SFC
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Brockners, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9452 Cisco
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track S. Bhandari, Ed.
Expires: 6 November 2023
ISSN: 2070-1721 Thoughtspot
5 May
August 2023
Network Service Header (NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ In Situ OAM (IOAM) Data
draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-13
Abstract
In-situ
In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) is used
for recording and collecting operational and telemetry information
while the packet traverses a path between two points in the network.
This document outlines how IOAM data fields IOAM-Data-Fields are encapsulated with the
Network Service Header (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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 6 November 2023.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9452.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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)
(https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IOAM encapsulation Encapsulation with NSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Discussion of the IOAM encapsulation approach . . . 8
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 IOAM-Encapsulation Approach
Acknowledgments
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
IOAM, as defined in [RFC9197], is used to record and collect OAM
information while the packet traverses a particular network domain.
The term "in-situ" "in situ" refers to the fact that the OAM data is added to
the data packets rather than what is being sent within packets
specifically dedicated to OAM. This document defines how IOAM data
fields IOAM-Data-
Fields are transported as part of the Network Service Header (NSH)
[RFC8300]
encapsulation [RFC8300] for the Service Function Chaining (SFC)
Architecture [RFC7665]. The IOAM-Data-Fields are defined in
[RFC9197].
2. Conventions
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.
Abbreviations used in this document:
IOAM: In-situ In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
MD: NSH Metadata, see [RFC7665]
NSH: Network Service Header
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
SFC: Service Function Chaining
TLV: Type, Length, Value
3. IOAM encapsulation Encapsulation with NSH
The NSH is defined in [RFC8300]. IOAM-Data-Fields are carried as NSH
payload using a next protocol Next Protocol header which that follows the NSH headers.
An IOAM header is added containing the IOAM-Data-Fields. IOAM-Data-Fields is added. The IOAM-
Data-Fields MUST follow the definitions corresponding to IOAM-Option- IOAM Option-
Types (e.g., see Section 4 of [RFC9197] and Section 3.2 of
[RFC9326]). In an administrative domain where IOAM is used,
insertion of the IOAM header in NSH is enabled at the NSH tunnel
endpoints, which are also configured to serve as IOAM encapsulating/decapsulating encapsulating and
decapsulating nodes
by means of configuration. for IOAM. The operator MUST ensure that SFC-aware SFC-
aware nodes along the Service Function Path support IOAM, otherwise IOAM; otherwise,
packets might be dropped (see Section 3 further below, the last paragraph of this section as
well as [RFC8300] Section 2.2). 2.2 of [RFC8300]). The IOAM transit nodes (e.g., an a
Service Function
Forwarder) Forwarder (SFF)) MUST process all the IOAM headers
that are relevant based on its configuration. See [RFC9378] for a
discussion of deployment
related deployment-related aspects of IOAM-Data-fields. IOAM-Data-Fields.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|Ver|O|U| TTL | Length |U|U|U|U|MD Type| NP = TBD_IOAM 0x06 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ N
| Service Path Identifier | Service Index | S
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ H
| ... | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| IOAM-Type | IOAM HDR len Len | Reserved | Next Protocol | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
! | O
! | A
~ IOAM Option and Optional Data Space ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| |
| |
| Payload + Padding (L2/L3/...) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
The NSH header and fields are defined in [RFC8300]. The O-bit O bit MUST
be handled following the rules in [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet]. [RFC9451]. The "NSH Next Protocol"
value (referred to as "NP" in the diagram above) is TBD_IOAM. 0x06.
The IOAM related IOAM-related fields in NSH are defined as follows:
IOAM-Type:
8-bit field defining the IOAM-Option-Type, IOAM Option-Type, as defined in the IOAM Option-Type Registry "IOAM
Option-Type" registry specified in [RFC9197].
IOAM HDR Len:
8-bit field that contains the length of the IOAM header in
multiples of 4-octets, including the "IOAM-Type" and "IOAM HDR
Len" fields.
Reserved bits:
Reserved bits are present for future use. The reserved bits MUST
be set to 0x0 upon transmission and ignored upon receipt.
Next Protocol:
8-bit unsigned integer that determines the type of header
following IOAM. The semantics of this field are identical to the
Next Protocol field in [RFC8300].
IOAM Option and Optional Data Space:
IOAM-Data-Fields as specified by the IOAM-Type field. IOAM-Data-Fields IOAM-Data-
Fields are defined corresponding to the IOAM-Option-Type IOAM Option-Type (e.g.,
see Section 4 of [RFC9197] and Section 3.2 of [RFC9326]) and are
always aligned by 4 octets,
thus octets. Thus, there is no padding field.
Multiple IOAM-Option-Types IOAM Option-Types MAY be included within the NSH
encapsulation. For example, if a an NSH encapsulation contains two
IOAM-Option-Types
IOAM Option-Types before a data payload, the Next Protocol field of
the first IOAM option will contain the value of TBD_IOAM, 0x06, while the Next
Protocol field of the second IOAM-Option-Type IOAM Option-Type will contain the "NSH
Next Protocol" number indicating the type of the data payload. The
applicability of the IOAM Active and Loopback flags [RFC9322] is
outside the scope of this document and may be specified in the
future.
In case the IOAM Incremental Trace Option-Type is used, an SFC-aware
node that serves as an IOAM transit node, node needs to adjust the "IOAM
HDR Len" field accordingly, see accordingly. See Section 4.4 in of [RFC9197].
Per Section 2.2 of [RFC8300], packets with unsupported Next Protocol
values not
supported SHOULD be silently dropped by default. Thus, when a packet
with IOAM is received at an NSH based NSH-based forwarding node such (such as an
Service Function Forwarder (SFF)
SFF) that does not support the IOAM header, it SHOULD drop the
packet. The mechanism mechanisms to maintain and notify of such events are
outside the scope of this document.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a has allocated the following code point for IOAM in the "NSH Next
Protocol" registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/nsh/
nsh.xhtml#next-protocol):
+---------------+---------------------+---------------+ (https://www.iana.org/assignments/nsh):
+===============+=====================+===========+
| Next Protocol | Description | Reference |
+---------------+---------------------+---------------+
+===============+=====================+===========+
| TBD_IOAM 0x06 | IOAM (Next protocol Protocol | This document RFC 9452 |
| | is an IOAM header) | |
+---------------+---------------------+---------------+
+---------------+---------------------+-----------+
Table 1
5. Security Considerations
IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where the operator decides
on leveraging
how to leverage and configuring configure IOAM according to the operator's needs.
The operator needs to properly secure the IOAM domain to avoid
malicious configuration and use, which could include injecting
malicious IOAM packets into a domain. For additional IOAM related IOAM-related
security considerations, see Section 9 in of [RFC9197]. For additional
OAM
OAM- and NSH related NSH-related security considerations considerations, see Section 5 of
[I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet].
[RFC9451].
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-packet]
Boucadair, M., "OAM Packet and Behavior in the Network
Service Header (NSH)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet-03, 26 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sfc-oam-
packet-03>.
[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>.
[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.
[RFC9451] Boucadair, M., "Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) Packet and Behavior in the Network
Service Header (NSH)", RFC 9451, DOI 10.17487/RFC9451,
August 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9451>.
6.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC9322] Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Gafni, B., and
M. Spiegel, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (IOAM) Loopback and Active Flags", RFC 9322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9322, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9322>.
[RFC9326] Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
Mizrahi, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326>.
[RFC9378] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., Bernier, D., and T.
Mizrahi, Ed., "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (IOAM) Deployment", RFC 9378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9378, April 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9378>.
Appendix A. Discussion of the IOAM encapsulation approach IOAM-Encapsulation Approach
This section lists several approaches considered for encapsulating
IOAM with NSH and presents the rationale for the approach chosen in
this document.
An encapsulation of IOAM-Data-Fields in NSH should be friendly to an
implementation in both hardware as well as software forwarders and
support a wide range of deployment cases, including large networks
that desire to leverage multiple IOAM-Data-Fields at the same time.
Hardware
* Hardware- and software friendly software-friendly implementation:
Hardware forwarders benefit from an encapsulation that minimizes
iterative look-ups lookups of fields within the packet: packet. Any operation which that
looks up the value of a field within the packet, based on which
another lookup is performed, consumes additional gates and time in
an implementation - implementation, both of which are desired to should be kept to a minimum.
This means that flat TLV structures are to be preferred over nested TLV
structures. IOAM-
Data-Fields IOAM-Data-Fields are grouped into several categories,
including trace, proof-of-transit, and edge-to-edge. Each of
these options defines a TLV structure. A hardware-friendly
encapsulation approach avoids grouping these three option
categories into yet another TLV
structure, but structure and would rather instead carry
the options as a serial sequence.
* Total length of the IOAM-Data-Fields:
The total length of IOAM-Data-
Fields IOAM-Data-Fields can grow quite large in case if
multiple different IOAM-Data-
Fields IOAM-Data-Fields are used and large path-lengths path-
lengths need to be considered. If for
example For example, if an operator would
consider using the IOAM Trace Option-Type and capture node-id,
app_data, egress/ingress egress and ingress interface-id, timestamp seconds, timestamps and
timestamp nanoseconds at every hop, then a total of 20 octets
would be added to the packet at every hop. In case this case, the
particular deployment would have has a maximum path length of 15 hops in the
IOAM domain, then and a maximum of 300 octets were to would be encapsulated in
the packet.
Different approaches for encapsulating IOAM-Data-Fields in NSH could
be considered:
1. Encapsulation of IOAM-Data-Fields as "NSH MD Type 2" (see
[RFC8300], Section 2.5).
Each IOAM-Option-Type IOAM Option-Type (e.g., trace, proof-of-transit, and edge-to-edge) edge-
to-edge) would be specified by a type, with the different IOAM-Data-Fields IOAM-
Data-Fields being TLVs within this the particular option type.
NSH MD Type 2 offers support for variable length meta-data. metadata. The
length field is 6-bits, 6 bits, resulting in a maximum of 256 (2^6 x 4)
octets.
2. Encapsulation of IOAM-Data-Fields using the "Next Protocol"
field.
Each IOAM-Option-Type (e.g IOAM Option-Type (e.g., trace, proof-of-transit, and
edge-to-edge) edge-
to-edge) would be specified by its own "next protocol".
3. Encapsulation of IOAM-Data-Fields using the "Next Protocol"
field.
A single NSH protocol type code point would be allocated for
IOAM. A "sub-type" field would then specify what IOAM options
type (trace, proof-of-transit, edge-to-edge) is carried.
The third option has been chosen here. This option avoids the
additional layer of TLV nesting TLV-nesting that the use of NSH MD Type 2 would
result in. In addition, this option does not constrain IOAM data to
a maximum of 256 octets, thus allowing support for very large
deployments.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Eric Éric Vyncke, Nalini Elkins, Srihari
Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra Babu, Akshaya
Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik Nordmark, LJ Wobker,
Andrew Yourtchenko, Greg Mirsky Mirsky, and Mohamed Boucadair for the their
comments and advice.
Contributors
In addition to editors listed on the title page, the
The following people
have contributed significantly to the content of this document:
document and should be considered coauthors:
Vengada Prasad Govindan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: venggovi@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States of America
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
John Leddy
Email: john@leddy.net
Stephen Youell
JP Morgan Chase
25 Bank Street
London
E14 5JP
United Kingdom
Email: stephen.youell@jpmorgan.com
Tal Mizrahi
Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab
Israel
Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
David Mozes
Email: mosesster@gmail.com
Petr Lapukhov
Facebook
1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
US
United States of America
Email: petr@fb.com
Remy Chang
Barefoot Networks
2185 Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, CA 94306
US
United States of America
Authors' Addresses
Frank Brockners (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Hansaallee 249,
3rd Floor
Hansaallee 249
40549 DUESSELDORF Duesseldorf
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Shwetha Bhandari (editor)
Thoughtspot
3rd Floor, Indiqube Orion, Orion
24th Main Rd, Garden Layout, HSR Layout
Bangalore, KARNATAKA
Bangalore 560 102
Karnataka
India
Email: shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com