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



NVO3  Working Group                                            G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft                                                 ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track                                N. Kumar
Expires: September 11, 2017                                     D. Kumar
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                                   Y. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                               D. Dolson
                                                                Sandvine
                                                          March 10, 2017


            Echo Request and Echo Reply for Overlay Networks
                   draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv-03

Abstract

   This document defines Overlay Echo Request and Echo Reply that enable
   on-demand Continuity Check, Connectivity Verification among other
   operations in overlay networks.

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 11, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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



Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
       1.1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
       1.1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification  . .   3
     2.1.  Requirements Towards On-demand CC/CV OAM  . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Overlay Echo Request Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  Overlay Echo Request Reception  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Overlay Echo Reply Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.6.  Overlay Echo Reply Reception  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Type  . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Overlay Ping Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Overlay Echo Reply Modes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Acknowledgment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

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.

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".  And "Overlay ping" is used interchangeably with longer
   version Overlay Echo Request/Reply.



Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


   CC Continuity Check

   CV Connectivity Verification

   ECMP Equal Cost Multipath

   FM Fault Management

   Geneve Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation

   GUE Generic UDP Encapsulation

   MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching

   NVO3 Network Virtualization Overlays

   OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   SFC Service Function Chaining

   SFP Service Function Path

   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.  On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification

2.1.  Requirements Towards On-demand CC/CV OAM

   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
   (CC).  Connectivity Verification (CV) extends Continuity Check
   functionality in order to provide confirmation that the desired
   source is connected to the desired sink.

   Echo Request/Reply OAM mechanism enables detection of the loss of
   continuity defect, its localization and collection information in
   order to discover root cause.  These are requirements considered:




Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


      REQ#1: MUST support fault localization of Loss of Continuity check
      at Overlay layer.

      REQ#2: MAY support fault localization of Loss of Continuity check
      at transport layer.

      REQ#3: MUST support tracing path in overlay network through the
      overlay nodes.

      REQ#4: MAY support tracing path in underlay network connecting
      overlay border nodes.

      REQ#5: MAY support verification of the mapping between its data
      plane state and client layer services.

      REQ#6: MUST have the ability to discover and exercise equal cost
      multipath (ECMP) paths in its underlay network.

      REQ#7: MUST be able to trigger on-demand FM with responses being
      directed towards initiator of such proxy request.

2.2.  Proposed Solution

   The format of the Echo Request/Echo Reply control packet is to
   support ping and traceroute functionality in overlay networks
   Figure 1 resembles the format of MPLS LSP Ping [RFC4379] 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 1: Overlay OAM Ping format

   The interpretation of the fields is as following:

      The Version reflects the current version.  The version number is
      to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the



Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


      ability of an implementation to correctly parse or process control
      packet.

      The Global Flags is a bit vector field

      The Message Type filed reflects the type of the packet.  Value
      TBA2 identifies Echo Request and TBA3 - 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
      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 Sequence Number is assigned by the sender and can be (for
      example) used to detect missed replies.

      TLVs (Type-Length-Value tuples) have the two octets long Type
      field, two octets long Length field that is length of the Value
      field in octets.

2.3.  Overlay Echo Request Transmission

   Overlay Echo Request control packet MUST use the appropriate
   encapsulation of the monitored overlay network.  Overlay network
   encapsulation MUST identify Echo Request as OAM packet.  Overlay
   encapsulation uses different methods to identify OAM payload
   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe], [I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue],
   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve],
   [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh],[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation].  Overlay
   network's header MUST be immediately followed by the Overlay OAM
   Header [I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header].  Message Type field in the
   Overlay OAM Header MUST be set to Overlay Echo Request value (TBA2).

   Value of the Reply Mode field MAY be set to:

   o  Do Not Reply (TBA4) if one-way monitoring is desired.  If 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 (TBA5) value likely will be the
      most used.

   o  Reply via Application Level Control Channel (TBA6) value if the
      overlay network MAY have bi-directional paths.



Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


   o  Reply via Specified Path (TBA7) value in order to enforce use of
      the particular return path specified in the included TLV to verify
      bi-directional continuity and also increase robustness of the
      monitoring by selecting more stable path.

2.4.  Overlay Echo Request Reception

2.5.  Overlay 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 corresponding Echo Reply be sent using the specified
   path.  Value TBA3 is referred as "Do not reply" mode and suppresses
   transmission of Echo Reply packet.  Default value (TBA5) for the
   Reply mode field requests the responder to send the Echo Reply packet
   out-of-band as IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet.  [Selection of destination
   and source IP addresses and UDP port numbers to be provided in the
   next update.]

2.6.  Overlay Echo Reply Reception

3.  IANA Considerations

3.1.  Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Type

   IANA is requested to assign new type from the Overlay OAM Protocol
   Types registry as follows:

        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | Value |           Description           | Reference     |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
        | TBA1  | Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply | This document |
        +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+

               Table 1: Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Type

3.2.  Overlay Ping Parameters

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

3.3.  Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types

   IANA is requested to create in the Overlay 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 [RFC5226]
   and assign values as follows:



Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


      +------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
      | Value      |     Description      | Reference               |
      +------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
      | 0          |       Reserved       |                         |
      | TBA2       | Overlay Echo Request | This document           |
      | TBA3       |  Overlay Echo Reply  | This document           |
      | TBA3+1-191 |      Unassigned      | IETF Review             |
      | 192-251    |      Unassigned      | First Come First Served |
      | 252-254    |      Unassigned      | Private Use             |
      | 255        |       Reserved       |                         |
      +------------+----------------------+-------------------------+

          Table 2: Overlay Echo Request/Echo Reply Message Types

3.4.  Overlay Echo Reply Modes

   IANA is requested to create in the Overlay 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 [RFC5226]
   and assign values as follows:

   +------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+
   | Value      |           Description           | Reference          |
   +------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+
   | 0          |             Reserved            |                    |
   | TBA4       |           Do Not Reply          | This document      |
   | TBA5       |    Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP   | This document      |
   |            |              Packet             |                    |
   | TBA6       |   Reply via Application Level   | This document      |
   |            |         Control Channel         |                    |
   | TBA7       |     Reply via Specified Path    | This document      |
   | TBA7+1-191 |            Unassigned           | IETF Review        |
   | 192-251    |            Unassigned           | First Come First   |
   |            |                                 | Served             |
   | 252-254    |            Unassigned           | Private Use        |
   | 255        |             Reserved            |                    |
   +------------+---------------------------------+--------------------+

                     Table 3: Overlay Echo Reply Modes

4.  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 Overlay Echo Request/Reply are




Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


   similar to those of ICMP ping [RFC0792], [RFC4443] and MPLS LSP ping
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis].

   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 Overlay ping to overload a
   node in the overlay network.  The second may use spoofing, hijacking,
   replying, or otherwise tampering with Overlay Echo Requests and/or
   Replies to misrepresent, alter operator's view of the state of the
   overlay network.  The third is an unauthorized source using an
   Overlay Echo Request/Reply to obtain information about the overlay
   and/or underlay network.

   To mitigate potential Denial-of-Service attacks, it is RECOMMENDED
   that implementations throttle the Overlay ping traffic going to the
   control plane.

   Reply and spoofing attacks involving faking or replying Overlay Echo
   Reply messages would have to match the Sender's Handle and Sequence
   Number of an outstanding Overlay Echo Request message which is highly
   unlikely.  Thus the non-matching reply would be discarded.  But since
   "even a broken clock is right twice a day" implementations MAY use
   Timestamp control block [I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header] to validate
   the TimeStamp Sent by requiring an exact match on this field.

   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 overlay domain.

5.  Contributors

   Work on this documented started by Overlay OAM Design Team with
   contributions from:

   Carlos Pignataro

   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   cpignata@cisco.com

   Santosh Pallagatti

   santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com

   Erik Nordmark

   Arista Networks




Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


   nordmark@acm.org

   Ignas Bagdonas

   ibagdona@gmail.com

   David Mozes

   Mellanox Technologies Ltd.

   davidm@mellanox.com

6.  Acknowledgment

   TBD

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]
              Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J.,
              Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index
              Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks",
              draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06 (work in progress),
              December 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]
              Gross, J., Ganga, I., and T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic
              Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf-
              nvo3-geneve-03 (work in progress), September 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue]
              Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
              Encapsulation", draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-05 (work in progress),
              October 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
              Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
              Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-03 (work
              in progress), October 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]
              Quinn, P. and U. Elzur, "Network Service Header", draft-
              ietf-sfc-nsh-12 (work in progress), February 2017.






Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


   [I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header]
              Mirsky, G., Kumar, N., Kumar, D., Chen, M., Yizhou, L.,
              Mozes, D., and D. Dolson, "OAM Header for use in Overlay
              Networks", draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-02 (work in
              progress), February 2017.

   [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.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis]
              Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", draft-ietf-mpls-
              rfc4379bis-09 (work in progress), October 2016.

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

   [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>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

Authors' Addresses

   Greg Mirsky
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com






Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   Echo Request/Reply for Overlay Networks      March 2017


   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 Dolson
   Sandvine

   Email: ddolson@sandvine.com























Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 11, 2017              [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/