spring N. Kumar
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: July 3, 2016 N. Akiya
Big Switch Networks
R. Geib
Deutsche Telekom
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
S. Litkowski
Orange
December 31, 2015
OAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network
draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-01
Abstract
This document describes a list of functional requirement for OAM in
Segment Routing (SR) based network.
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 http://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 July 3, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Kumar, et al. Expires July 3, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-DraftOAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network December 2015
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. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Detailed Requirement list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] introduces and explains Segment
Routing architecture that leverages source routing and tunneling
standards which can be applied directly to MPLS dataplane with no
changes on forwarding plane and on IPv6 dataplane with new Routing
Extension Header.
This document list the OAM requirements for Segment Routing based
network which can further be used to produce OAM tools, either
through enhancing existing OAM tools or constructing new OAM tools,
for path liveliness and service validation.
2. Requirements notation
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].
3. Terminology
SR OAM Packet: OAM probe originated and processed within SR domain(s)
ECMP: Equal Cost Multipath
SR: Segment Routing
Kumar, et al. Expires July 3, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-DraftOAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network December 2015
UCMP: Unequal Cost Multipath
Initiator: Centralized OAM initiator or PMS as referred in
[I-D.geib-spring-oam-usecase]
4. Detailed Requirement list
This section list the OAM requirement for Segment Routing based
network. The below listed requirement MUST be supported with both
MPLS and IPv6 dataplane:
REQ#1: SR OAM MUST support both On-demand and Continuous OAM
functionality.
REQ#2: The SR OAM packet MUST follow exactly the same path as
dataplane traffic.
REQ#3: The SR OAM packet MUST have the ability to discover and
exercise equal cost multipath (ECMP) paths.
REQ#4: The SR OAM packet MUST have the ability to discover and
exercise unequal cost multipath (UCMP) paths.
REQ#5: The SR OAM packet MUST have ability to exercise any
available paths, not just best path available.
REQ#6: The forwarding semantic of adjacency Segment ID raises a
need for additional consideration to detect any failure in
forwarding to the right adjacency. SR OAM MUST have the
ability to detect any failure in Node SID and adjacency
segment based forwarding.
REQ#7: SR OAM SHOULD have the ability to allow the Initiator to
control the return path from any transit or egress
responder.
REQ#8: SR OAM MUST have the ability to be initialized from an
arbitrary node to perform connectivity verification and
continuity check to any other node within SR domain.
REQ#9: In case of any failure with continuity check, SR OAM SHOULD
support rapid Connectivity Fault localization to isolate the
node on which the failure occurs.
REQ#10: SR OAM SHOULD also have the ability to be initialized from a
centralized controller.
Kumar, et al. Expires July 3, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-DraftOAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network December 2015
REQ#11: When SR OAM is initialized from centralized controller, it
MUST have the ability to alert any edge node in SR domain
about the corresponding path or service failure. The node
on receiving the alert MAY take a local protection action or
pop an informational message.
REQ#12: When SR OAM is initialized from centralized controller, it
SHOULD support node redundancy. If primary Initiator fails,
secondary one MUST take over the responsibility without
having any impact on customer traffic.
REQ#13: SR OAM MUST have the ability to measure Packet loss, Packet
Delay or Delay variation using Active (using synthetic
probe) and Passive (using data stream) mode.
REQ#14: When a new path is instantiated, SR OAM SHOULD allow path
verification without noticeable delay.
REQ#15: The above listed requirements SHOULD be supported without
any scalability limitation imposed and SHOULD be extensible
to accommodate any new SR functionality.
REQ#16: SR OAM SHOULD minimize the need to create or maintain per
path state entry in any other nodes other than the
Initiator.
REQ#17: When traffic engineering is initiated by centralized
controller device, and when SR OAM is performed by
individual nodes, there MUST be a mechanism to communicate
failure to centralized controller device.
REQ#18: When service instruction is present in SR OAM packet header,
there MUST be a method to disallow applying the service to
the OAM packet to handle cases where that may result in
unintended corruption of the OAM packet.
5. IANA Considerations
This document does not propose any IANA consideration.
6. Security Considerations
This document list the OAM requirement for Segment Routing network
and does not raise any security considerations.
Kumar, et al. Expires July 3, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-DraftOAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network December 2015
7. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Stefano Previdi for his review.
8. Contributing Authors
Sriganesh Kini
Ericsson
Email: sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.geib-spring-oam-usecase]
Geib, R., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., and N. Kumar, "Use
case for a scalable and topology aware MPLS data plane
monitoring system", draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase-06 (work
in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
and r. rjs@rob.sh, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-07 (work in progress),
December 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", RFC 6424, DOI 10.17487/RFC6424, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6424>.
Kumar, et al. Expires July 3, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-DraftOAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network December 2015
[RFC6425] Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A.,
Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane
Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP
Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425>.
Authors' Addresses
Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Nobo Akiya
Big Switch Networks
Japan
Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
Ruediger Geib
Deutsche Telekom
Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7
Darmstadt 64295
Germany
Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
Kumar, et al. Expires July 3, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-DraftOAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network December 2015
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Kumar, et al. Expires July 3, 2016 [Page 7]
