IPPM H. Song
Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track B. Gafni
Expires: February 6, 2021 Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
T. Zhou
Z. Li
Huawei
F. Brockners
S. Bhandari
R. Sivakolundu
Cisco
T. Mizrahi, Ed.
Huawei Smart Platforms iLab
August 5, 2020
In-situ OAM Direct Exporting
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-01
Abstract
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used
for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information.
Specifically, IOAM allows telemetry data to be pushed into data
packets while they traverse the network. This document introduces a
new IOAM option type called the Direct Export (DEX) option, which is
used as a trigger for IOAM data to be directly exported without being
pushed into in-flight data packets.
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 February 6, 2021.
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IOAM Direct Exporting August 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM Option Type . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. The DEX Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. IOAM Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. IOAM DEX Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Topics for Further Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
IOAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is used for monitoring traffic in the
network, and for incorporating IOAM data fields into in-flight data
packets.
IOAM makes use of four possible IOAM options, defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]: Pre-allocated Trace Option, Incremental
Trace Option, Proof of Transit (POT) Option, and Edge-to-Edge Option.
This document defines a new IOAM option type (also known as an IOAM
type) called the Direct Export (DEX) option. This option is used as
a trigger for IOAM nodes to export IOAM data to a receiving entity
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IOAM Direct Exporting August 2020
(or entities). A "receiving entity" in this context can be, for
example, an external collector, analyzer, controller, decapsulating
node, or a software module in one of the IOAM nodes.
This draft has evolved from combining some of the concepts of PBT-I
from [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] with immediate
exporting from [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags].
2. Conventions
2.1. Requirement Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2.2. Terminology
Abbreviations used in this document:
IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
DEX: Direct EXporting
3. The Direct Exporting (DEX) IOAM Option Type
3.1. Overview
The DEX option is used as a trigger for exporting telemetry data to a
receiving entity (or entities).
This option is incorporated into data packets by an IOAM
encapsulating node, and removed by an IOAM decapsulating node, as
illustrated in Figure 1. The option can be read but not modified by
transit nodes. Note: the terms IOAM encapsulating, decapsulating and
transit nodes are as defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IOAM Direct Exporting August 2020
^
|Exported IOAM data
|
|
|
+--------------+------+-------+--------------+
| | | |
| | | |
User +---+----+ +---+----+ +---+----+ +---+----+
packets |Encapsu-| | Transit| | Transit| |Decapsu-|
--------->|lating |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>|lating |---->
|Node | | A | | B | |Node |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Insert DEX Export Export Remove DEX
option and IOAM data IOAM data option and
export data export data
Figure 1: DEX Architecture
The DEX option is used as a trigger to export IOAM data. The trigger
applies to transit nodes, the decapsulating node, and the
encapsulating node:
o An IOAM encapsulating node configured to incorporate the DEX
option encapsulates the packet with the DEX option, and MAY export
the requested IOAM data immediately. The IOAM encapsulating node
is the only type of node allowed to push the DEX option.
o A transit node that processes a packet with the DEX option MAY
export the requested IOAM data.
o An IOAM decapsulating node that processes a packet with the DEX
option MAY export the requested IOAM data, and MUST decapsulate
the IOAM header.
As in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], the DEX option may be incorporated
into all or a subset of the traffic that is forwarded by the
encapsulating node. Moreover, IOAM nodes MAY export data for all
traversing packets that carry the DEX option, or MAY selectively
export data only for a subset of these packets.
The DEX option specifies which data fields should be exported, as
specified in Section 3.2. The format and encapsulation of the packet
that contains the exported data is not within the scope of the
current document. For example, the export format can be based on
[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport].
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IOAM Direct Exporting August 2020
A transit IOAM node that does not support the DEX option SHOULD
ignore it. A decapsulating node that does not support the DEX option
MUST remove it, along with any other IOAM options carried in the
packet if such exist.
3.2. The DEX Option Format
The format of the DEX option is depicted in Figure 2. The length of
the DEX option is either 8 octets or 16 octets, as the Flow ID and
the Sequence Number fields (summing up to 8 octets) are optional. It
is assumed that the lower layer protocol indicates the length of the
DEX option, thus indicating whether the two optional fields are
present.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow ID (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: DEX Option Format
Namespace-ID A 16-bit identifier of the IOAM namespace, as defined
in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Flags A 16-bit field, comprised of 16 one-bit subfields.
Flags are allocated by IANA, as defined in
Section 4.2.
IOAM-Trace-Type A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data fields
should be exported. The format of this field is as
defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Specifically,
bit 23, which corresponds to the Checksum Complement
data field, should be assigned to be zero by the IOAM
encapsulating node, and ignored by transit and
decapsulating nodes. The reason for this is that the
Checksum Complement is intended for in-flight packet
modifications and is not relevant for direct
exporting.
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IOAM Direct Exporting August 2020
Reserved This field SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.
Flow ID A 32-bit flow identifier. If the actual Flow ID is
shorter than 32 bits, it is zero padded in its most
significant bits. The field is set at the
encapsulating node. The Flow ID can be uniformly
assigned by a central controller or algorithmically
generated by the encapsulating node. The latter
approach cannot guarantee the uniqueness of Flow ID,
yet the conflict probability is small due to the
large Flow ID space. The Flow ID can be used to
correlate the exported data of the same flow from
multiple nodes and from multiple packets.
Sequence Number A 32-bit sequence number starting from 0 and
increasing by 1 for each following monitored packet
from the same flow at the encapsulating node. The
Sequence Number, when combined with the Flow ID,
provides a convenient approach to correlate the
exported data from the same user packet.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. IOAM Type
The "IOAM Type Registry" was defined in Section 7.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. IANA is requested to allocate the
following code point from the "IOAM Type Registry" as follows:
TBD-type IOAM Direct Export (DEX) Option Type
If possible, IANA is requested to allocate code point 4 (TBD-type).
4.2. IOAM DEX Flags
IANA is requested to define an "IOAM DEX Flags" registry. This
registry includes 16 flag bits. Allocation should be performed based
on the "RFC Required" procedure, as defined in [RFC8126].
5. Performance Considerations
The DEX option triggers exported packets to be exported to a
receiving entity (or entities). In some cases this may impact the
receiving entity's performance, or the performance along the paths
leading to it.
Therefore, rate limiting may be enabled so as to ensure that direct
exporting is used at a rate that does not significantly affect the
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IOAM Direct Exporting August 2020
network bandwidth, and does not overload the receiving entity (or the
source node in the case of loopback). It should be possible to use
each DEX on a subset of the data traffic, and to load balance the
exported data among multiple receiving entities.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. Specifically, an attacker may try to use
the functionality that is defined in this document to attack the
network.
An attacker may attempt to overload network devices by injecting
synthetic packets that include the DEX option. Similarly, an on-path
attacker may maliciously incorporate the DEX option into transit
packets, or maliciously remove it from packets in which it is
incorporated.
Forcing DEX, either in synthetic packets or in transit packets may
overload the receiving entity (or entities). Since this mechanism
affects multiple devices along the network path, it potentially
amplifies the effect on the network bandwidth and on the receiving
entity's load.
In order to mitigate the attacks described above, it should be
possible for IOAM-enabled devices to limit the exported IOAM data to
a configurable rate.
IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain,
thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their affect. This
is a fundamental assumption with respect to the security aspects of
IOAM, as further discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
7. Topics for Further Discussion
o Hop Limit / Hop Count: in order to help correlate and order the
exported packets, it is possible to include a 1-octet Hop Count
field in the DEX header (presumably by claiming some space from
the Flags field). Its value starts from 0 at the encapsulating
node and is incremented by each IOAM transit node that supports
the DEX option. The Hop Count field value is also included in the
exported packet. An alternative approach is to use the Hop_Lim/
Node_ID data field; if the IOAM-Trace-Type
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] has the Hop_Lim/Node_ID bit set, then
exported packets include the Hop_Lim/Node_ID data field, which
contains the TTL/Hop Limit value from a lower layer protocol. The
main advantage of the Hop_Lim/Node_ID approach is that it provides
information about the current hop count without requiring each
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IOAM Direct Exporting August 2020
transit node to modify the DEX option, thus simplifying the data
plane functionality of Direct Exporting. The main advantage of
the Hop Count approach is that it counts the number of IOAM-
capable nodes without relying on the lower layer TTL, especially
when the lower layer cannot prvide the accurate TTL information,
e.g., Layer 2 Ethernet or hierarchical VPN. It also explicitly
allows to detect a case where an IOAM-capable node fails to export
packets. In order to facilitate the Hop Count approach it is
possible to use a flag to indicate an optional Hop Count field,
which enables to control the tradeoff. On one hand it addresses
the use cases that the Hop_Lim/Node_ID cannot cover, and on the
other hand it does not require transit switches to update the
option if it is not supported or disabled. Further discussion is
required about the tradeoff between the two alternatives.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-10 (work in
progress), July 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>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-02
(work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Shin, J., and K. Lee,
"Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song-
ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-07 (work in progress), April
2020.
[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]
Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R.
Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX",
draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-03 (work in progress),
March 2020.
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IOAM Direct Exporting August 2020
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Haoyu Song
Futurewei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara 95050
USA
Email: haoyu.song@huawei.com
Barak Gafni
Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
U.S.A.
Email: gbarak@mellanox.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IOAM Direct Exporting August 2020
Frank Brockners
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40549
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Shwetha Bhandari
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Sarjapura Marathalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 087
India
Email: shwethab@cisco.com
Ramesh Sivakolundu
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
U.S.A.
Email: sramesh@cisco.com
Tal Mizrahi (editor)
Huawei Smart Platforms iLab
8-2 Matam
Haifa 3190501
Israel
Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
Song, et al. Expires February 6, 2021 [Page 10]