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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam

SFC WG                                                         G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft                                                 ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track                                 W. Meng
Expires: December 14, 2017                               ZTE Corporation
                                                           B. Khasnabish
                                                            ZTE TX, Inc.
                                                                 C. Wang
                                                           June 12, 2017


        Multi-Layer OAM for Service Function Chains in Networks
                   draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-08

Abstract

   A multi-layer approach to the task of Operation, Administration and
   Maintenance (OAM) of Service Function Chains (SFCs) in networks is
   presented.  Based on the SFC OAM requirements, a multi-layer model is
   introduced.  A mechanism to detect and localize defects using the
   multi-layer model is also described.

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 December 14, 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
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC               June 2017


   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.  Multi-layer Model of SFC OAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Requirements for SFC OAM Multi-layer Model  . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  SFC OAM multi-layer model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  SFC TLV Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  SFC OAM UDP Port  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   [RFC7665] defines components necessary to implement Service Function
   Chain (SFC).  These include a classifier which performs
   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
   as termination element of the Service Function Path (SFP).  SF is
   responsible for 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, fully abstract entity, that defines an ordered
   set of SFs that must be applied to packets selected as a result of
   classification.  But SFC doesn't define exact mapping between SFFs
   and SFs.  Thus there exists another semi-abstract entity referred as
   SFP.  SFP is the instantiation of the SFC in the network and provides
   a level of indirection between the fully 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 as Rendered Service Path (RSP).  The main difference between




Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC               June 2017


   SFP and RSP is that in the former the authority to select the SFF/SF
   has been delegated to the network.

   This document proposes the multi-layer model of SFC Operation,
   Administration and Maintenance (OAM) and requirements to improve the
   troubleshooting efficiency.

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

   OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   RDI: Remote Defect Indication

   RSP: Rendered Service Path

   SF: Service Function

   SFC: Service Function Chain

   SFF: Service Function Forwarder

   SFP: Service Function Path

3.  Multi-layer Model of SFC OAM

   As described in [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework], multiple layers come
   into play to realize the SFC, including the Service layer, the
   underlying Network layer, as well as the Link layer, which are
   depicted in Figure 1:





Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC               June 2017


   o  The Service layer consists of classifiers and/or service
      functions/SFs.

   o  Network and Transport layers leverage various overlay network
      technologies interconnecting SFs to establish SFP.

   o  The Link layer is technology specific and reflects the technology
      used in the underlay network.


                      +---+  +---+   +---+  +---+     +---+
                      |SF1|  |SF2|   |SF3|  |SF4|     |SF5|
                      +---+  +---+   +---+  +---+     +---+
                         \    /          \  /           |
      +----------+       +----+         +----+        +----+
      |Classifier|-------|SFF1|---------|SFF2|--------|SFF3|
      +----------+       +----+         +----+        +----+
          0---------------------------------------------0  Service layer
          0----------------0--------------0-------------0  Network layer
          0-------------0------0-------0------0---------0  Link layer


                    Figure 1: SFC OAM Multi-Layer model

4.  Requirements for SFC OAM Multi-layer Model

   To perfrom the OAM task of fault management (FM) in an SFC, that
   inculdes failure detection, defect characterzation and localization,
   this document defines the multi-layer model of OAM, presented in
   Section 3, and set of requirements towards active OAM mechanisms to
   be used on an SFC.

   In example presented in Figure 1 the service SFP1 may be realized
   through two RSPs, RSP1(SF1--SF3--SF5) and RSP2(SF2--SF4--SF6).  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, i.e. follow
      exactly the same RSP, in forward direction, i.e. from ingress
      toward egress end point(s) of the OAM test.

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

   The egress, SFF3 in 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, i.e. SFF1.  Hence the following requirement:




Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC               June 2017


      REQ#3: SFC OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication (RDI)
      notification by egress to the ingress, i.e. source of continuity
      checking.

      REQ#4: SFC OAM MUST support connectivity verification.  Definition
      of mis-connectivity 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 in order 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 process of localizing the SFC failure separating SFC OAM layers is
   very attractive and efficient approach.  To achieve that continuity
   among SFFs that are part of the same SFP should be verified.  Once
   SFFs reacheability along the particular SFP has been confirmed task
   of defect localization may focus on SF reacheability verification.
   Because reacheability of SFFs has already been verified, SFF local to
   the SF may be used as source.

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

   By using the multi-layer model OAM that confirms to the above listed
   requirements is capable to perform efficient defect localization on
   an SFC.

5.  SFC OAM multi-layer model

   Figure 2 presents a use case of applying the proposed SFC OAM multi-
   layer model.  In this scenario operator needs to discover SFFs and
   SFs of the same SFC.  The Layer 1 includes the SFFs that are part of
   the SFP.  The Layer 2 - the SFs along the RSP.  When trying to do SFC
   OAM, classifier or service nodes select and confirm which SFC OAM
   layering they plan to do, then encapsulate the layering information
   in the SFC OAM packets, and send the SFC OAM packets along the



Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC               June 2017


   service function paths to the destination.  When receiving the SFC
   OAM packets, service nodes analyze the layering information and then
   decide whether sending these packets to next SFFs directly without
   being processed by SFs for Layer 1 process or sending to SFs for
   Layer 2 process.


          +---+ +---+  +----+ +----+  +-----+ +-----+  +------+ +------+
          |SF1|.|SFn|  |SF1'|.|SFn'|  |SF1''|.|SFn''|  |SF1'''|.|SFn'''|
          +---+ +---+  +----+ +----+  +-----+ +-----+  +------+ +------+
              \   /        \   /  |      \     /           \    /   |
  +------+   +----+       +----+  |      +-----+           +-----+  |
  |Class.|---|SFF1|  ...  |SFFn|  |      |SFF1'|   ...     |SFFn'|  |
  +------+   +----+       +----+  |      +-----+           +-----+  |
                             |    |                            |    |
                             |    |                            |    |
                             |----|------Layer 1---------------|    |
                                  |                                 |
                                  |-------------Layer 2-------------|



                  Figure 2: SFC OAM multi-layering model

6.  Theory of Operation

   Echo Request/Reply is well-known OAM mechanism that is extecively
   used to detect inconsitencies between states in control plane and
   data plane, localize defects in the data plane.  In SFC OAM Echo
   Request/Reply is built as extension of Overlay Echo Request/Reply
   functions [I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv].

   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
   [I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv].  Because SFC NSH does not identify
   the ingress of the SFP the Echo Request MUST include this information
   that to be used as IP destination address for IP/UDP encapsulation of
   the SFC Echo Reply.  Sender of the SFC Echo Request MUST include SFC
   Source TLV Figure 3.












Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC               June 2017


    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 3: Segment Routing Static MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV

   where

      SFC OAM Source Id Type is two octets in length and has the value
      of TBD1 Section 8.1.

      Length is two octets long field and the valuse is equal to the
      length of the Value field.

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

   The UDP destination port for SFC Echo Reply TBD2 will be allocated by
   IANA Section 8.2.

7.  Security Considerations

   TBD

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  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
   [RFC5226].  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 [RFC5226].  Remaining code points
   are allocated according to the Table 1:











Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC               June 2017


        +---------------+--------------+-------------------------+
        | Value         | Description  | Reference               |
        +---------------+--------------+-------------------------+
        | 0             |   Reserved   | This document           |
        | 1- 32759      |  Unassigned  | IETF Review             |
        | 32760 - 65279 |  Unassigned  | First Come First Served |
        | 65280 - 65519 | Experimental | This document           |
        | 65520 - 65534 | Private Use  | This document           |
        | 65535         |   Reserved   | This document           |
        +---------------+--------------+-------------------------+

                      Table 1: SFC TLV Type Registry

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

               +-------+-------------------+---------------+
               | Value |    Description    | Reference     |
               +-------+-------------------+---------------+
               | TBD1  | Source IP Address | This document |
               +-------+-------------------+---------------+

                  Table 2: SFC OAM Source IP Address Type

8.2.  SFC OAM UDP Port

   IANA is requested to allocate UDP port number according to

   +---------+--------+------------+---------+--------------+----------+
   | Service | Port   | Transport  | Descrip | Semantics    | Referenc |
   | Name    | Number | Protocol   | tion    | Definition   | e        |
   +---------+--------+------------+---------+--------------+----------+
   | SFC OAM | TBD2   | UDP        | SFC OAM | Section 6    | This     |
   |         |        |            |         |              | document |
   +---------+--------+------------+---------+--------------+----------+

                           Table 3: SFC OAM Port

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv]
              Mirsky, G., Kumar, N., Kumar, D., Chen, M., Yizhou, L.,
              and D. Dolson, "Echo Request and Echo Reply for Overlay
              Networks", draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv-03 (work in
              progress), March 2017.




Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC               June 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>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [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.

   [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>.

   [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>.

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









Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           Multi-Layer OAM for SFC               June 2017


   Bhumip Khasnabish
   ZTE TX, Inc.
   55 Madison Avenue, Suite 160
   Morristown, New Jersey  07960
   USA

   Email: bhumip.khasnabish@ztetx.com


   Cui Wang

   Email: lindawangjoy@gmail.com







































Mirsky, et al.          Expires December 14, 2017              [Page 10]


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