draft-mwnpkazcap-rtgwg-common-oam-00
RTG Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft R. White
Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: April 21, 2016 E. Nordmark
Arista Networks
C. Pignataro
N. Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
S. Aldrin
Google
L. Zheng
M. Chen
Huawei Technologies
N. Akiya
Big Switch Networks
S. Pallagatti
Juniper Networks
October 19, 2015
Rationale for Transport-independent Common Operations, Administration
and Maintenance (OAM)
draft-mwnpkazcap-rtgwg-common-oam-00
Abstract
This document discusses set of Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) tools that can be used as common OAM independent of
specific encapsulation at server layer. Requirements toward server
layer to support common OAM are listed as well.
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 April 21, 2016.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Common OAM October 2015
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
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
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Use Case for Common OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The introduction and development of new service layers such as
Service Function Chaining (SFC) and Bit-Ingress Explicit Replication
(BIER), is driving the need for new Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) tools. This document discusses benefits of Common
transport independent OAM solution to support components of network
management framework known as Fault, Configuration, Accounting,
Performance, and Security (FCAPS):
o Fault monitoring and defect localization;
o Performance measurement, both passive and active.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Common OAM October 2015
1.1. Conventions used in this document
1.1.1. Terminology
The term "OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer
version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for a particular
layer".
BIER: Bit-Ingress Explicit Replication
FCAPS: Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance, and Security
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
SFC: Service Function Chaining
1.1.2. 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
[RFC2119].
2. Use Case for Common OAM
Recently several new service layers have been developed in IETF.
Each of responsible groups, e.g. SPRING, NVO3, SFC, BIER, have
formulated a set of OAM requirements, specific to their respective
layer [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement],
[I-D.ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements], [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework],
and [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]. Proposals have already been
put forward to satisfy those requirements, though mostly by enhancing
existing OAM tools, such as LSP Ping
[I-D.kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]. Enhancing existing tools
certainly leads to faster deployment of OAM but may create
operational issues later on. For instance, these new service layers
may be implemented a wide range of transport layers, e.g. MPLS or
IPv6, so OAM tools that are transport-oriented like LSP Ping would
not be able to perform end-to-end for inter-domain scenario.
At the same time, the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
protocol is being successfully adopted for IPv6 and MPLS networks,
and efforts are moving forward to define transport-independent OAM
tool based only on the requirements of one of these new services,
BIER.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap] raised question of common OAM for NVO3,
SFC, and BIER. We want to take this further and:
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Common OAM October 2015
o analyze relevant OAM requirements and document common set of
requirements towards OAM as well as requirements toward aservice
layer to enable its ability to support OAM;
o analyze OAM solutions (proactive and on-demand CC/CV, PM, FM)
being proposed and formulate approach to structure OAM tools that
may be re-used across several types on encapsulation.
3. IANA Considerations
This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section
may be removed.
4. Security Considerations
This document does not raise any security concerns or issues in
addition to ones common to networking.
5. Acknowledgement
TBD
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[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>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements]
Chen, H., Ashwood-Smith, P., Xia, L., Iyengar, R., Tsou,
T., Sajassi, A., Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Daikoku,
M., Ghanwani, A., and R. Krishnan, "NVO3 Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance Requirements", draft-
ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements-04 (work in progress),
October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]
Mirsky, G., Nordmark, E., Pignataro, C., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., Zheng, L., Chen, M., Akiya, N., and J.
Networks, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance
(OAM) Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication
(BIER) Layer", draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-00 (work
in progress), September 2015.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Common OAM October 2015
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap]
Nordmark, E., Tian, A., Gross, J., Hudson, J., Kreeger,
L., Garg, P., Thaler, P., and T. Herbert, "Encapsulation
Considerations", draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-00 (work in
progress), July 2015.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework]
Aldrin, S., Krishnan, R., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., and A.
Ghanwani, "Service Function Chaining Operation,
Administration and Maintenance Framework", draft-ietf-sfc-
oam-framework-00 (work in progress), August 2015.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Geib, R., Mirsky, G.,
and S. Litkowski, "OAM Requirements for Segment Routing
Network", draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement-00 (work in
progress), June 2015.
[I-D.kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping]
Kumar, N., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Kini,
S., Gredler, H., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS
Dataplane", draft-kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-04 (work
in progress), July 2015.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
Russ White
Ericsson
Email: russ@riw.us
Erik Nordmark
Arista Networks
Email: nordmark@acm.org
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Common OAM October 2015
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Sam Aldrin
Google
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Lianshu Zheng
Huawei Technologies
Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com
Mach Chen
Huawei Technologies
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Nobo Akiya
Big Switch Networks
Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
Santosh Pallagatti
Juniper Networks
Email: santoshpk@juniper.net
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 21, 2016 [Page 6]