[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

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]


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