SFC WG                                                         G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Updates: 8300 (if approved)                                      W. Meng
Intended status: Standards Track                         ZTE Corporation
Expires: 11 April 2022                                             T. Ao
                                                  Individual contributor
                                                                K. Leung
                                                            Cisco System
                                                               G. Mishra
                                                            Verizon Inc.
                                                          8 October 2021


                Active OAM for Service Function Chaining
                   draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-14

Abstract

   A set of requirements for active Operation, Administration, and
   Maintenance (OAM) of Service Function Chains (SFCs) in a network is
   presented in this document.  Based on these requirements, an
   encapsulation of active OAM messages in SFC and a mechanism to detect
   and localize defects are described.

   This document updates RFC 8300.  Particularly, it updates the
   definition of O (OAM) bit in the Network Service Header (NSH) (RFC
   8300) and defines how an active OAM message is identified in the NSH.

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 11 April 2022.







Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               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
   2.  Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Requirements for Active OAM in SFC  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Active OAM Identification in the NSH  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Active SFC OAM Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Return Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Authentication in Echo Request/Reply  . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.3.  SFC Echo Request Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.3.1.  Source TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.4.  SFC Echo Request Reception  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.4.1.  Errored TLVs TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.5.  SFC Echo Reply Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.5.1.  SFC Reply Path TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       6.5.2.  Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       6.5.3.  SFC Echo Reply Reception  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       6.5.4.  Tracing an SFP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.6.  Verification of the SFP Consistency . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       6.6.1.  SFP Consistency Verification packet . . . . . . . . .  19
       6.6.2.  SFF Information Record TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       6.6.3.  SF Information Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       6.6.4.  SF Information Sub-TLV Construction . . . . . . . . .  22
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     9.1.  SFC Active OAM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     9.2.  SFC Active OAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       9.2.1.  Version in the Active SFC OAM Header  . . . . . . . .  25
       9.2.2.  SFC Active OAM Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       9.2.3.  SFC Active OAM Header Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26



Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


     9.3.  SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters  . . . . . . . . .  27
       9.3.1.  SFC Echo Request/Reply Version  . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       9.3.2.  SFC Echo Request Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       9.3.3.  SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types . . . . . .  28
       9.3.4.  SFC Echo Reply Modes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       9.3.5.  SFC Echo Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     9.4.  SFC Active OAM TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     9.5.  SFF Information Record TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     9.6.  SF Information Sub-TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     9.7.  SF Identifier Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36

1.  Introduction

   [RFC7665] defines data plane elements necessary to implement a
   Service Function Chaining (SFC).  These include:

   1.  Classifiers that perform the classification of incoming packets.
       Such classification may result in associating a received packet
       to a service function chain.

   2.  Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) that are responsible for
       forwarding traffic to one or more connected Service Functions
       (SFs) according to the information carried in the SFC
       encapsulation and handling traffic coming back from the SFs and
       forwarding it to the next SFF.

   3.  SFs that are responsible for executing specific service treatment
       on received packets.

   There are different views from different levels of the SFC.  One is
   the service function chain, an entirely abstract view, which defines
   an ordered set of SFs that must be applied to packets selected based
   on classification rules.  But service function chain doesn't specify
   the exact mapping between SFFs and SFs.  Thus, another logical
   construct used in SFC is a Service Function Path (SFP).  According to
   [RFC7665], SFP is the instantiation of the SFC in the network and
   provides a level of indirection between the entirely abstract SFCs
   and a fully specified ordered list of SFFs and SFs identities that
   the packet will visit when it traverses the SFC.  The latter entity
   is referred to as Rendered Service Path (RSP).  The main difference
   between SFP and RSP is that the former is the logical construct,
   while the latter is the realization of the SFP via the sequence of
   specific SFC data plane elements.



Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   This document defines how active Operation, Administration and
   Maintenance (OAM), per [RFC7799] definition of active OAM, is
   identified when Network Service Header (NSH) is used as the SFC
   encapsulation.  Following the analysis of SFC OAM in [RFC8924], this
   document applies and, when necessary, extends requirements listed in
   Section 4 of [RFC8924] for the use of active OAM in an SFP supporting
   fault management and performance monitoring.  Active OAM tools,
   conformant to the requirements listed in Section 3, improve, for
   example, troubleshooting efficiency and defect localization in SFP
   because they specifically address the architectural principles of
   NSH.  For that purpose, SFC Echo Request and Echo Reply are specified
   in Section 6.  This mechanism enables on-demand Continuity Check,
   Connectivity Verification, among other operations over SFC in
   networks, addresses functionalities discussed in Sections 4.1, 4.2,
   and 4.3 of [RFC8924].  SFC Echo Request and Echo Reply, defined in
   this document, can be used with encapsulations other than NSH, for
   example, using MPLS encapsulation, as described in [RFC8595].  The
   applicability of the SFC Echo Request/Reply mechanism in SFC
   encapsulations other than NSH is outside the scope of this document.
   Also, this document updates Section 2.2 of [RFC8300] in part of the
   definition of O bit in the NSH.

2.  Terminology and Conventions

   The terminology defined in [RFC7665] is used extensively throughout
   this document, and the reader is expected to be familiar with it.

   In this document, SFC OAM refers to an active OAM [RFC7799] in an SFC
   architecture.

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.

2.2.  Acronyms

   E2E: End-to-End

   FM: Fault Management

   NSH: Network Service Header

   OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance




Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   RSP: Rendered Service Path

   SF: Service Function

   SFC: Service Function Chain

   SFF: Service Function Forwarder

   SFP: Service Function Path

   MAC: Message Authentication Code

3.  Requirements for Active OAM in SFC

   As discussed in [RFC8924], SFC-specific means are needed to perform
   the OAM task of fault management (FM) in an SFC architecture,
   including failure detection, defect characterization, and
   localization.  This document defines the set of requirements for
   active FM OAM mechanisms to be used in an SFC architecture.


                 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
                 |SFI11| |SFI12| |SFI21| |SFI22| |SFI31| |SFI32|
                 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
                     \    /          \   /           \    /
      +----------+   +----+         +----+          +----+
      |Classifier|---|SFF1|---------|SFF2|----------|SFF3|
      +----------+   +----+         +----+          +----+


            Figure 1: An Example of SFC Data Plane Architecture

   The architecture example depicted in Figure 1 considers a service
   function chain that includes three distinct service functions.  In
   this example, the SFP traverses SFF1, SFF2, and SFF3.  Each SFF is
   connected to two instances of the same service function.  End-to-end
   (E2E) SFC OAM has the Classifier as the ingress and SFF3 as its
   egress.  Segment SFC OAM is between two elements that are part of the
   same SFP.  Following are the requirements for an FM SFC OAM, whether
   with the E2E or segment scope:

      REQ#1: Packets of active SFC OAM SHOULD be fate sharing with the
      monitored SFC data in the forward direction from ingress toward
      egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test.

   The fate sharing, in the SFC environment, is achieved when a test
   packet traverses the same path and receives the same treatment in the
   transport layer as an SFC-encapsulated packet (e.g., NSH).



Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


      REQ#2: SFC OAM MUST support monitoring of the continuity of the
      SFP between any of its elements.

   An SFC failure might be declared when several consecutive test
   packets are not received within a pre-determined time.  For example,
   in the E2E FM SFC OAM case, the egress, SFF3, in the example in
   Figure 1, could be the entity that detects the SFP's failure by
   monitoring a flow of periodic test packets.  The ingress may be
   capable of recovering from the failure, e.g., using redundant SFC
   elements.  Thus, it is beneficial for the egress to signal the new
   defect state to the ingress, which in this example is the Classifier.
   Hence the following requirement:

      REQ#3: SFC OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication notification
      by the egress to the ingress.

      REQ#4: SFC OAM MUST support connectivity verification of the SFP.
      Definition of the misconnection defect, entry, and exit criteria
      are outside the scope of this document.

   Once the SFF1 detects the defect, the objective of the SFC OAM
   changes from the detection of a defect to defect characterization and
   localization.

      REQ#5: SFC OAM MUST support fault localization of the Loss of
      Continuity Check within an SFP.

      REQ#6: SFC OAM MUST support an SFP tracing to discover the RSP.

   In the example presented in Figure 1, two distinct instances of the
   same service function share the same SFF.  In this example, the SFP
   can be realized over several RSPs that use different instances of SF
   of the same type.  For instance, RSP1(SFI11--SFI21--SFI31) and
   RSP2(SFI12--SFI22--SFI32).  Available RSPs can be discovered using
   the trace function discussed in Section 4.3 [RFC8924] or the
   procedure defined in Section 6.5.4.

      REQ#7: SFC OAM MUST have the ability to discover and exercise all
      available RSPs in the network.

   The SFC OAM layer model described in [RFC8924] offers an approach for
   defect localization within a service function chain.  As the first
   step, the SFP's continuity for SFFs that are part of the same SFP
   could be verified.  After the reachability of SFFs has already been
   verified, SFFs that serve an SF may be used as a test packet source.
   In such a case, SFF can act as a proxy for another element within the
   service function chain.




Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


      REQ#8: SFC OAM MUST be able to trigger on-demand FM with responses
      being directed towards the initiator of such proxy request.

4.  Active OAM Identification in the NSH

   The O bit in the NSH is defined in [RFC8300] as follows:

      O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM packet.

   This document updates that definition as follows:

      O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM command and/or data in
      the NSH Context Header or packet payload.

   Active SFC OAM is defined as a combination of OAM commands and/or
   data included in a message that immediately follows the NSH.  To
   identify the active OAM message, the "Next Protocol" field MUST be
   set to Active SFC OAM (TBA1) (Section 9.1).  The rules for
   interpreting the values of the O bit and the "Next Protocol" field
   are as follows:

   *  O bit set and the "Next Protocol" value does not match one of
      identifying active or hybrid OAM protocols (per classification
      defined in [RFC7799]), e.g., defined in Section 9.1 Active SFC OAM
      (TBA1).

         - a Fixed-Length Context Header or Variable-Length Context
         Header(s) contain an OAM command or data.

         - the "Next Protocol" field determines the type of payload.

   *  O bit set and the "Next Protocol" value matches one of identifying
      active or hybrid OAM protocols:

         - the payload that immediately follows the NSH MUST contain an
         OAM command or data.

   *  O bit is clear:

         - no OAM in a Fixed-Length Context Header or Variable-Length
         Context Header(s).

         - the payload determined by the "Next Protocol" field MUST be
         present.







Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   *  O bit is clear, and the "Next Protocol" field identifies active or
      hybrid OAM protocol MUST be identified and reported as an
      erroneous combination.  An implementation MAY have control to
      enable processing of the OAM payload.

   One conclusion from the above-listed rules of processing the O bit
   and the "Next Protocol" field is to avoid the combination of OAM in
   an NSH Context Header (Fixed-Length or Variable-Length) and the
   payload immediately following the NSH because there is no unambiguous
   way to identify such combination using the O bit and the Next
   Protocol field.

5.  Active SFC OAM Header

   As demonstrated in Section 4 [RFC8924] and Section 3 of this
   document, SFC OAM is required to perform multiple tasks.  Several
   active OAM protocols could be used to address all the requirements.
   When IP/UDP encapsulation of an SFC OAM control message is used,
   protocols can be demultiplexed using the destination UDP port number.
   But extra IP/UDP headers, especially in an IPv6 network, add
   noticeable overhead.  This document defines Active OAM Header
   (Figure 2) to demultiplex active OAM protocols on an SFC.


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | V | Msg Type  |     Flags     |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~              SFC Active OAM Control Packet                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 2: SFC Active OAM Header

      V - two-bit-long field indicates the current version of the SFC
      active OAM header.  The current value is 0.  The version number is
      to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the
      ability of an implementation to parse or process the SFC Active
      OAM header correctly.  For example, if syntactic or semantic
      changes are made to any of the fixed fields.

      Msg Type - six bits long field identifies OAM protocol, e.g., Echo
      Request/Reply or Bidirectional Forwarding Detection.








Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


      Flags - eight bits long field carries bit flags that define
      optional capability and thus processing of the SFC active OAM
      control packet, e.g., optional timestamping.  No flags are defined
      in this document, and therefore, the bit flags MUST be zeroed on
      transmission and ignored on receipt.

      Length - two octets long field that is the length of the SFC
      active OAM control packet in octets.

6.  Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC

   Echo Request/Reply is a well-known active OAM mechanism extensively
   used to verify a path's continuity, detect inconsistencies between a
   state in control and the data planes, and localize defects in the
   data plane.  ICMP ([RFC0792] for IPv4 and [RFC4443] for IPv6
   networks, respectively) and [RFC8029] are examples of broadly used
   active OAM protocols based on the Echo Request/Reply principle.  The
   SFC Echo Request/Reply defined in this document addresses several
   requirements listed in Section 3.  Specifically, it can be used to
   check the continuity of an SFP, trace an SFP, or localize the failure
   within an SFP.  The SFC Echo Request/Reply control message format is
   presented in Figure 3.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | V |        Reserved           |      Echo Request Flags       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Message Type  |   Reply mode  |  Return Code  |Return Subcode |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Sender's Handle                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Sequence Number                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                              TLVs                             ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 3: SFC Echo Request/Reply Format

   The interpretation of the fields is as follows:










Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


      Version (V) is a two-bit field that indicates the current version
      of the SFC Echo Request/Reply.  The current value is 0.  The
      version number is to be incremented whenever a change is made that
      affects the ability of an implementation to parse or process the
      control packet correctly.  If a packet presumed to carry an SFC
      Echo Request/Reply is received at an SFF, and the SFF does not
      understand the Version field value, the packet MUST be discarded,
      and the event SHOULD be logged.

      Reserved - fourteen-bit field.  It MUST be zeroed on transmission
      and ignored on receipt.

      The Echo Request Flags is a two-octet bit vector field.  Note that
      a flag defined in the Flags field of the SFC Active OAM header in
      Figure 2 has no implication of those defined in the Echo Request
      Flags field of an Echo Request/Reply message.

      The Message Type is a one-octet field that reflects the packet
      type.  Value TBA3 identifies Echo Request and TBA4 - Echo Reply.

      The Reply Mode is a one-octet field.  It defines the type of the
      return path requested by the sender of the Echo Request.

      Return Codes and Subcodes are one-octet fields each.  These can be
      used to inform the sender about the result of processing its
      request.  Initial Return Code values are provided in Table 1.  For
      all Return Code values defined in this document, the value of the
      Return Subcode field MUST be set to zero.

      The Sender's Handle is a four-octet field.  It MUST be filled in
      by the sender of the Echo Request and returned unchanged by the
      Echo Reply sender (if a reply mandated).  The sender of the Echo
      Request SHOULD use a pseudo-random number generator to set the
      value of the Sender's Handle field.

      The Sequence Number is a four-octet field, and it is assigned by
      the sender and can be, for example, used to detect missed replies.
      Initial Sequence Number MUST be randomly generated and then SHOULD
      be monotonically increasing in the course of the test session.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      Type     |    Reserved   |           Length              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                            Value                              ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


              Figure 4: SFC Echo Request/Reply TLV Format

   TLV is a variable-length field.  Multiple TLVs MAY be placed in an
   SFC Echo Request/Reply packet.  Additional TLVs may be enclosed
   within a given TLV, subject to the semantics of the (outer) TLV in
   question.  If more than one TLV is to be included, the value of the
   Type field of the outmost outer TLV MUST be set to "Multiple TLVs
   Used" (TBA12), as assigned by IANA according to Section 9.4.
   Figure 4 presents the format of an SFC Echo Request/Reply TLV, where
   fields are defined as follows:

      Type - a one-octet-long field that characterizes the
      interpretation of the Value field.  Type values allocated
      according to Section 9.4.

      Reserved - one-octet-long field.  The value of the Type field
      determines its interpretation and encoding.

      Length - two-octet-long field equal to the Value field's length in
      octets.

      Value - a variable-length field.  The value of the Type field
      determines its interpretation and encoding.

6.1.  Return Codes

   The value of the Return Code field is set to zero by the sender of an
   Echo Request.  The receiver of said Echo Request can set it to one of
   the values listed in Table 1 in the corresponding Echo Reply that it
   generates (in cases when the reply is requested).

          +=======+============================================+
          | Value |                Description                 |
          +=======+============================================+
          | 0     |               No Return Code               |
          +-------+--------------------------------------------+
          | 1     |      Malformed Echo Request received       |
          +-------+--------------------------------------------+
          | 2     | One or more of the TLVs was not understood |
          +-------+--------------------------------------------+
          | 3     |           Authentication failed            |
          +-------+--------------------------------------------+

                      Table 1: SFC Echo Return Codes







Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


6.2.  Authentication in Echo Request/Reply

   Authentication can be used to protect the integrity of the
   information in SFC Echo Request and/or Echo Reply.  In the
   [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity] a variable-length Context Header has
   been defined to protect the integrity of the NSH and the payload.
   The header can also be used for the optional encryption of sensitive
   metadata.  MAC#1 Context Header is more suitable for the integrity
   protection of active SFC OAM, particularly of the defined in this
   document SFC Echo Request and Echo Reply.  On the other hand, using
   MAC#2 Context Header allows the detection of mishandling of the O-bit
   by a transient SFC element.

6.3.  SFC Echo Request Transmission

   SFC Echo Request control packet MUST use the appropriate transport
   encapsulation of the monitored SFP.  If the NSH is used, Echo Request
   MUST set O bit, as defined in [RFC8300].  NSH MUST be immediately
   followed by the SFC Active OAM Header defined in Section 4.  The
   Message Type field's value in the SFC Active OAM Header MUST be set
   to SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply value (TBA2) per Section 9.2.2.

   Value of the Reply Mode field MAY be set to:

   *  Do Not Reply (TBA5) if one-way monitoring is desired.  If the Echo
      Request is used to measure synthetic packet loss, the receiver may
      report loss measurement results to a remote node.  Note that ways
      of learning the identity of that node are outside the scope of
      this specification.

   *  Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet (TBA6) value likely will be the
      most used.

   *  Reply via Application Level Control Channel (TBA7) value if the
      SFP may have bi-directional paths.

   *  Reply via Specified Path (TBA8) value to enforce the use of the
      particular return path specified in the included TLV to verify bi-
      directional continuity and also increase the robustness of the
      monitoring by selecting a more stable path.  Section 6.5.1
      provides an example of communicating an explicit path for the Echo
      Reply.









Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


6.3.1.  Source TLV

   Responder to the SFC Echo Request encapsulates the SFC Echo Reply
   message in IP/UDP packet if the Reply mode is "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6
   UDP Packet".  Because the NSH does not identify the ingress node that
   generated the Echo Request, the source ID MUST be included in the
   message and used as the IP destination address and destination UDP
   port number of the SFC Echo Reply.  The sender of the SFC Echo
   Request MUST include an SFC Source TLV (Figure 5).


    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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  Source ID  |   Reserved1   |           Length              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |         Port Number         |           Reserved2           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        IP Address                           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                          Figure 5: SFC Source TLV

   where

      Source ID Type is a one-octet-long field and has the value of
      TBA13 Section 9.4.

      Reserved1 - one-octet-long field.

      Length is a two-octets-long field, and the value equals the length
      of the Value field in octets.  The value of the Length field can
      be 8 or 20.  If the value of the field is neither, the Source TLV
      is considered to be malformed.

      Port Number is a two-octets-long field.  It contains the UDP port
      number of the sender of the SFC OAM control message.  The value of
      the field MUST be used as the destination UDP port number in the
      IP/UDP encapsulation of the SFC Echo Reply message.

      Reserved2 is a two-octets-long field.  The field MUST be zeroed on
      transmit and ignored on receipt.

      IP Address field contains the IP address of the sender of the SFC
      OAM control message, IPv4 or IPv6.  The value of the field MUST be
      used as the destination IP address in the IP/UDP encapsulation of
      the SFC Echo Reply message.




Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   A single Source ID TLV for each address family, i.e., IPv4 and IPv6,
   MAY be present in an SFC Echo Request message.  If the Source TLVs
   for both address families are present in an SFC Echo Request message,
   the SFF MUST NOT replicate an SFC Echo Reply but choose the
   destination IP address for the SFC Echo Reply based on the local
   policy.  If more than one Source ID TLV per the address family is
   present, the receiver MUST use the first TLV and ignore the rest.

6.4.  SFC Echo Request Reception

   Punting received SFC Echo Request to the control plane is triggered
   by one of the following packet processing exceptions: NSH TTL
   expiration, NSH Service Index (SI) expiration, or the receiver is the
   terminal SFF for an SFP.

   Firstly, if the SFC Echo Request is integrity-protected, the
   receiving SFF first MUST verify the authentication.  Then the
   receiver SFF MUST validate the Source TLV, as defined in
   Section 6.3.1.  Suppose the authentication validation has failed and
   the Source TLV is considered properly formatted.  In that case, the
   SFF MUST send to the system identified in the Source TLV (see
   Section 6.5), according to a rate-limit control mechanism, an SFC
   Echo Reply with the Return Code set to "Authentication failed" and
   the Subcode set to zero.  If the Source TLV is determined malformed,
   the received SFC Echo Request processing is stopped, the message is
   dropped, and the event SHOULD be logged, according to a rate-limiting
   control for logging.  Then, the SFF that has received an SFC Echo
   Request verifies the rest of the received packet's general sanity.
   If the packet is not well-formed, the receiver SFF SHOULD send an SFC
   Echo Reply with the Return Code set to "Malformed Echo Request
   received" and the Subcode set to zero under the control of the rate-
   limiting mechanism to the system identified in the Source TLV (see
   Section 6.5).  If there are any TLVs that the SFF does not
   understand, the SFF MUST send an SFC Echo Reply with the Return Code
   set to 2 ("One or more TLVs was not understood") and set the Subcode
   to zero.  In the latter case, the SFF MAY include an Errored TLVs TLV
   (Section 6.4.1) that, as sub-TLVs, contains only the misunderstood
   TLVs.  Sender's Handle and Sequence Number fields are not examined
   but are included in the SFC Echo Reply message.  If the sanity check
   of the received Echo Request succeeded, then the SFF at the end of
   the SFP MUST set the Return Code value to 5 ("End of the SFP") and
   the Subcode set to zero.  If the SFF is not at the end of the SFP and
   the TTL value is 1, the value of the Return Code MUST be set to 4
   ("TTL Exceeded") and the Subcode set to zero.  In all other cases,
   SFF MUST set the Return Code value to 0 ("No Return Code") and the
   Subcode set to zero.





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


6.4.1.  Errored TLVs TLV

   If the Return Code for the Echo Reply is determined as 2 ("One or
   more TLVs was not understood"), the Errored TLVs TLV might be
   included in an Echo Reply.  The use of this TLV is meant to inform
   the sender of an Echo Request of TLVs either not supported by an
   implementation or parsed and found to be in error.


         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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Errored TLVs |    Reserved   |            Length             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                             Value                             |
       .                                                               .
       .                                                               .
       .                                                               .
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 6: Errored TLVs TLV

   where

      The Errored TLVs Type MUST be set to TBA14 Section 9.4.

      Reserved - one-octet-long field.

      Length - two-octet-long field equal to the length of the Value
      field in octets.

      The Value field contains the TLVs, encoded as sub-TLVs, that were
      not understood or failed to be parsed correctly.

6.5.  SFC Echo Reply Transmission

   The "Reply Mode" field directs whether and how the Echo Reply message
   should be sent.  The Echo Request sender MAY use TLVs to request that
   the corresponding Echo Reply be transmitted over the specified path.
   Section 6.5.1 provides an example of a TLV that specifies the return
   path of the Echo Reply.  Value TBA3 is the "Do not reply" mode and
   suppresses the Echo Reply packet transmission.  The default value
   (TBA6) for the Reply mode field requests the responder to send the
   Echo Reply packet out-of-band as IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet.






Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


6.5.1.  SFC Reply Path TLV

   While SFC Echo Request always traverses the SFP, it is directed to,
   the corresponding Echo Reply usually is sent over an IP network.
   There are scenarios when it is beneficial to direct the responder to
   use a path other than the IP network.  This section defines a new
   Type-Length-Value (TLV), Reply Service Function Path TLV, for Reply
   via Specified Path mode of SFC Echo Reply.

   The Reply Service Function Path TLV can provide an efficient
   mechanism to test SFCs, such as bidirectional and hybrid SFC, as
   defined in Section 2.2 [RFC7665].  For example, it allows an operator
   to test both directions of the bidirectional or hybrid SFP with a
   single SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply operation.

   The SFC Reply Path TLV carries the information that sufficiently
   identifies the return SFP that the SFC Echo Reply message is expected
   to follow.  The format of SFC Reply Path TLV is shown in Figure 7.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |SFC Reply Path |    Reserved   |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                 Reply Service Function Path                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 7: SFC Reply TLV Format

   where:

   *  SFC Reply Path Type: is a one-octet-long, indicates the TLV that
      contains information about the SFC Reply path.  IANA is requested
      to assign value (TBA23),

   *  Reserved - one-octet-long field.

   *  Length: is two octets long, MUST be equal to 4

   *  Reply Service Function Path is used to describe the return path
      that an SFC Echo Reply is requested to follow.

   The format of the Reply Service Function Path field displayed in
   Figure 8






Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Reply Service Function Path Identifier     | Service Index |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

          Figure 8: Reply Service Function Path Field Format

   where:

   *  Reply Service Function Path Identifier: SFP identifier for the
      path that the SFC Echo Reply message is requested to be sent over.

   *  Service Index: the value for the Service Index field in the NSH of
      the SFC Echo Reply message.

6.5.2.  Theory of Operation

   [RFC7110] defined mechanism to control return path for MPLS LSP Echo
   Reply.  In SFC's case, the return path is an SFP along which the SFC
   Echo Reply message MUST be transmitted.  Hence, the SFC Reply Path
   TLV included in the SFC Echo Request message MUST sufficiently
   identify the SFP that the sender of the Echo Request message expects
   the receiver to use for the corresponding SFC Echo Reply.

   When sending an Echo Request, the sender MUST set the value of Reply
   Mode field to "Reply via Specified Path", defined in Section 6.3, and
   if the specified path is an SFC path, the Request MUST include SFC
   Reply Path TLV.  The SFC Reply Path TLV consists of the identifier of
   the reverse SFP and an appropriate Service Index.

   The Message Authentication Code (MAC) Context Header that is defined
   in [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity] MAY be used to protect the SFC Echo
   Request's integrity when using the SFC Return Path TLV.  If the NSH
   of the received SFC Echo Request includes the MAC Context Header, the
   packet's authentication MUST be verified before using any data.  If
   the verification fails, the receiver MUST stop processing the SFC
   Return Path TLV and MUST send the SFC Echo Reply with the Return
   Codes value set to the value Authentication failed from the IANA's
   Return Codes sub-registry of the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
   Parameters registry.

   The destination SFF of the SFP being tested or the SFF at which SFC
   TTL expired (as per [RFC8300]) may be sending the Echo Reply.  The
   processing described below equally applies to both cases and is
   referred to as responding SFF.





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   If the Echo Request message with SFC Reply Path TLV, received by the
   responding SFF, has Reply Mode value of "Reply via Specified Path"
   but no SFC Reply Path TLV is present, then the responding SFF MUST
   send Echo Reply with Return Code set to 6 ("Reply Path TLV is
   missing").  If the responding SFF cannot find the requested SFP it
   MUST send Echo Reply with Return Code set to 7 ("Reply SFP was not
   found") and include the SFC Reply Path TLV from the Echo Request
   message.

   Suppose the SFC Echo Request receiver cannot determine whether the
   specified return path SFP has the route to the initiator.  In that
   case, it SHOULD set the value of the Return Codes field to 8
   ("Unverifiable Reply Path").  The receiver MAY drop the Echo Request
   when it cannot determine whether SFP's return path has the route to
   the initiator.  When sending Echo Request, the sender SHOULD choose a
   proper source address according to the specified return path SFP to
   help the receiver find the viable return path.

6.5.2.1.  Bi-directional SFC Case

   The ability to specify the return path for an Echo Reply might be
   used in the case of bi-directional SFC.  The egress SFF of the
   forward SFP might not be co-located with a classifier of the reverse
   SFP, and thus the egress SFF has no information about the reverse
   path of an SFC.  Because of that, even for bi-directional SFC, a
   reverse SFP needs to be indicated in a Reply Path TLV in the Echo
   Request message.

6.5.3.  SFC Echo Reply Reception

   An SFF SHOULD NOT accept SFC Echo Reply unless the received message
   passes the following checks:

   *  the received SFC Echo Reply is well-formed;

   *  it has an outstanding SFC Echo Request sent from the UDP port that
      matches destination UDP port number of the received packet;

   *  if the matching to the Echo Request found, the value of the
      Sender's Handle in the Echo Request sent is equal to the value of
      Sender's Handle in the Echo Reply received;

   *  if all checks passed, the SFF checks if the Sequence Number in the
      Echo Request sent matches to the Sequence Number in the Echo Reply
      received.






Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


6.5.4.  Tracing an SFP

   SFC Echo Request/Reply can be used to isolate a defect detected in
   the SFP and trace an RSP.  As for ICMP echo request/reply [RFC0792]
   and MPLS echo request/reply [RFC8029], this mode is referred to as
   "traceroute".  In the traceroute mode, the sender transmits a
   sequence of SFC Echo Request messages starting with the NSH TTL value
   set to 1 and is incremented by 1 in each next Echo Request packet.
   The sender stops transmitting SFC Echo Request packets when the
   Return Code in the received Echo Reply equals 5 ("End of the SFP").

   Suppose a specialized information element (e.g., IPv6 Flow Label
   [RFC6437] or Flow ID [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv]) is used for distributing
   the load across Equal Cost Multi-Path or Link Aggregation Group
   paths.  In that case, such an element MAY also be used for the SFC
   OAM traffic.  Doing so is meant to control whether the SFC Echo
   Request follows the same RSP as the monitored flow.

6.6.  Verification of the SFP Consistency

   The consistency of an SFP can be verified by comparing the view of
   the SFP from the control or management plane with information
   collected from traversed by an SFC NSH Echo Request message.  Every
   SFF that receives the Consistency Verification Request (CVReq) MUST
   perform the following actions:

   *  Collect information of the traversed by the CVReq packet SFs and
      send it to the ingress SFF as CVRep packet over IP network;

   *  Forward the CVReq to the next downstream SFF if the one exists.

   As a result, the ingress SFF collects information about all traversed
   SFFs and SFs, information on the actual path the CVReq packet has
   traveled.  That information is used to verify the SFC's path
   consistency.  The mechanism for the SFP consistency verification is
   outside the scope of this document.

6.6.1.  SFP Consistency Verification packet

   For the verification of an SFP consistency, two new types of messages
   to the SFC Echo Request/Reply operation defined in Section 6 with the
   following values detailed in Table 10:

   *  TBA16 - SFP Consistency Verification Request

   *  TBA17 - SFP Consistency Verification Reply





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   Upon receiving the CVReq, the SFF MUST respond with the Consistency
   Verification Reply (CVRep).  The SFF MUST include the SFs
   information, as described in Section 6.6.3 and Section 6.6.2.

   The initiator of CVReq MAY require the collected information in the
   CVRep be sent in the integrity-protected mode using the Message
   Authentication Code (MAC) Context Header, defined in
   [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity].  If the NSH of the received SFC Echo
   Reply includes the MAC Context Header, the authentication of the
   packet MUST be verified before using any data.  If the verification
   fails, the receiver MUST stop processing the SFF Information Record
   TLV and notify an operator.  Specification of the notification
   mechanism is outside the scope of this document.

6.6.2.  SFF Information Record TLV

   For CVReq, the SFF MUST include the Information of SFs into the SF
   Information Record TLV in the CVRep message.  Every SFF sends back a
   single CVRep message, including information on all the SFs attached
   to the SFF on the SFP as requested in the CVReq message.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |SFF Record TLV |    Reserved   |            Length             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |       Service Path Identifier (SPI)           |   Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                   SF Information  Sub-TLV                     |
       ~                                                               ~
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 9: SFF Information Record TLV


   SFF Information Record TLV is a variable-length TLV that includes the
   information of all SFFs mapped to the particular SFF instance for the
   specified SFP.  Figure 9 presents the format of an SFC Echo Request/
   Reply TLV, where fields are defined as the following:

      Reserved - one-octet-long field.

      Service Path Identifier (SPI): The identifier of SFP to which all
      the SFs in this TLV belong.




Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


      SF Information Sub-TLV: The Sub-TLV is as defined in Figure 10.

6.6.3.  SF Information Sub-TLV

   Every SFF receiving CVReq packet MUST include the SF characteristic
   data into the CVRep packet.  The data format of an SF sub-TLV,
   included in a CVRep packet, is displayed in Figure 10.

   After the CVReq message traverses the SFP, all the information of the
   SFs on the SFP is collected from the TLVs included in CVRep messages.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |SF sub-TLV|    Reserved   |          Length               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Service Index  |          SF Type              |   SF ID Type  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          SF Identifiers                       |
       ~                                                               ~
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 10: Service Function information sub-TLV


   SF sub-TLV Type: Two octets long field.  It indicates that the TLV is
   an SF TLV that contains the information of one SF.

   Length: Two octets long field.  The value of the field is the length
   of the data following the Length field counted in octets.

   Service Index: Indicates the SF's position on the SFP.

   SF Type: Two octets long field.  It is defined in [RFC9015] and
   indicates the type of SF, e.g., Firewall, Deep Packet Inspection, WAN
   optimization controller, etc.

   Reserved: For future use.  MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be
   ignored on receipt.

   SF ID Type: One octet-long field with values defined as Section 9.7.








Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   SF Identifier: An identifier of the SF.  The length of the SF
   Identifier depends on the type of the SF ID Type.  For example, if
   the SF Identifier is its IPv4 address, the SF Identifier should be 32
   bits.  SF ID Type and SF Identifier may be a list, of the SFs
   included in a load balance group.

6.6.4.  SF Information Sub-TLV Construction

   Each SFF in the SFP MUST send one and only one CVRep corresponding to
   the CVReq.  If only one SF is attached to the SFF in such SFP, only
   one SF information sub-TLV is included in the CVRep.  If several SFs
   attached to the SFF in the SFP, SF Information Sub-TLV MUST be
   constructed as described below in either Section 6.6.4.1 and
   Section 6.6.4.2.

6.6.4.1.  Multiple SFs as hops of SFP

   Multiple SFs attached to the same SFF are the hops of the SFP.  The
   service indexes of these SFs are different.  Service function types
   of these SFs could be different or be the same.  Information about
   all SFs MAY be included in the CVRep message.  Information about each
   SF MUST be listed as separate SF Information Sub-TLVs in the CVRep
   message.

   An example of the SFP consistency verification procedure for this
   case is shown in Figure 11.  The Service Function Path(SPI=x) is
   SF1->SF2->SF4->SF3.  The SF1, SF2, and SF3 are attached to SFF1, and
   SF4 is attached to SFF2.  The CVReq message is sent to the SFFs in
   the sequence of the SFP(SFF1->SFF2->SFF1).  Every SFF(SFF1, SFF2)
   replies with the information of SFs belonging to the SFP.  The SF
   information Sub-TLV in Figure 10 contains information for each SF
   (SF1, SF2, SF3, and SF4).

                     SF1         SF2           SF4                SF3
                     +------+------+            |                  |
        CVReq  ......>  SFF1       ......>  SFF2       ......> SFF1
        (SPI=x)             .                   .                  .
                <............         <..........       <...........
                  CVRep1(SF1,SF2)    CVRep2(SF4)    CVRep3(SF3)


              Figure 11: Example 1 for CVRep with multiple SFs









Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


6.6.4.2.  Multiple SFs for load balance

   Multiple SFs may be attached to the same SFF to balance the load; in
   other words, that means that the particular traffic flow will
   traverse only one of these SFs.  These SFs have the same Service
   Function Type and Service Index.  For this case, the SF identifiers
   and SF ID Type of all these SFs will be listed in the SF Identifiers
   field and SF ID Type in a single SF information sub-TLV of the CVRep
   message.  The number of these SFs can be calculated using the SF ID
   Type and the value of the Length field of the sub-TLV.

   An example of the SFP consistency verification procedure for this
   case is shown in Figure 12.  The Service Function Path (SPI=x) is
   SF1a/SF1b->SF2a/SF2b.  The Service Functions SF1a and SF1b are
   attached to SFF1, which balances the load among them.  The Service
   Functions SF2a and SF2b are attached to SFF2, which, in turn,
   balances its load between them.  The CVReq message is sent to the
   SFFs in the sequence of the SFP (i.e.  SFF1->SFF2).  Every SFF (SFF1,
   SFF2) replies with the information of SFs belonging to the SFP.  The
   SF information Sub-TLV in Figure 10 contains information for all SFs
   at that hop.

                                  /SF1a                   /SF2a
                                  \SF1b                   \SF2b
                                    |                       |
                                   SFF1                    SFF2
               CVReq   .........>  .           .........>  .
               (SPI=x)                .                       .
                          <............        <...............
                   CVRep1({SF1a,SF1b})     CVRep2({SF2a,SF2b})


              Figure 12: Example 2 for CVRep with multiple SFs


7.  Security Considerations

   When the integrity protection for SFC active OAM, and SFC Echo
   Request/Reply in particular, is required, it is RECOMMENDED to use
   one of the Context Headers defined in [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity].
   MAC#1 (Message Authentication Code) Context Header could be more
   suitable for active SFC OAM because it does not require re-
   calculation of the MAC when the value of the NSH Base Header's TTL
   field is changed.  The integrity protection for SFC active OAM 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.  Confidentiality for the SFC



Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   Echo Request/Reply exchanges can be achieved using the IP
   Encapsulating Security Payload Header [RFC4303].  Also, the security
   needs for SFC Echo Request/Reply are similar to those of ICMP ping
   [RFC0792], [RFC4443] and MPLS LSP ping [RFC8029].

   There are at least three approaches to attacking a node in the
   overlay network using the mechanisms defined in the document.  One is
   a Denial-of-Service attack, sending an SFC Echo Request to overload
   an element of the SFC.  The second may use spoofing, hijacking,
   replying, or otherwise tampering with SFC Echo Requests and/or
   replies to misrepresent, alter the operator's view of the state of
   the SFC.  The third is an unauthorized source using an SFC Echo
   Request/Reply to obtain information about the SFC and/or its
   elements, e.g., SFF or SF.

   It is RECOMMENDED that implementations throttle the SFC ping traffic
   going to the control plane to mitigate potential Denial-of-Service
   attacks.

   Reply and spoofing attacks involving faking or replying to SFC Echo
   Reply messages would have to match the Sender's Handle and Sequence
   Number of an outstanding SFC Echo Request message, which is highly
   unlikely.  Thus the non-matching reply would be discarded.

   To protect against unauthorized sources trying to obtain information
   about the overlay and/or underlay, an implementation MAY check that
   the source of the Echo Request is indeed part of the SFP.

   Also, since Service Function sub-TLV discloses information about the
   SFP the spoofed CVReq packet may be used to obtain network
   information, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide a means
   of checking the source addresses of CVReq messages, specified in SFC
   Source TLV Section 6.3.1, against an access list before accepting the
   message.

8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors greatly appreciate the thorough review and the most
   helpful comments from Dan Wing, Dirk von Hugo, and Mohamed Boucadair.
   The authors are thankful to John Drake for his review and the
   reference to the work on BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC.  The authors
   express their appreciation to Joel M.  Halpern for his suggestion
   about the load-balancing scenario.

9.  IANA Considerations






Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


9.1.  SFC Active OAM Protocol

   IANA is requested to assign a new type from the SFC Next Protocol
   registry as follows:

                +=======+================+===============+
                | Value |  Description   | Reference     |
                +=======+================+===============+
                | TBA1  | SFC Active OAM | This document |
                +-------+----------------+---------------+

                     Table 2: SFC Active OAM Protocol

9.2.  SFC Active OAM

   IANA is requested to create a new SFC Active OAM registry.

9.2.1.  Version in the Active SFC OAM Header

   IANA is requested to create in the SFC Active OAM registry a new sub-
   registry called "SFC Active OAM Header Version".  All code points are
   assigned according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in
   [RFC8126].  The remaining code points to be allocated according to
   Table 3:

         +==============+=======================+===============+
         | Version      |      Description      | Reference     |
         +==============+=======================+===============+
         | Version 0b00 |  Protocol as defined  | This document |
         |              | by this specification |               |
         +--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
         | Version 0b01 |       Unassigned      | This document |
         +--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
         | Version 0b10 |       Unassigned      | This document |
         +--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
         | Version 0b11 |       Unassigned      | This document |
         +--------------+-----------------------+---------------+

                  Table 3: SFC Active OAM Header Version

9.2.2.  SFC Active OAM Message Type

   IANA is requested to create in the SFC Active OAM registry a new sub-
   registry called "SFC Active OAM Message Type".  All code points in
   the range 1 through 32767 in this registry shall be allocated
   according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126].  The
   remaining code points to be allocated according to Table 4:




Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


         +===============+=============+=========================+
         | Value         | Description | Reference               |
         +===============+=============+=========================+
         | 0             |   Reserved  |                         |
         +---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
         | 1 - 32767     |   Reserved  | IETF Consensus          |
         +---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
         | 32768 - 65530 |   Reserved  | First Come First Served |
         +---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
         | 65531 - 65534 |   Reserved  | Private Use             |
         +---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
         | 65535         |   Reserved  |                         |
         +---------------+-------------+-------------------------+

                    Table 4: SFC Active OAM Message Type

   IANA is requested to assign a new type from the SFC Active OAM
   Message Type sub-registry as follows:

          +=======+=============================+===============+
          | Value |         Description         | Reference     |
          +=======+=============================+===============+
          | TBA2  | SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply | This document |
          +-------+-----------------------------+---------------+

                 Table 5: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Type

9.2.3.  SFC Active OAM Header Flags

   IANA is requested to create in the SFC Active OAM registry the new
   sub-registry SFC Active OAM Flags.

   This sub-registry tracks the assignment of 8 flags in the Flags field
   of the SFC Active OAM Header.  The flags are numbered from 0 (most
   significant bit, transmitted first) to 7.

   New entries are assigned by Standards Action.

               +============+=============+===============+
               | Bit Number | Description | Reference     |
               +============+=============+===============+
               | 7-0        |  Unassigned | This document |
               +------------+-------------+---------------+

                   Table 6: SFC Active OAM Header Flags






Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


9.3.  SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters

   IANA is requested to create a new SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
   Parameters registry.

9.3.1.  SFC Echo Request/Reply Version

   IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
   Parameters registry a new sub-registry called "SFC Echo Request/Reply
   Version".  All code points assigned according to the "IETF Review"
   procedure specified in [RFC8126].  The remaining code points to be
   allocated according to Table 7:

         +==============+=======================+===============+
         | Version      |      Description      | Reference     |
         +==============+=======================+===============+
         | Version 0b00 |  Protocol as defined  | This document |
         |              | by this specification |               |
         +--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
         | Version 0b01 |       Unassigned      | This document |
         +--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
         | Version 0b10 |       Unassigned      | This document |
         +--------------+-----------------------+---------------+
         | Version 0b11 |       Unassigned      | This document |
         +--------------+-----------------------+---------------+

                 Table 7: SFC Echo Request/Reply Version

9.3.2.  SFC Echo Request Flags

   IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
   Parameters registry the new sub-registry SFC Echo Request Flags.

   This sub-registry tracks the assignment of 16 flags in the SFC Echo
   Request Flags field of the SFC Echo Request message.  The flags are
   numbered from 0 (most significant bit, transmitted first) to 15.

   New entries are assigned by Standards Action.

               +============+=============+===============+
               | Bit Number | Description | Reference     |
               +============+=============+===============+
               | 15-0       |  Unassigned | This document |
               +------------+-------------+---------------+

                     Table 8: SFC Echo Request Flags





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


9.3.3.  SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types

   IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
   Parameters registry the new sub-registry Message Types.  All code
   points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be allocated
   according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126].
   Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be
   allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure
   specified in [RFC8126].  The remaining code points are allocated as
   specified in Table 9.

               +===========+==============+===============+
               | Value     | Description  | Reference     |
               +===========+==============+===============+
               | 0         |   Reserved   | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 1- 175    |  Unassigned  | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 176 - 239 |  Unassigned  | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 252 - 254 | Private Use  | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 255       |   Reserved   | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+

                   Table 9: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
                              Message Types

   IANA is requested to assign values as listed in Table 10.

     +=======+======================================+===============+
     | Value |             Description              | Reference     |
     +=======+======================================+===============+
     | TBA3  |           SFC Echo Request           | This document |
     +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
     | TBA4  |            SFC Echo Reply            | This document |
     +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
     | TBA16 | SFP Consistency Verification Request | This document |
     +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
     | TBA17 |  SFP Consistency Verification Reply  | This document |
     +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+

        Table 10: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types Values






Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


9.3.4.  SFC Echo Reply Modes

   IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
   Parameters registry the new sub-registry Reply Mode.  All code points
   in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be allocated
   according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in [RFC8126].
   Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be
   allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure
   specified in [RFC8126].  The remaining code points are allocated
   according to Table 11.

               +===========+==============+===============+
               | Value     | Description  | Reference     |
               +===========+==============+===============+
               | 0         |   Reserved   | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 1- 175    |  Unassigned  | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 176 - 239 |  Unassigned  | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 252 - 254 | Private Use  | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 255       |   Reserved   | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+

                      Table 11: SFC Echo Reply Mode

   All code points in the range 1 through 191 in this registry shall be
   allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in
   [RFC8126] and assign values as listed in Table 12.



















Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


      +=======+====================================+===============+
      | Value |            Description             | Reference     |
      +=======+====================================+===============+
      | 0     |              Reserved              |               |
      +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
      | TBA5  |            Do Not Reply            | This document |
      +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
      | TBA6  | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet  | This document |
      +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
      | TBA7  |    Reply via Application Level     | This document |
      |       |          Control Channel           |               |
      +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
      | TBA8  |      Reply via Specified Path      | This document |
      +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
      | TBA9  | Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet  | This document |
      |       | with the data integrity protection |               |
      +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
      | TBA10 |    Reply via Application Level     | This document |
      |       |   Control Channel with the data    |               |
      |       |        integrity protection        |               |
      +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
      | TBA11 | Reply via Specified Path with the  | This document |
      |       |     data integrity protection      |               |
      +-------+------------------------------------+---------------+

                   Table 12: SFC Echo Reply Mode Values

9.3.5.  SFC Echo Return Codes

   IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
   Parameters registry the new sub-registry Return Codes as described in
   Table 13.

            +=========+=============+=========================+
            | Value   | Description | Reference               |
            +=========+=============+=========================+
            | 0-191   |  Unassigned | IETF Review             |
            +---------+-------------+-------------------------+
            | 192-251 |  Unassigned | First Come First Served |
            +---------+-------------+-------------------------+
            | 252-254 |  Unassigned | Private Use             |
            +---------+-------------+-------------------------+
            | 255     |   Reserved  |                         |
            +---------+-------------+-------------------------+

                      Table 13: SFC Echo Return Codes





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   Values defined for the Return Codes sub-registry are listed in
   Table 14.

        +=======+=================================+===============+
        | Value |           Description           | Reference     |
        +=======+=================================+===============+
        | 0     |          No Return Code         | This document |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | 1     | Malformed Echo Request received | This document |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | 2     | One or more of the TLVs was not | This document |
        |       |            understood           |               |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | 3     |      Authentication failed      | This document |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | 4     |           TTL Exceeded          | This document |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | 5     |          End of the SFP         | This document |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | 6     | Reply Path TLV is missing       | This document |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | 7     | Reply SFP was not found         | This document |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | 8     | Unverifiable Reply Path         | This document |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+

                   Table 14: SFC Echo Return Codes Values

9.4.  SFC Active OAM TLV Type

   IANA is requested to create the SFC Active OAM TLV Type registry.
   All code points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be
   allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure specified in
   [RFC8126].  Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry
   shall be allocated according to the "First Come First Served"
   procedure specified in [RFC8126].  The remaining code points are
   allocated according to Table 15:














Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


               +===========+==============+===============+
               | Value     | Description  | Reference     |
               +===========+==============+===============+
               | 0         |   Reserved   | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 1- 175    |  Unassigned  | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 176 - 239 |  Unassigned  | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 252 - 254 | Private Use  | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+
               | 255       |   Reserved   | This document |
               +-----------+--------------+---------------+

                Table 15: SFC Active OAM TLV Type Registry

   This document defines the following new values in SFC Active OAM TLV
   Type registry:

             +========+======================+===============+
             | Value  |     Description      | Reference     |
             +========+======================+===============+
             | TBA12  |  Multiple TLVs Used  | This document |
             +--------+----------------------+---------------+
             | TBA13  |    Source ID TLV     | This document |
             +--------+----------------------+---------------+
             | TBA14  |     Errored TLVs     | This document |
             +--------+----------------------+---------------+
             | TBA23  | SFC Reply Path Type  | This document |
             +--------+----------------------+---------------+

                       Table 16: SFC OAM Type Values

9.5.  SFF Information Record TLV Type

   IANA is requested to assign a new type value from SFC OAM TLV Type
   registry as follows:

          +=======+=============================+===============+
          | Value |         Description         | Reference     |
          +=======+=============================+===============+
          | TBA18 | SFF Information Record Type | This document |
          +-------+-----------------------------+---------------+

                      Table 17: SFF-Information Record




Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


9.6.  SF Information Sub-TLV Type

   IANA is requested to assign a new type value from SFC OAM TLV Type
   registry as follows:

                +=======+================+===============+
                | Value |  Description   | Reference     |
                +=======+================+===============+
                | TBA19 | SF Information | This document |
                +-------+----------------+---------------+

                  Table 18: SF-Information Sub-TLV Type

9.7.  SF Identifier Types

   IANA is requested to create in the registry SF Types the new sub-
   registry SF Identifier Types.  All code points in the range 1 through
   191 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF
   Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126] and assign values as
   follows:

          +=============+=============+=========================+
          | Value       | Description | Reference               |
          +=============+=============+=========================+
          | 0           |   Reserved  | This document           |
          +-------------+-------------+-------------------------+
          | TBA20       |     IPv4    | This document           |
          +-------------+-------------+-------------------------+
          | TBA21       |     IPv6    | This document           |
          +-------------+-------------+-------------------------+
          | TBA22       |     MAC     | This document           |
          +-------------+-------------+-------------------------+
          | TBA22+1-191 |  Unassigned | IETF Review             |
          +-------------+-------------+-------------------------+
          | 192-251     |  Unassigned | First Come First Served |
          +-------------+-------------+-------------------------+
          | 252-254     |  Unassigned | Private Use             |
          +-------------+-------------+-------------------------+
          | 255         |   Reserved  | This document           |
          +-------------+-------------+-------------------------+

                        Table 19: SF Identifier Type

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               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>.

   [RFC8300]  Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
              "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity]
              Boucadair, M., Reddy, T., and D. Wing, "Integrity
              Protection for the Network Service Header (NSH) and
              Encryption of Sensitive Context Headers", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-09,
              20 September 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-09>.

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv]
              Wei, Y., Elzur, U., Majee, S., Pignataro, C., and D. E.
              Eastlake, "Network Service Header Metadata Type 2
              Variable-Length Context Headers", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-08, 1 September
              2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              sfc-nsh-tlv-08>.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.

   [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>.








Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   [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>.

   [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.

   [RFC7110]  Chen, M., Cao, W., Ning, S., Jounay, F., and S. Delord,
              "Return Path Specified Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping",
              RFC 7110, DOI 10.17487/RFC7110, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7110>.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8595]  Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
              Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", RFC 8595,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8595, June 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8595>.

   [RFC8924]  Aldrin, S., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., Ed., Krishnan,
              R., and A. Ghanwani, "Service Function Chaining (SFC)
              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
              Framework", RFC 8924, DOI 10.17487/RFC8924, October 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8924>.





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   [RFC9015]  Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Uttaro, J., and L.
              Jalil, "BGP Control Plane for the Network Service Header
              in Service Function Chaining", RFC 9015,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9015, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9015>.

Contributors' Addresses

   Cui Wang
   Individual contributor

   Email: lindawangjoy@gmail.com


   Bhumip Khasnabish
   Individual contributor

   Email: vumip1@gmail.com


   Zhonghua Chen
   China Telecom
   No.1835, South PuDong Road
   Shanghai
   201203
   China

   Phone: +86 18918588897
   Email: 18918588897@189.cn


Authors' Addresses

   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com


   Wei Meng
   ZTE Corporation
   No.50 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
   Nanjing,
   China

   Email: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC               October 2021


   Ting Ao
   Individual contributor
   No.889, BiBo Road
   Shanghai
   201203
   China

   Phone: +86 17721209283
   Email: 18555817@qq.com


   Kent Leung
   Cisco System
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134,
   United States of America

   Email: kleung@cisco.com


   Gyan Mishra
   Verizon Inc.

   Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com



























Mirsky, et al.            Expires 11 April 2022                [Page 37]