draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-05.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-06.txt 
DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen
Expires: 21 April 2022 Huawei Expires: 13 June 2022 Huawei
18 October 2021 B. Varga
J. Farkas
Ericsson
10 December 2021
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-05 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-06
Abstract Abstract
This document defines format and use principals of the Deterministic This document defines format and use principals of the Deterministic
Network (DetNet) service Associated Channel (ACH) over a DetNet Network (DetNet) service Associated Channel (ACH) over a DetNet
network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service ACH can be used network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service ACH can be used
to carry test packets of active Operations, Administration, and to carry test packets of active Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance protocols that are used to detect DetNet failures and Maintenance protocols that are used to detect DetNet failures and
measure performance metrics. measure performance metrics.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 April 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 June 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 4 3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 4
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering 3.2. DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering
Functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 7 Functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. OAM Interworking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. OAM Interworking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . 8 5.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . 8
5.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . 9 5.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. DetNet MPLS OAM Flags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet) [RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet)
architecture and how the Packet Replication, Elimination, and architecture and how the Packet Replication, Elimination, and
Ordering functions (PREOF) can be used to ensure low packet drop Ordering functions (PREOF) can be used to ensure low packet drop
ratio in DetNet domain. ratio in DetNet domain.
skipping to change at page 6, line 35 skipping to change at page 6, line 35
Figure 4: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS-over-UDP/IP Figure 4: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS-over-UDP/IP
Figure 5 displays the format of the DetNet Associated Channel Header Figure 5 displays the format of the DetNet Associated Channel Header
(d-ACH). (d-ACH).
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number| Channel Type | |0 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number| Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node ID |Level| Flags |Session|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Format Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Format
The meanings of the fields in the d-ACH are: The d-ACH encodes the following fields:
Bits 0..3 MUST be 0b0001. This value of the first nibble allows Bits 0..3 MUST be 0b0001. This value of the first nibble allows
the packet to be distinguished from an IP packet [RFC4928] and a the packet to be distinguished from an IP packet [RFC4928] and a
DetNet data packet [RFC8964]. DetNet data packet [RFC8964].
Version: this is the version number of the d-ACH. This Version - is a four-bits field, and the value is the version
specification defines version 0. number of the d-ACH. This specification defines version 0x1.
Sequence Number: this is unsigned eight bits-long field. The Sequence Number - is an unsigned eight-bit field. The sequence
originating DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence Number number space is circular with no restriction on the initial value.
field before packet being transmitted. The originating node MUST The originator DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence
monotonically increase the value of the Sequence Number field for Number field before the transmission of a packet. The originator
the every next active OAM packet. node MUST increase the value of the Sequence Number field by 1 for
each active OAM packet.
Channel Type: the value of DetNet Associated Channel Type is one Channel Type - contains the value of DetNet Associated Channel
of values defined in the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry. Type. It is one of the values defined in the IANA PW Associated
Channel Type registry.
Node ID - is an unsigned 20 bits-long field. The value of the
Node ID field identifies the DetNet node that originated the
packet. Methods of distributing Node ID are outside the scope of
this specification.
Level - is a three-bits field.
Flags - is a five-bits field. Flags field contains five one-bit
flags. Section 6.1 creates an IANA registry for new flags to be
defined.
Session ID is a four-bits field.
The DetNet flow, according to [RFC8964], is identified by the S-label The DetNet flow, according to [RFC8964], is identified by the S-label
that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. Active OAM packet MUST have that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. Active OAM packet MUST
d-ACH immediately following the S-label. include d-ACH immediately following the S-label.
3.2. DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions 3.2. DetNet Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
Interaction with Active OAM Interaction with Active OAM
At the DetNet service sub-layer, special functions MAY be applied to At the DetNet service sub-layer, special functions MAY be applied to
the particular DetNet flow, PREOF, to potentially lower packet loss, the particular DetNet flow, PREOF, to potentially lower packet loss,
improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and ensure in- improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and ensure in-
order packet delivery. PREOF rely on sequencing information in the order packet delivery. PREOF rely on sequencing information in the
DetNet service sub-layer. For a DetNet active OAM packet, 28 MSBs of DetNet service sub-layer. For a DetNet active OAM packet, 28 MSBs of
the d-ACH MUST be used as the source of the sequencing information by the d-ACH MUST be used as the source of the sequencing information by
skipping to change at page 9, line 17 skipping to change at page 9, line 34
Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP
domains can also be realized using either the peering or the domains can also be realized using either the peering or the
tunneling model, as discussed in Section 5.1. Using the same tunneling model, as discussed in Section 5.1. Using the same
protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of
errors in the peering model. To provide the performance monitoring errors in the peering model. To provide the performance monitoring
over a DetNet IP domain STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions [RFC8972] over a DetNet IP domain STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions [RFC8972]
can be used. can be used.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation. This 6.1. DetNet MPLS OAM Flags Registry
section can be deleted before the publication of the draft.
This document describes a new IANA-managed registry to identify
DetNet MPLS OAM Flags Bits. The registration procedure is "IETF
Review" [RFC8126]. The registry name is "DetNet MPLS OAM Flags".
There are five flags in the five-bit Flags field.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Additionally, security considerations discussed in DetNet Additionally, security considerations discussed in DetNet
specifications: [RFC8655], [RFC9055], [RFC8964] are applicable to specifications: [RFC8655], [RFC9055], [RFC8964] are applicable to
this document. Security concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM this document. Security concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM
tools like LSP Ping [RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to tools like LSP Ping [RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to
this specification. this specification.
8. Acknowledgment 8. Acknowledgment
skipping to change at page 11, line 30 skipping to change at page 12, line 15
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>. May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>. <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>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, [RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>. January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple [RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 14 skipping to change at page 13, line 4
[RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker, [RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>. 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
Ericsson Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
Janos Farkas
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/