Routing Area Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational E. Nordmark
Expires: January 9, 2017 Arista Networks
C. Pignataro
N. Kumar
D. Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Chen
Y. Li
Huawei Technologies
D. Mozes
Mellanox Technologies Ltd.
S. Pallagatti
I. Bagdonas
July 8, 2016
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Overlay Networks:
Gap Analysis
draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis-02
Abstract
This document provides an overview of the Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) for overlay networks. The OAM toolset includes
set of fault management and performance monitoring capabilities
(operating in the data plane) that comply with the Overlay OAM
Requirements. Insufficient functional coverage of existing OAM
protocols also noted in this document. The protocol definitions for
each of the Overlay OAM tools to be defined in separate documents.
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."
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Working Group Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. NVO3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overlay OAM Toolset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Overlay OAM Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity
Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity
Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3. Alarm Indication Signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Overlay OAM Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Overlay OAM PM Active . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Overlay OAM PM Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Telemetry in Overlay OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
1. Introduction
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset provides
methods for fault management and performance monitoring in each layer
of the network, in order to improve their ability to support services
with guaranteed and strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs) while
reducing operational costs.
[RFC7276] provided detailed analysis of OAM protocols. Since its
completion several new protocols that define data plane encapsulation
were introduced. That presented both need to re-evaluate existing
set of OAM tools and opportunity to build it into set of tools that
can be used and re-used for different data plane protocols.
[I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement] defines the set of requirements
for OAM in Overlay networks. The OAM solution for Overlay networks,
developed by the design team, has two objectives:
o The Overlay OAM toolset should be developed based on existing IP
and IP/MPLS architecture, technology, and toolsets.
o The Overlay OAM operational experience should be similar to that
in other, e.g. IP and IP/MPLS, networks.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
1.1.1. Terminology
Term "Overlay OAM" used in this document interchangeably with longer
version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for Overlay
networks".
AIS Alarm Indication Signal
BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
BIER Bit-Indexed Explicit Replication
CC Continuity Check
CV Connectivity Verification
FM Fault Management
G-ACh Generic Associated Channel
Geneve Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
GUE Generic UDP Encapsulation
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
NTP Network Time Protocol
NVO3 Network Virtalization Overlays
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
OWAMP One-Way Active Measurement Protocol
PM Performance Measurement
PTP Precision Time Protocol
SFC Service Fundction Chaining
SFP Service Function Path
SLA Service Level Agreement
TWAMP Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
VxLAN Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network
VxLAN-GPE Generic Protocol Extension for VxLAN
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. Working Group Overview
2.1. BIER
The BIER working group has some WG documents on OAM which are
discussed further in this document.
2.2. NVO3
The NVO3 encapsulations (Geneve [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve], GUE
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue], and GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]) all have some
notion of a OAM bit or flag. In Geneve this is defined to not apply
to intermediate (underlay) routers and that the setting of the bit
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
doesn't affect the ECMP hash. The other proposals do not have as
succinct constraints on their OAM bit/flag.
There are currently no NVO3 working group OAM protocol
specifications. The OAM documents that have been discussed are
individual drafts such as [I-D.ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements],
[I-D.nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute],
[I-D.pang-nvo3-vxlan-path-detection],
[I-D.saum-nvo3-pmtud-over-vxlan], and
[I-D.singh-nvo3-vxlan-router-alert].
2.3. SFC
TBD
3. Overlay OAM Toolset
It is expected that the encapsulation of an overlay network uses one
of methods discussed in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap] to distinctly
identify the payload as OAM, i.e. non-user, packet. In its turn all
Overlay OAM protocols share the common Overlay OAM Header. Format
and processing of the header are outside the scope of this document
and will be presented in the solution document.
3.1. Overlay OAM Fault Management
Protocols that enable Fault Management functions of OAM toolset are
comprised of protocols that perform proactive and on-demand defect
detection and failure localization.
3.1.1. Proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) has been designed as
proactive Continuity Check protocol. [RFC6428] defined extension to
support Connectivity Verification in MPLS-TP networks . Following
BFD specifications can be used in overlay networks:
o BFD for point-to-point as defined in [RFC5880], [RFC5882],
[RFC5883], [RFC5884], [RFC5885], [RFC6428] and [RFC7726];
o BFD for multipoint network as defined in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]
and [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail];
o S-BFD as defined in [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base] and
[I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-ip];
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
3.1.1.1. Proactive CC/CV in BIER
. Bit-Indexed Explicit Replication (BIER) provides the multicast
service. For that BFD over multipoint network
[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] and [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail]
are the most suitable of BFD family Figure 1 presents IP/UDP format
of BFD over BIER in MPLS network.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Stack Element |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Stack Element |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BIER-MPLS label | |1| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1| Ver | Len | Entropy |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BitString (first 32 bits) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ BitString (last 32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|OAM| Reserved | Proto | BFIR-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ IP Header ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port | Destination Port (3784) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ BFD control packet ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: BFD over BIER with IP/UDP format
Proto field MUST be set to IPv4 or IPv6 vlalue. Note that IP
Destination address in Figure 1 must follow Section 7 [RFC5884], i.e.
?the destination IP address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8
range for IPv4 and from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6.?
BFD packets in the reverse direction of the BFD session will be
transmitted on IP network to the IP address mapped to the BFIR-id and
the destination UDP port number set as source UDP port number of the
received BFD packet.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
IP/UDP format presents overhead, particularly in case of IPv6 address
family. Thus option to avoid use of extra headers for OAM seems
attractive. Figure 2 presents G-ACh format of BFD over BIER in MPLS
network. Proto field of the BIER header MUST be set to OAM value.
BFD control packet follows the BIER OAM header as defined in
[I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping]. According to the Section 3.1 of
[I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping], Ver is set to 1; BFD control packet over
multi-point without or with active tail accordingly identified in
Message Type Field. The Proto field ?is used to define if there is
any data packet immediately following the OAM payload?.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Stack Element |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Stack Element |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BIER-MPLS label | |1| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1| Ver | Len | Entropy |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BitString (first 32 bits) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ BitString (last 32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|OAM| Reserved | Proto | BFIR-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ver | Message Type | Proto | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ BFD control packet ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: BFD over BIER with G-ACh format
3.1.1.2. Proactive CC/CV in NVO3
There is currently no WG document on proactive CC/CV. The individual
requirements document [I-D.ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements] covers this
and there is a related proposal for BFD over VXLAN in
[I-D.spallagatti-bfd-vxlan].
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
3.1.1.3. Proactive CC/CV over SFP
3.1.2. On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification protocols
include:
o MPLS Echo Request/Reply, a.k.a. LSP Ping, as defined in [RFC4379]
and its numerous extensions;
o LSP Self-ping, as defined in [RFC7746];
o [I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping] is a good example of generic
troubleshooting and defect localization tool that can be extended
and suited for more specific requirements of the particular type
of an overlay network;
3.1.2.1. On-demand CC/CV in BIER
[I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping] defines format of Echo Request/Reply
control packet and set of TLVs that can be used to perform failure
detection and isolation in BIER domain over MPLS network.
3.1.2.2. On-demand CC/CV in NVO3
There is currently no WG document for on-demand CC/CV.
Individual documents exist for tracing such as
[I-D.pang-nvo3-vxlan-path-detection], and
[I-D.nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute].
3.1.2.3. On-demand CC/CV over SFP
3.1.3. Alarm Indication Signal
3.1.3.1. AIS in BIER
3.1.3.2. AIS in NVO3
There is currently no WG document on Alarm Indication Signal.
The individual draft [I-D.nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute]
suggests reusing ICMP errors for defect indications.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
3.1.3.3. AIS over SFP
3.2. Overlay OAM Performance Measurement
These protocols may be considered for Overlay Performance Measurement
(PM) OAM:
o packet loss and delay measurement in MPLS networks, as defined in
[RFC6374] with ability to export measurement results for post-
processing [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path];
o One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP), as defined in
[RFC4656], and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP), as
defined in [RFC5357], [RFC6038], and [RFC7750];
o use of the Marking Method [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] that, if
accordingly supported by the overlay layer, can behave as close as
technically possible to a passive method to measure performance,
e.g. [I-D.mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam].
3.2.1. Overlay OAM PM Active
Requirements towards PM OAM for overlay networks are listed in the
Section 4.2 [I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement]. Two sets of
performance measurement protocols had been developed at IETF so far:
o OWAMP [RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357] each includes the control
protocol to negotiate required parameters and control a test
session as well as the test protocol itself that specify format
and processing of a test packet. Historically, TWAMP, that
enables measurement of the latency, packet loss both as one-way
and round trip performance metric, has been implemented more often
and thus gained wider deployment than OWAMP. There are several
properties of the test protocol that may not be suitable for its
use in overlay networks:
- the test protocol is targetted to IP layer and carries some IP-
specific information;
- the format of the sent test and the reflected packets differ
significantly and that complicates efficient HW-based
implementation;
- latency and packet loss measurement operations are bundled
together and that causes certain overhead when only one of
performance metrics is to be measured;
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
- only Network Time Protocol (NTP) format of timestamp is
currently supported that requires additional processing to
convert from IEEE-1588 time format that broadly supported in
many current packet forwarding engines.
o [RFC6374] defines the test protocol that enables measurement of
the latency and paket loss as one-way and round-trip perfomance
metrics. Comparing to OWAMP/TWAMP RFC 6374 has certain
advantages:
- the test protocol is flexible and these performance metrics can
be measured independently or in the single test session;
- the protocol does not carry transport layer specific
information;
- there's no difference between format of the packet transmitted
by the sender and reflected by the responder as the test
packets preallocates space for all necesary data it collects;
- both NTP and PTP time formats allowed to be used to record time
for latency measurement.
[RFC6374] can be used as foundation of active PM OAM in overlay
networks. The YANG data model [RFC6020] of the packet loss and delay
measurement based on [RFC6374] can improve control and increase
operational value of active performance measurement in overlay
networks.
3.2.1.1. Active PM in BIER
Currently there is no draft related to active PM OAM in the WG.
3.2.1.2. Active PM in NVO3
Performance management has been discussed in NVO3 but there is
currently no draft in the WG.
3.2.1.3. Active PM over SFP
3.2.2. Overlay OAM PM Passive
3.2.2.1. Passive PM in BIER
[I-D.mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam] describes how the Marking Method can be
used in BIER domain over MPLS networks.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
3.2.2.2. Passive PM in NVO3
Marking has been discussed in NVO3 sessions, but there is no draft in
the working group.
The Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe],
Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve],
Generic UDP Encapsulation [I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue] are just some examples
of the new encapsulations to support network virtualization. NVO3 PM
would be used to probe the NV Edge to NV Edge tunnels and NV Edge
entity status for a DC network. The main requirement for Performance
Management is to be able to support measurement of the frame loss,
delay and delay variation between two NV Edge devices that support
the same VNI within a given NVO3 domain on per VNI basis. Alternate
Marking Method [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] enables calculation of these
metrics but sets forth requirements toward overlay encapsulation to
make use of the AMM behave in the network as passive OAM per
definition in [RFC7799].
3.2.2.3. Passive PM over SFP
In the SFC architecture SF, SFF, Classifier and NSH Proxy Agent are
the elements that can incorporate the measurement agent functionality
to support SFC performance measurement. The required OAM Performance
Measurement, as described in [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework] highlight
the capability to assess the monitoring at SF and SFF or a Set of SF/
SFF, both in case of SFC-aware SF and SFC-unaware SF; the monitoring
of SFP (and RSP) that comprises a set of SFs that may be ordered or
unordered; the monitoring of the Classifiers operation and the
monitoring of the SFC as a whole.
Performance measurement includes measuring of packet loss, delay,
delay variation and could be performed by the marking method proposed
in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark]. To make use of the marking method
behave as passive OAM, as defined in [RFC7799], the overlay network
encapsulation should allocate the field, preferrably two bits long,
whose value does not affect how a packet is treated by the overlay
network.
3.3. Telemetry in Overlay OAM
Excessive use of the in-band OAM channel may affect user flow and
thus change network behavior. For example, if operator uses passive
measurement exporting massive amount of data over the OAM channel may
affect network. I think that a management channel should be used in
such case. Obviously it may traverse the same nodes and links but
may not require the same QoS. We can refer to LMAP Reference Model
[RFC7594] with Controller, Measurement Agent and Data Collector.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
[I-D.lapukhov-dataplane-probe] proposes transport independent generic
telemetry probe structure.
3.4. Conclusions
o A common Overlay OAM header should be defined to support
demultiplexing of OAM protocols.
o Existing modes of BFD protocol, primarily its Async mode, can be
used either in IP/UDP or ACH format, as proactive continuity check
mechanism in overlay networks.
o A new control packet to be used for on-demand CC/CV in overlay
networks should be defined. Set of common TLVs may be defined
while more specific TLVs to be defined by respective groups of
experts.
o [RFC6374] can be used as the foundation of active performance
measurement OAM in overlay networks.
o YANG data model of the active PM OAM in overlay networks would
improve control and increase operational value of the test
methods.
o Performance measurement includes measuring of packet loss, delay,
delay variation and could be performed by the marking method, for
example as proposed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark]. To make use of
the marking method behave as passive OAM, as defined in [RFC7799],
the overlay network encapsulation should allocate the field,
preferrably two bits long, whose value does not affect how a
packet is treated by the overlay network.
4. IANA Considerations
This document does not propose any IANA consideration. This section
may be removed.
5. Security Considerations
6. Acknowledgement
TBD
7. References
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
7.1. 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>.
7.2. 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-bfd-multipoint]
Katz, D., Ward, D., and J. Networks, "BFD for Multipoint
Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-08 (work in
progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail]
Katz, D., Ward, D., and J. Networks, "BFD Multipoint
Active Tails.", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-02
(work in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base]
Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and J.
Networks, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-11 (work in
progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-ip]
Pignataro, C., Ward, D., and N. Akiya, "Seamless
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6
and MPLS", draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-06 (work in
progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L.,
Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate Marking method for passive performance
monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-01 (work in
progress), July 2016.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path]
Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., and S. Soni, "RFC6374 UDP
Return Path", draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-05
(work in progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]
Gross, J. and I. Ganga, "Geneve: Generic Network
Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-01
(work in progress), January 2016.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue]
Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-04 (work in progress),
July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
Kreeger, L. and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol Extension for
VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress),
April 2016.
[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-01 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[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-01 (work in progress), February 2016.
[I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", draft-kumarzheng-
bier-ping-03 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.lapukhov-dataplane-probe]
Lapukhov, P. and r. remy@barefootnetworks.com, "Data-plane
probe for in-band telemetry collection", draft-lapukhov-
dataplane-probe-01 (work in progress), June 2016.
[I-D.mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam]
Mirsky, G., Zheng, L., Chen, M., and G. Fioccola,
"Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit
Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer", draft-mirsky-
bier-pmmm-oam-01 (work in progress), March 2016.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
[I-D.nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute]
Nordmark, E., Appanna, C., and A. Lo, "Layer-Transcending
Traceroute for Overlay Networks like VXLAN", draft-
nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute-02 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement]
Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Kumar, D., Mirsky, G., Chen, M.,
Nordmark, E., Networks, J., and D. Mozes, "Overlay OAM
Requirements", draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-01
(work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.pang-nvo3-vxlan-path-detection]
<>, J., Liu, D., Liu, D., Zhang, D., Yizhou, L., Chen, H.,
<>, D., <>, B., Kumar, D., Gao, R., and Y. Qiao, "Path
Detection in VXLAN Overlay Network", draft-pang-nvo3-
vxlan-path-detection-02 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.saum-nvo3-pmtud-over-vxlan]
Dikshit, S. and A. Nayak, "PMTUD Over Vxlan", draft-saum-
nvo3-pmtud-over-vxlan-03 (work in progress), June 2016.
[I-D.singh-nvo3-vxlan-router-alert]
Singh, K., Jain, P., Rio, D., Henderickx, W., Shekhar, R.,
and R. Rahman, "VxLAN Router Alert Option", draft-singh-
nvo3-vxlan-router-alert-02 (work in progress), September
2015.
[I-D.spallagatti-bfd-vxlan]
Networks, J., sajibasil@gmail.com, s., Paragiri, S.,
Govindan, V., Mudigonda, M., and G. Mirsky, "BFD for
VXLAN", draft-spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-03 (work in progress),
April 2016.
[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>.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC5882] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5882, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5882>.
[RFC5883] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, DOI 10.17487/RFC5883,
June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5883>.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884,
June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884>.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6038] Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size
Features", RFC 6038, DOI 10.17487/RFC6038, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6038>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC6428] Allan, D., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and J. Drake, Ed.,
"Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check,
and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport
Profile", RFC 6428, DOI 10.17487/RFC6428, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6428>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
[RFC7726] Govindan, V., Rajaraman, K., Mirsky, G., Akiya, N., and S.
Aldrin, "Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD
Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7726,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7726, January 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7726>.
[RFC7746] Bonica, R., Minei, I., Conn, M., Pacella, D., and L.
Tomotaki, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Self-Ping", RFC 7746,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7746, January 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7746>.
[RFC7750] Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon, "Differentiated
Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification
Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7750>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
Erik Nordmark
Arista Networks
Email: nordmark@acm.org
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis July 2016
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Deepak Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: dekumar@cisco.com
Mach Chen
Huawei Technologies
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Yizhou Li
Huawei Technologies
Email: liyizhou@huawei.com
David Mozes
Mellanox Technologies Ltd.
Email: davidm@mellanox.com
Santosh Pallagatti
Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com
Ignas Bagdonas
Email: ibagdona@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 18]