[Search] [txt|xml|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
rtgwg                                                           N. Kumar
Internet-Draft                                              C. Pignataro
Intended status: Informational                                  D. Kumar
Expires: September 22, 2016                          Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                             E. Nordmark
                                                         Arista Networks
                                                           S. Pallagatti
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                D. Mozes
                                               Mellanox Technologies Ltd
                                                          March 21, 2016


                        Overlay OAM Requirements
                 draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-requirement-00

Abstract

   This document describes a list of functional requirements for
   Operations Administration and Maintenance (OAM) in various Overlay
   and Service networks like Service Function Chaining (SFC), Bit Index
   Explicit Replication (BIER), Network Virtualization over Layer 3
   (NVO3).

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 September 22, 2016.







Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Overlay OAM Requirements              March 2016


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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Detailed Requirement List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Fault Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  Pro-active Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.2.  On-demand Fault Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Performance Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Alarm Indication Suppression  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Overlay Network Resiliency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   We have witnessed and participated in design of new paradigms in the
   networking that are aimed to address network virtualization, service
   function chaining, and multicast services.  New paradigms require new
   architectural concepts, principles and components.  [RFC7365] defines
   a framework for Data Center Network Virtualization over Layer 3
   (NVO3).  [RFC7665] describes the architecture for creating and
   maintaining Service Function Chains (SFCs) in a network.
   [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] defines a stateless multicast
   architecture for optimal multicast packet forwarding using "Bit Index
   Explicit Replication" (BIER).  These frameworks are defined in a




Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Overlay OAM Requirements              March 2016


   flexible manner that they are transport agnostic and may be deployed
   on various underlay networks such as IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS.

   The above mentioned new architectural concepts and principles have
   been combined into new network layers with distinct encapsulation
   headers.  For example, [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh] defines an encapsulation
   header as Network Service Header (NSH) to realize Service Function
   Path.  While [RFC7348] (VxLAN) and [RFC7637] (NVGRE) are different
   encapsulation header proposed for NVO3, [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
   extends VxLAN further to be used for Service Function Chain (SFC).
   Similarly, [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] defines the BIER
   encapsulation header over MPLS network and
   [I-D.xu-bier-encapsulation] describes the BIER encapsulation header
   over IP network.

   Introduction of the new Overlay networks, sets forth new Operations,
   Administration and Maintenance (OAM) requirements that can be
   addressed by enhancing the existing toolset or developing new
   protocols.  For example, [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework] defines the
   framework for SFC OAM, [I-D.nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute]
   proposes a way to perform traceroute in NVO3 networks and
   [I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping] proposes on-demand connectivity
   verification and fault isolation procedure (Ping and Trace) on BIER
   network.

   The goal of this document is to identify and list the OAM
   requirements commonly applicable to new Overlay networks which can
   further be used to analyze the existing OAM tools.  The identified
   gaps can be addressed, either through enhancing existing OAM tools
   and if necessary, constructing new OAM tools, that can be used as a
   common unified OAM toolset to support and perform various OAM
   functions including proactive and on-demand path monitoring and
   service validation on the new Overlay network.

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

   ECMP: Equal Cost Multipath

   UCMP: Unequal Cost Multipath

   SFC: Service Function Chaining




Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Overlay OAM Requirements              March 2016


   BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication

   NVO3: Network Virtualization over L3

   OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance

   MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching

   VxLAN: Virtual Extensible Local Area Network

   NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation

4.  Detailed Requirement List

   This section list the OAM requirement for different Overlay networks.
   The below listed requirement MUST be supported with any underlay
   transport network:

   REQ#1:  The listed requirements MUST be supported with any type of
            transport layer over which the overlay network can be
            realized

   REQ#2:  It MUST be possible to initialize Overlay OAM session from
            any node in the overlay network.

   REQ#3:  It SHOULD be possible to initialize an Overlay OAM session
            from a centralized controller.

   REQ#4:  Overlay OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM
            monitoring and measurement methods.

   REQ#5:  Overlay OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, both
            continuity check and performance measurement.

   REQ#6:  Overlay OAM packets SHOULD be fate sharing with data traffic,
            i.e. in-band with the monitored traffic, i.e. follow exactly
            the same path as data plane traffic, in forward direction,
            i.e. from ingress toward egress end point(s) of the OAM test
            session.

   REQ#7:  Overlay OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods.  Such
            OAM methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in
            forward direction and out-of-band notification in the
            reverse direction, i.e. from egress to ingress end point of
            the OAM test session.






Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Overlay OAM Requirements              March 2016


4.1.  Fault Management

4.1.1.  Pro-active Fault Management

   Availability, not as performance metric, is understood as ability to
   reach the node, i.e. the fact that path between ingress and egress
   does exist.  Such OAM mechanism also referred as Continuity Check.

   REQ#8:  Overlay OAM MUST support pro-active monitoring of any virtual
            node availability in the given overlay network.

   REQ#9:  Overlay OAM MUST support Reverse Defect Indication (RDI)
            notification by egress to the ingress, i.e. source of
            continuity checking.

   REQ#10: Overlay OAM MUST support connectivity verification.
            Definition of mis-connectivity defect entry and exit
            criteria are outside the scope of this document.

4.1.2.  On-demand Fault Management

   REQ#11: Overlay OAM MUST support fault localization of Loss of
            Continuity check.

   REQ#12: Overlay OAM MUST support tracing path in overlay network
            through the virtual nodes.

   REQ#13: Overlay OAM MAY support verification of the mapping between
            its data plane state and client layer services.

   REQ#14: Overlay OAM MUST have the ability to discover and exercise
            equal cost multipath (ECMP) paths in its transport network.

   REQ#15: Overlay OAM MUST be able to trigger on-demand FM with
            responses being directed towards initiator of such proxy
            request.

4.2.  Performance Management

   REQ#16:  Overlay OAM MUST support active one-way packet delay
            measurement.

   REQ#17:  Overlay OAM MUST support passive one-way packet delay
            measurement.

   REQ#18:  Overlay OAM MUST support active two-way packet delay
            measurement.




Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Overlay OAM Requirements              March 2016


   REQ#19:  Overlay OAM MUST support packet delay variation measurement.

   REQ#20:  Overlay OAM MUST support active end to end packet loss
            measurement.

   REQ#21:  Overlay OAM MUST support passive end to end packet loss
            measurement.

   REQ#22:  Overlay OAM SHOULD support active per-segment packet delay
            measurement.

   REQ#23:  Overlay OAM SHOULD support passive per-segment packet delay
            measurement.

   REQ#24:  Overlay OAM SHOULD support active per-segment packet loss
            measurement.

   REQ#25:  Overlay OAM SHOULD support passive per-segment packet loss
            measurement.

   REQ#26:  Overlay OAM MUST support delivered packet throughput
            measurement.

4.3.  Alarm Indication Suppression

   REQ#27: Overlay OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like
            Alarm Indication Signal.

   REQ#28: Any virtual node in the given overlay network MAY originate a
            defect notification addressed to any node in that network.

4.4.  Overlay Network Resiliency

   REQ#29: Overlay OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of
            an overlay network.  These recovery methods MAY use
            protection switching and restoration.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not propose any IANA consideration.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document list the OAM requirement for various Overlay network
   and does not raise any security considerations.






Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Overlay OAM Requirements              March 2016


7.  Acknowledgement

   TBD

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture]
              Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., P, T., and S.
              Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit Replication",
              draft-ietf-bier-architecture-03 (work in progress),
              January 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]
              Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J., and
              S. Aldrin, "Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit
              Replication in MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-bier-mpls-
              encapsulation-03 (work in progress), February 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
              Quinn, P., Manur, R., Kreeger, L., Lewis, D., Maino, F.,
              Smith, M., Agarwal, P., Yong, L., Xu, X., Elzur, U., Garg,
              P., and D. Melman, "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN",
              draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-01 (work in progress), November
              2015.

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]
              Quinn, P. and U. Elzur, "Network Service Header", draft-
              ietf-sfc-nsh-02 (work in progress), January 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-02 (work in progress), December 2015.

   [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-01 (work in
              progress), October 2015.




Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Overlay OAM Requirements              March 2016


   [I-D.xu-bier-encapsulation]
              Xu, X., Somasundaram, S., Jacquenet, C., and R. Raszuk,
              "BIER Encapsulation", draft-xu-bier-encapsulation-03 (work
              in progress), October 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>.

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [RFC7365]  Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and Y.
              Rekhter, "Framework for Data Center (DC) Network
              Virtualization", RFC 7365, DOI 10.17487/RFC7365, October
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7365>.

   [RFC7637]  Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
              Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
              RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.

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

8.2.  Informative References

   [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.

Authors' Addresses








Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          Overlay OAM Requirements              March 2016


   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


   Deepak Kumar
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   3700 Cisco Way
   SJ
   US

   Email: dekumar@cisco.com


   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson

   Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com


   Mach Chen
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com


   Eric Nordmark
   Arista Networks

   Email: nordmark@acm.org








Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          Overlay OAM Requirements              March 2016


   Santosh Pallagatti
   Juniper Networks

   Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com


   David Mozes
   Mellanox Technologies Ltd

   Email: davidm@mellanox.com









































Kumar, et al.          Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 10]