[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam) 00 01 02 03

SFC WG                                                         G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft                                                 ZTE Corp.
Updates: 8300 (if approved)                                      W. Meng
Intended status: Standards Track                         ZTE Corporation
Expires: November 9, 2019                                  B. Khasnabish
                                                                 C. Wang
                                                  Individual contributor
                                                             May 8, 2019


           Active OAM for Service Function Chains in Networks
                   draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-03

Abstract

   A set of requirements for active Operation, Administration and
   Maintenance (OAM) of Service Function Chains (SFCs) in networks is
   presented.  Based on these requirements an encapsulation of active
   OAM message in SFC and a mechanism to detect and localize defects
   described.  Also, this document updates RFC 8300 in the definition of
   O (OAM) bit in the Network Service Header (NSH) and defines how the
   active OAM message identified in SFC 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 November 9, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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



Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   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.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Requirements for Active OAM in SFC Network  . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Active OAM Identification in SFC NSH  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC in Networks . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Return Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  SFC Echo Request Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  SFC Echo Request Reception  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.3.1.  Errored TLVs TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.4.  SFC Echo Reply Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.5.  SFC Echo Reply Reception  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  SFC Active OAM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  SFC Active OAM Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.3.  SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters  . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.4.  SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types . . . . . . . .  14
     8.5.  SFC Echo Reply Modes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.6.  SFC Echo Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.7.  SFC TLV Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.8.  SFC OAM UDP Port  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   [RFC7665] defines components necessary to implement Service Function
   Chain (SFC).  These include a classifier which performs the
   classification of incoming packets.  A Service Function Forwarder
   (SFF) is responsible for forwarding traffic to one or more connected
   Service Functions (SFs) according to the information carried in the
   SFC encapsulation.  SFF also handles traffic coming back from the SF
   and transports the data packets to the next SFF.  And the SFF serves




Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   as termination element of the Service Function Path (SFP).  SF is
   responsible for the specific treatment of received packets.

   Resulting from that SFC is constructed by a number of these
   components, there are different views from different levels of the
   SFC.  One is the SFC, entirely abstract entity, which defines an
   ordered set of SFs that must be applied to packets selected as a
   result of classification.  But SFC doesn't specify the exact mapping
   between SFFs and SFs.  Thus there exists another semi-abstract entity
   referred to as SFP.  SFP is the instantiation of the SFC in the
   network and provides a level of indirection between the entirely
   abstract SFC 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 being referred to as Rendered Service Path (RSP).
   The main difference between SFP and RSP is that in the former the
   authority to select the SFF/SF has been delegated to the network.

   This document defines how active Operation, Administration and
   Maintenance (OAM), per [RFC7799] definition of active OAM, identified
   in Network Service Header (NSH) SFC, lists requirements to improve
   the troubleshooting efficiency, and defines SFC Echo request and Echo
   reply that enables on-demand Continuity Check, Connectivity
   Verification among other operations over SFC in networks.  Also, this
   document updates Section 2.2 of [RFC8300] in part of the definition
   of O bit in the (NSH).

2.  Conventions

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.  Terminology

   Unless explicitly specified in this document, active OAM in SFC and
   SFC OAM are being used interchangeably.

   e2e: End-to-End

   FM: Fault Management

   NSH: Network Service Header

   OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance



Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   PRNG: Pseudorandom number generator

   RDI: Remote Defect Indication

   RSP: Rendered Service Path

   SMI Structure of Management Information

   SF: Service Function

   SFC: Service Function Chain

   SFF: Service Function Forwarder

   SFP: Service Function Path

3.  Requirements for Active OAM in SFC Network

   To perform the OAM task of fault management (FM) in an SFC, that
   includes failure detection, defect characterization and localization,
   this document defines the set of requirements for active OAM
   mechanisms to be used on an SFC.


                      +---+  +---+   +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
                      |SF1|  |SF2|   |SF3|  |SF4|  |SF5|  |SF6|
                      +---+  +---+   +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
                         \    /          \  /         \  /
      +----------+       +----+         +----+        +----+
      |Classifier|-------|SFF1|---------|SFF2|--------|SFF3|
      +----------+       +----+         +----+        +----+


                       Figure 1: SFC reference model

   In the example presented in Figure 1, the service SFP1 may be
   realized through two independent RSPs, RSP1(SF1--SF3--SF5) and
   RSP2(SF2--SF4--SF5).  To perform end-to-end (e2e) FM SFC OAM:

      REQ#1: Packets of active OAM in SFC SHOULD be fate sharing with
      data traffic, i.e., in-band with the monitored traffic follow the
      same RSP, in the forward direction from ingress toward egress
      endpoint(s) of the OAM test.

      REQ#2: SFC OAM MUST support pro-active monitoring of any element
      in the SFC availability.





Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   The egress, SFF3 in the example in Figure 1, is the entity that
   detects the failure of the SFC.  It must be able to signal the new
   defect state to the ingress SFF1.  Hence the following requirement:

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

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

   Once the SFF1 detects the defect objective of OAM switches from
   failure detection to defect characterization and localization.

      REQ#5: SFC OAM MUST support fault localization of Loss of
      Continuity check in the SFC.

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

   It is practical, as presented in Figure 1, that several SFs share the
   same SFF.  In such case, SFP1 may be realized over two RSPs,
   RSP1(SF1--SF3--SF5) and RSP2(SF2--SF4--SF6).

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

   In the process of localizing the SFC failure, separating SFC OAM
   layers is an efficient approach.  To achieve that continuity among
   SFFs that are part of the same SFP should be verified.  Once SFFs
   reachability along the particular SFP has been confirmed task of
   defect localization may focus on SF reachability verification.
   Because reachability of SFFs has already verified, SFF local to the
   SF may be used as a source of the test packets.

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

4.  Active OAM Identification in SFC NSH

   The interpretation of O bit flag in the NSH header is defined in
   [RFC8300] as:

      O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM packet.

   This document updates the definition of O bit as follows:

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



Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   Active SFC OAM 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 value on the Next Protocol field MUST be
   set to Active SFC OAM (TBA1) according to Section 8.1.  The rules of
   interpreting the values of O bit and the Next Protocol field are as
   follows:

   o  O bit set, and the Next Protocol value is not one of identifying
      active or hybrid OAM protocol (per [RFC7799] definitions), e.g.,
      defined in this specification Active SFC OAM - a Fixed-Length
      Context Header or Variable-Length Context Header(s) contain OAM
      command or data.  and the type of payload determined by the Next
      Protocol field;

   o  O bit set, and the Next Protocol value is one of identifying
      active or hybrid OAM protocol - the payload that immediately
      follows SFC NSH contains OAM command or data;

   o  O bit is clear - no OAM in a Fixed-Length Context Header or
      Variable-Length Context Header(s) and the payload determined by
      the value of the Next Protocol field;

   o  O bit is clear and the Next Protocol value is one of identifying
      active or hybrid OAM protocol MUST be identified and reported as
      the erroneous combination.  An implementation MAY have control to
      enable processing of the OAM payload.

   From the above-listed rules follows the recommendation to avoid
   combination of OAM in a Fixed-Length Context Header or Variable-
   Length Context Header(s) and in the payload immediately following the
   SFC NSH because there is no unambiguous way to identify such
   combination using the O bit and the Next Protocol field.

   Several active OAM protocols will be needed to address all the
   requirements listed in Section 3.  Destination UDP port number may
   identify protocols if IP/UDP encapsulation used.  But extra IP/UDP
   headers, especially in the case of IPv6, add noticeable overhead.
   This document defines Active OAM Header Figure 2 to demultiplex
   active OAM protocols on an SFC.












Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


    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 bits long field indicates the current version of the SFC
      active OAM header.  The current value is 0.

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

      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.

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

5.  Echo Request/Echo Reply for SFC in Networks

   Echo Request/Reply is a well-known active OAM mechanism that is
   extensively used to detect inconsistencies between a state in control
   and the data planes, localize defects in the data plane.  The format
   of the Echo request/Echo reply control packet is to support ping and
   traceroute functionality in SFC in networks Figure 3 resembles the
   format of MPLS LSP Ping [RFC8029] with some exceptions.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         Version Number        |         Global Flags          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Message Type  |   Reply mode  |  Return Code  | Return S.code |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Sender's Handle                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Sequence Number                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                              TLVs                             ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 3: SFC Echo Request/Reply format




Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   The interpretation of the fields is as follows:

      The Version reflects the current version.  The version number is
      to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the
      ability of an implementation to parse or process control packet
      correctly.

      The Global Flags is a bit vector field.

      The Message Type filed reflects the type of the packet.  Value
      TBA3 identifies echo request and TBA4 - echo reply

      The Reply Mode defines the type of the return path requested by
      the sender of the echo request.

      Return Codes and Subcodes can be used to inform the sender about
      the result of processing its request.

      The Sender's Handle is filled in by the sender and returned
      unchanged by the receiver in the echo reply.  The sender MAY use a
      pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) to set the value of the
      Sender's Handle field.  The value of the Sender's Handle field
      SHOULD NOT be changed in the course of the test session.

      The Sequence Number is assigned by the sender and can be (for
      example) used to detect missed replies.  The value of the Sequence
      Number field SHOULD be monotonically increasing in the course of
      the test session.

      TLVs (Type-Length-Value tuples) have the two octets long Type
      field, two octets long Length field that is the length of the
      Value field in octets.  Type values, see Section 8.7, less than
      32768 identify mandatory TLVs that MUST either be supported by an
      implementation or result in the Return Code of 2 ("One or more of
      the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the echo response.
      Type values greater than or equal to 32768 identify optional TLVs
      that SHOULD be ignored if the implementation does not understand
      or support them.  If a Type value for TLV or sub-TLV is in the
      range for Vendor Private Use, the Length MUST be at least 4, and
      the first four octets MUST be that vendor's the Structure of
      Management Information (SMI) [RFC1423] Private Enterprise Number,
      in network octet order.  The rest of the Value field is private to
      the vendor.








Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


5.1.  Return Codes

   The Return Code 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
   below in the corresponding echo reply that it generates.

        Value    Meaning
        -----    -------
          0    No Return Code
          1    Malformed echo request received
          2    One or more of the TLVs was not understood

5.2.  SFC Echo Request Transmission

   SFC echo request control packet MUST use the appropriate
   encapsulation of the monitored SFP.  If Network Service Header (NSH)
   is used, echo request MUST set O bit, as defined in [RFC8300].  SFC
   NSH MUST be immediately followed by the SFC Active OAM Header defined
   in Section 4.  Message Type field in the SFC Active OAM Header MUST
   be set to SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply value (TBA2) per Section 8.2.

   Value of the Reply Mode field MAY be set to:

   o  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.

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

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

   o  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.

5.3.  SFC Echo Request Reception

   Sending an 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, the SFF that has received an SFC echo request verifies the
   general sanity of the received packet.  If the packet is not well-
   formed, the receiver SFF SHOULD send an SFC echo reply with the



Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   Return Code set to "Malformed echo request received" and the Subcode
   set to zero.  If there are any TLVs not marked as "Ignore" (i.e., if
   the TLV type is less than 32768, see Section 3) that 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 5.3.1) that as sub-TLVs contains only the misunderstood
   TLVs.  The header field's Sender's Handle, Sequence Number are not
   examined but are included in the SFC echo reply message.

5.3.1.  Errored TLVs TLV

   If the Return Code for the echo reply is determined as 2 ("One or
   more TLVs was not understood"), then the Errored TLVs TLV MAY be
   included in an echo reply.  The use of this TLV allows to inform the
   sender of an echo request of mandatory 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 Type        |            Length             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                             Value                             |
       .                                                               .
       .                                                               .
       .                                                               .
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                        Figure 4: Errored TLVs TLV

   where

      The Errored TLVs Type MUST be set to TBA11 Section 8.7.

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

5.4.  SFC Echo Reply Transmission

   The Reply Mode field directs whether and how the echo reply message
   should be sent.  The sender of the echo request MAY use TLVs to
   request that the corresponding echo reply is transmitted over the
   specified path.  Value TBA3 is referred to as "Do not reply" mode and
   suppresses transmission of echo reply packet.  The default value




Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   (TBA6) for the Reply mode field requests the responder to send the
   echo reply packet out-of-band as IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet.

   Responder to the SFC echo request sends the echo reply over IP
   network if the Reply mode is Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP Packet.
   Because SFC NSH does not identify the ingress of the SFP the echo
   request, the source ID MUST be included in the message and used as
   the IP destination address for IP/UDP encapsulation of the SFC echo
   reply.  The sender of the SFC echo request MUST include 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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |   SFC OAM Source ID Type    |           Length              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                           Value                             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                         Figure 5: SFC Source TLV

   where

      SFC OAM Source Id Type is two octets in length and has the value
      of TBA9 Section 8.7.

      Length is two octets long field, and the value equals the length
      of the Value field in octets.

      Value field contains the IP address of the sender of the SFC OAM
      control message, IPv4 or IPv6.

   The UDP destination port for SFC Echo Reply TBA10 will be allocated
   by IANA Section 8.8.

5.5.  SFC Echo Reply Reception

   An SFF SHOULD NOT accept SFC echo reply unless the received passes
   the following checks:

   o  the received SFC echo reply is well-formed;

   o  it has outstanding SFC echo request sent from the UDP port that
      matches destination UDP port number of the received packet;






Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   o  if the matching to the echo request found, the value of Sender's
      Handle n the echo request sent is equal to the value of Sender's
      Handle in the echo reply received;

   o  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.

6.  Security Considerations

   Overlay Echo Request/Reply operates within the domain of the overlay
   network and thus inherits any security considerations that apply to
   the use of that overlay technology and, consequently, underlay data
   plane.  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 of attacking a node in the
   overlay network using the mechanisms defined in the document.  One is
   a Denial-of-Service attack, by sending SFC ping 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 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 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.

7.  Acknowledgments

   Authors greatly appreciate thorough review and the most helpful
   comments from Dan Wing and Dirk von Hugo.







Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  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 1: SFC Active OAM Protocol

8.2.  SFC Active OAM Message Type

   IANA is requested to create a new 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
   as specified in [RFC8126].  Remaining code points to be allocated
   according to the table Table 2:

         +---------------+-------------+-------------------------+
         | 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 2: SFC Active OAM Message Type

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

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

                 Table 3: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Type






Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


8.3.  SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters

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

8.4.  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 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     |                         |
        | TBA3       | SFC Echo Request | This document           |
        | TBA4       |  SFC Echo Reply  | This document           |
        | TBA4+1-191 |    Unassigned    | IETF Review             |
        | 192-251    |    Unassigned    | First Come First Served |
        | 252-254    |    Unassigned    | Private Use             |
        | 255        |     Reserved     |                         |
        +------------+------------------+-------------------------+

            Table 4: SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types

8.5.  SFC Echo Reply Modes

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

















Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   +------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+
   | Value      |           Description           | Reference          |
   +------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+
   | 0          |             Reserved            |                    |
   | TBA5       |           Do Not Reply          | This document      |
   | TBA6       |    Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP   | This document      |
   |            |              Packet             |                    |
   | TBA7       |   Reply via Application Level   | This document      |
   |            |         Control Channel         |                    |
   | TBA8       |     Reply via Specified Path    | This document      |
   | TBA8+1-191 |            Unassigned           | IETF Review        |
   | 192-251    |            Unassigned           | First Come First   |
   |            |                                 | Served             |
   | 252-254    |            Unassigned           | Private Use        |
   | 255        |             Reserved            |                    |
   +------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+

                       Table 5: SFC Echo Reply Modes

8.6.  SFC Echo Return Codes

   IANA is requested to create in the SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
   Parameters registry the new sub-registry Return Codes:

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

                      Table 6: SFC Echo Return Codes

   Return Codes defined in this document are the following:

        Value    Meaning
        -----    -------
          0    No Return Code
          1    Malformed echo request received
          2    One or more of the TLVs was not understood

8.7.  SFC TLV Type

   IANA is requested to create SFC OAM TLV Type registry.  All code
   points in the range 1 through 32759 in this registry shall be
   allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in



Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   [RFC8126].  Code points in the range 32760 through 65279 in this
   registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come First
   Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126].  Remaining code points
   are allocated according to the Table 7:

   +---------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
   | Value         |       Description       | Reference               |
   +---------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
   | 0             |         Reserved        | This document           |
   | 1- 32767      |      Mandatory TLV,     | IETF Review             |
   |               |        unassigned       |                         |
   | 32768 - 65279 |      Optional TLV,      | First Come First Served |
   |               |        unassigned       |                         |
   | 65280 - 65519 |       Experimental      | This document           |
   | 65520 - 65534 |       Private Use       | This document           |
   | 65535         |         Reserved        | This document           |
   +---------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+

                      Table 7: SFC TLV Type Registry

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

               +-------+-------------------+---------------+
               | Value |    Description    | Reference     |
               +-------+-------------------+---------------+
               | TBA9  | Source IP Address | This document |
               | TBA11 |    Errored TLVs   | This document |
               +-------+-------------------+---------------+

                  Table 8: SFC OAM Source IP Address Type

8.8.  SFC OAM UDP Port

   IANA is requested to allocate UDP port number according to

   +--------+-------+-----------+-------------+------------+-----------+
   | Servic | Port  | Transport | Description | Semantics  | Reference |
   | e Name | Numbe | Protocol  |             | Definition |           |
   |        | r     |           |             |            |           |
   +--------+-------+-----------+-------------+------------+-----------+
   | SFC    | TBA10 | UDP       | SFC OAM     | Section    | This      |
   | OAM    |       |           |             | 5.4        | document  |
   +--------+-------+-----------+-------------+------------+-----------+

                           Table 9: SFC OAM Port





Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


9.  References

9.1.  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,
              <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>.

9.2.  Informative References

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

   [RFC1423]  Balenson, D., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic
              Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers",
              RFC 1423, DOI 10.17487/RFC1423, February 1993,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1423>.

   [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>.

   [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>.








Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             Active OAM for SFC                   May 2019


   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Greg Mirsky
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com


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

   Email: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn,vally.meng@gmail.com


   Bhumip Khasnabish
   Individual contributor

   Email: vumip1@gmail.com


   Cui Wang
   Individual contributor

   Email: lindawangjoy@gmail.com













Mirsky, et al.          Expires November 9, 2019               [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/