MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching

   MBZ: Must Be Zero

   MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit

   NTP: Network Time Protocol

   OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   PCEP: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol

   POSIX: Portable Operating System Interface

   POT: Proof of Transit

   PTP: Precision Time Protocol

   SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane

   SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane

   SFC: Service Function Chain

   TTL: Time to Live

3.  IOAM Capabilities Formats






Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


3.1.  IOAM Capabilities Query Container

   For echo request, IOAM Capabilities Query uses container which has
   the following format:


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .            IOAM Capabilities Query Container Header           .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .                     List of Namespace-IDs                     .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Figure 1: IOAM Capabilities Query Container of Echo Request

   When this container is present in or equal to the echo request sent
   by an IOAM encapsulating node, that means the IOAM encapsulating node
   requests the receiving node to reply with its enabled IOAM
   capabilities.  If there is no IOAM capability to be reported by the
   receiving node, then this container SHOULD be ignored by the
   receiving node, which means the receiving node SHOULD send an echo
   reply without IOAM capabilities or no echo reply, in the light of
   whether the echo request includes other containers than the IOAM
   Capabilities Query Container.  A list of Namespace-IDs (one or more
   Namespace-IDs) MUST be included in this container in the echo
   request.  The IOAM encapsulating node requests only the enabled IOAM
   capabilities that match one of the Namespace-IDs.  The Namespace-ID
   has the same definition as what's specified in Section 5.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   The IOAM Capabilities Query Container has a container header that is
   used to identify the type and optionally length of the container
   payload, and the container payload (List of Namespace-IDs) is zero-
   padded to align to a 4-octet boundary.

   The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities Query
   Container Header depends on the specific environment it is applied
   at.

3.2.  IOAM Capabilities Response Container

   For echo reply, IOAM Capabilities Response uses container which has
   the following format:



Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .          IOAM Capabilities Response Container Header          .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .                        List of Objects                        .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Figure 2: IOAM Capabilities Response Container of Echo Reply

   When this container is present in or equal to the echo reply sent by
   an IOAM transit node or IOAM decapsulating node, that means the IOAM
   function is enabled at this node, and this container contains the
   enabled IOAM capabilities of the sender.  A list of objects (one or
   more objects) which contains the enabled IOAM capabilities SHOULD be
   included in this container of echo reply.

   The IOAM Capabilities Response Container has a container header that
   is used to identify the type and optionally length of the container
   payload, and the container payload (List of Objects) is zero-padded
   to align to a 4-octet boundary.

   The length, structure, and definition of the IOAM Capabilities
   Response Container Header depends on the specific environment it is
   applied at.

   Based on the IOAM data fields defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
   and [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export], six types of objects are
   defined in this document.  The same type of object MAY be present in
   the IOAM Capabilities Response Container more than once, only if with
   a different Namespace-ID.

   Similar to the container, each object has an object header that is
   used to identify the type and length of the object payload, and the
   object payload is zero-padded to align to a 4-octet boundary.

   The length, structure, and definition of Object Header depends on the
   specific environment it is applied at.

3.2.1.  IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object







Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .     IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object Header     .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               IOAM-Trace-Type                 |  Reserved   |W|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          |          Ingress_MTU          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Ingress_if_id (short or wide format)         ......          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

          Figure 3: IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object

   When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
   Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
   the IOAM pre-allocated tracing function is enabled at this IOAM
   transit node.

   IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.

   W flag indicates whether Ingress_if_id is in short or wide format.
   The W-bit is set if the Ingress_if_id is in wide format.  The W-bit
   is clear if the Ingress_if_id is in short format.

   Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
   Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
   echo request.

   Ingress_MTU field has 16 bits and specifies the MTU (in octets) of
   the ingress interface from which the sending node received echo
   request.

   Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits (in short format) or 32 bits (in wide
   format) and specifies the identifier of the ingress interface from
   which the sending node received echo request.  If the W-bit is
   cleared that indicates Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits, then the 16
   bits following the Ingress_if_id field are reserved for future use
   and MUST be set to zero.

3.2.2.  IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object




Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .      IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object Header      .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               IOAM-Trace-Type                 |  Reserved   |W|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          |          Ingress_MTU          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Ingress_if_id (short or wide format)         ......          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 4: IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object

   When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
   Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
   the IOAM incremental tracing function is enabled at this IOAM transit
   node.

   IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.

   W flag indicates whether Ingress_if_id is in short or wide format.
   The W-bit is set if the Ingress_if_id is in wide format.  The W-bit
   is clear if the Ingress_if_id is in short format.

   Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
   Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
   echo request.

   Ingress_MTU field has 16 bits and specifies the MTU (in octets) of
   the ingress interface from which the sending node received echo
   request.

   Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits (in short format) or 32 bits (in wide
   format) and specifies the identifier of the ingress interface from
   which the sending node received echo request.  If the W-bit is
   cleared that indicates Ingress_if_id field has 16 bits, then the 16
   bits following the Ingress_if_id field are reserved for future use
   and MUST be set to zero.

3.2.3.  IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object




Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .       IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object Header        .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 5: IOAM Proof-of-Transit Capabilities Object

   When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
   Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
   the IOAM Proof of Transit function is enabled at this IOAM transit
   node.

   Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
   Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
   echo request.

   IOAM-POT-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   SoP field has two bits, which means the size of "PktID" and
   "Cumulative" data that are specified in Section 5.5 of
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].  This document defines SoP as follow:

      0b00 means 64-bit "PktID" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data.

      0b01~0b11: Reserved for future standardization

   Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.

3.2.4.  IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object















Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .          IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object Header         .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          |         IOAM-E2E-Type         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |TSF|         Reserved          |              MBZ              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 6: IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object

   When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
   Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node
   and IOAM edge-to-edge function is enabled at this IOAM decapsulating
   node.

   Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
   Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
   echo request.

   IOAM-E2E-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   TSF field specifies the timestamp format used by the sending node.
   Aligned with three possible timestamp formats specified in Section 6
   of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], this document defines TSF as follows:

      0b00: PTP truncated timestamp format

      0b01: NTP 64-bit timestamp format

      0b10: POSIX-based timestamp format

      0b11: Reserved for future standardization

   Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.

3.2.5.  IOAM DEX Capabilities Object









Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .              IOAM DEX Capabilities Object Header              .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               IOAM-Trace-Type                 |    Reserved   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          |           Reserved            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 7: IOAM DEX Capabilities Object

   When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
   Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM transit node and
   the IOAM direct exporting function is enabled at this IOAM transit
   node.

   IOAM-Trace-Type field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export].

   Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it should be one of the
   Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Object of the
   echo request.

   Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.

3.2.6.  IOAM End-of-Domain Object


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .               IOAM End-of-Domain Object Header                .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Namespace-ID          |             MBZ               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 8: IOAM End-of-Domain Object

   When this Object is present in the IOAM Capabilities Response
   Container, that means the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node.
   Unless the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object is present, which
   also indicates that the sending node is an IOAM decapsulating node,



Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


   the End-of-Domain Object MUST be present in the IOAM Capabilities
   Response Container sent by an IOAM decapsulating node.  When the IOAM
   edge-to-edge function is enabled at the IOAM decapsulating node, it's
   RECOMMENDED to include only the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
   but not the IOAM End-of-Domain Object.

   Namespace-ID field has the same definition as what's specified in
   Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], it SHOULD be one of the
   Namespace-IDs listed in the IOAM Capabilities Query Container.

4.  Operational Guide

   Once the IOAM encapsulating node is triggered to discover the enabled
   IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node,
   the IOAM encapsulating node will send echo requests that include the
   IOAM Capabilities Query Container.  First, with TTL equal to 1 to
   reach the closest node, which may be an IOAM transit node or not.
   Then with TTL equal to 2 to reach the second nearest node, which also
   may be an IOAM transit node or not.  And further, increasing by 1 the
   TTL every time the IOAM encapsulating node sends a new echo request,
   until the IOAM encapsulating node receives an echo reply sent by the
   IOAM decapsulating node, which should contain the IOAM Capabilities
   Response Container including the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities
   Object or the IOAM End-of-Domain Object.  Alternatively, if the IOAM
   encapsulating node knows precisely all the IOAM transit and IOAM
   decapsulating nodes beforehand, once the IOAM encapsulating node is
   triggered to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities, it can send an
   echo request to each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node
   directly, without TTL expiration.

   The IOAM encapsulating node may be triggered by the device
   administrator, the network management system, the network controller,
   or data traffic.  The specific triggering mechanisms are outside the
   scope of this document.

   Each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node that receives an echo
   request containing the IOAM Capabilities Query Container will send an
   echo reply to the IOAM encapsulating node.  For the echo reply, there
   should be an IOAM Capabilities Response Container containing one or
   more Objects.  The IOAM Capabilities Query Container of the echo
   request would be ignored by the receiving node unaware of IOAM.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests the following IANA Actions.

   IANA is requested to create a registry group named "In-Situ OAM
   (IOAM) Capabilities Parameters".



Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


   This group will include the following registries:

   *  IOAM SoP Capability

   *  IOAM TSF Capability

   New registries in this group can be created via RFC Required process
   as per [RFC8126].

   The subsequent sub-sections detail the registries herein contained.

   Considering the Containers/Objects defined in this document would be
   carried in different types of Echo Request/Reply messages, such as
   ICMPv6 or LSP Ping, it is intended that the registries for Container/
   Object Type would be requested in subsequent documents.

5.1.  IOAM SoP Capability Registry

   This registry defines 4 code points for the IOAM SoP Capability field
   for identifying the size of "PktID" and "Cumulative" data as
   explained in Section 5.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].  The following
   code points are defined in this document:

      SoP        Description
      ----       -----------
      0b00       64-bit "PktID" and 64-bit "Cumulative" data

   0b01 - 0b11 are available for assignment via RFC Required process as
   per [RFC8126].

5.2.  IOAM TSF Capability Registry

   This registry defines 3 code points for the IOAM TSF Capability field
   for identifying the timestamp format as explained in Section 6 of
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].  The following code points are defined in
   this document:

      TSF        Description
      ----       -----------
      0b00       PTP Truncated Timestamp Format
      0b01       NTP 64-bit Timestamp Format
      0b10       POSIX-based Timestamp Format

   0b11 is available for assignment via RFC Required process as per
   [RFC8126].






Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


6.  Security Considerations

   Queries and responses about the state of an IOAM domain should be
   processed only from a trusted source.  An unauthorized query MUST be
   discarded by an implementation that supports this specification.
   Similarly, an unsolicited echo response with the IOAM Capabilities
   Container MUST be discarded.  Authentication of echo request/reply
   that includes the IOAM Capabilities Container is one of the integrity
   protection methods.  Implementations could also provide a means of
   filtering based on the source address of the received echo request/
   reply.  The integrity protection for enabled IOAM capabilities
   information collection can also be achieved using mechanisms in the
   underlay data plane.  For example, if the underlay is an IPv6
   network, IP Authentication Header [RFC4302] or IP Encapsulating
   Security Payload Header [RFC4303] can be used to provide integrity
   protection, the specific requirements on integrity protection for
   enabled IOAM capabilities in IPv6 networks are discussed in
   [I-D.xiao-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state].

   Information about the state of the IOAM domain collected in the IAOM
   Capabilities Container is confidential.  An implementation can use
   secure transport to provide privacy protection.  For example, if the
   underlay is an IPv6 network, confidentiality can be achieved using
   the IP Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC4303], the specific
   requirements on privacy protection for enabled IOAM capabilities in
   IPv6 networks are discussed in
   [I-D.xiao-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state].

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Tianran Zhou, Dhruv Dhody,
   Frank Brockners, Cheng Li and Gyan Mishra for their careful review
   and helpful comments.

   The authors appreciate the f2f discussion with Frank Brockners on
   this document.

   The authors would like to acknowledge Tommy Pauly and Ian Swett for
   their good suggestion and guidance.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References








Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


   [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-17, 13 December 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
              data-17.txt>.

   [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-07, 13 October 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
              direct-export-07.txt>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-bier-ping]
              Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
              and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-ping-07, 11 May 2020,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bier-ping-
              07.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam]
              Mirsky, G., Meng, W., Khasnabish, B., Ao, T., Leung, K.,
              and G. Mishra, "Active OAM for Service Function Chaining",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-multi-
              layer-oam-18, 20 December 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sfc-multi-
              layer-oam-18.txt>.






Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


   [I-D.xiao-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state]
              Min, X. and G. Mirsky, "ICMPv6 Echo Request/Reply for
              Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-xiao-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state-00,
              24 October 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
              xiao-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state-00.txt>.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.

   [RFC4443]  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, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC4884]  Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
              "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, April 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

   [RFC8335]  Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M.
              Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces",
              RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8335>.

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Xiao Min
   ZTE Corp.
   Nanjing
   China




Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities         January 2022


   Phone: +86 25 88013062
   Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn


   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson
   United States of America

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com


   Lei Bo
   China Telecom
   Beijing
   China

   Phone: +86 10 50902903
   Email: leibo@chinatelecom.cn

































Min, et al.               Expires 30 July 2022                 [Page 18]