Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options
ippm S. Bhandari, Ed.
Internet-Draft Thoughtspot
Intended status: Standards Track F. Brockners, Ed.
Expires: 8 November 2023 Cisco
7 May 2023
In-situ OAM IPv6 Options
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-12
Abstract
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet
traverses a path between two points in the network. This document
outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in IPv6.
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 https://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 8 November 2023.
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) 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.
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment and implementation in
IPv6 networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. IOAM domains bounded by hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. IOAM domains bounded by network devices . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Applicability of AH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet
traverses a path between two points in the network. IOAM concepts
and associated nomenclature, as well as IOAM data fields are defined
in [RFC9197]. This document outlines how IOAM data fields are
encapsulated in IPv6 [RFC8200] and discusses deployment requirements
for networks that use IPv6-encapsulated IOAM data fields.
The terms "encapsulation" and "decapsulation" are used in this
document in the same way as in [RFC9197]: An IOAM encapsulating node
incorporates one or more IOAM-Option-Types into packets. An IOAM
decapsulating node removes IOAM-Option-Type(s) from packets.
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.
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
2.2. Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in this document:
E2E: Edge-to-Edge
IOAM: In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance as
defined in [RFC9197]
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
POT: Proof of Transit
3. In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6
IOAM in IPv6 is used to enhance diagnostics of IPv6 networks. It
complements other mechanisms designed to enhance diagnostics of IPv6
networks, such as the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics
Destination Option described in [RFC8250].
At the time this document was written, several implementations of
IOAM for IPv6 exist, e.g., IOAM for IPv6 in the Linux Kernel
(supported from Kernel version 5.15 onwards IPv6 IOAM in Linux Kernel
(https://github.com/torvalds/linux/
commit/7c804e91df523a37c29e183ea2b10ac73c3a4f3d)), IOAM for IPv6 in
VPP (https://docs.fd.io/vpp/17.04/ioam_ipv6_doc.html).
IOAM data fields can be encapsulated with two types of extension
headers in IPv6 packets - either the hop-by-hop options header or the
destination options header. Multiple options with the same option
type MAY appear in the same hop-by-hop options or destination options
header, with distinct content.
An IPv6 packet carrying IOAM data in an extension header can have
other extension headers, compliant with [RFC8200].
IPv6 hop-by-hop and destination option format for carrying IOAM data
fields:
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len | Reserved | IOAM-Opt-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| | |
. . I
. . O
. . A
. . M
. . .
. Option Data . O
. . P
. . T
. . I
. . O
. . N
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
Option Type: 8-bit option type identifier as defined in Section 6.
Opt Data Len: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of this option, in
octets, not including the first 2 octets.
Reserved: 8-bit field MUST be set to zero by the source.
IOAM-Option-Type: Abbreviated to "IOAM-Opt-Type" in the diagram
above: 8-bit field as defined in section 4.1 of [RFC9197].
Option Data: Variable-length field. Option-Type-specific data.
IOAM Option data is inserted as follows:
1. Pre-allocated Trace Option: The IOAM Preallocated Trace Option-
Type defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC9197] is represented as an
IPv6 option in the hop-by-hop extension header:
Option Type: TBD_1_1 8-bit identifier of the IPv6 Option Type
for IOAM.
IOAM Type: IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option-Type.
2. Proof of Transit Option: The IOAM POT Option-Type defined in
Section 4.5 of [RFC9197] is represented as an IPv6 option in the
hop-by-hop extension header:
Option Type: TBD_1_1 8-bit identifier of the IPv6 Option Type
for IOAM.
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
IOAM Type: IOAM POT Option-Type.
3. Edge to Edge Option: The IOAM E2E option defined in Section 4.6
[RFC9197] is represented as an IPv6 option in destination
extension header:
Option Type: TBD_1_0 8-bit identifier of the IPv6 Option Type
for IOAM.
IOAM Type: IOAM E2E Option-Type.
4. Direct Export (DEX) Option: The IOAM Direct Export Option-Type
defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC9326] is represented as an IPv6
option in the hop-by-hop extension header:
Option Type: TBD_1_0 8-bit identifier of the IPv6 Option Type
for IOAM.
IOAM Type: IOAM Direct Export (DEX) Option-Type.
All the IOAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment requirements.
Specifically, they all require 4n alignment. This ensures that
fields specified in [RFC9197] are aligned at a multiple-of-4 offset
from the start of the hop-by-hop and destination options header.
IPv6 options can have a maximum length of 255 octets. Consequently,
the total length of IOAM Option-Types including all data fields is
also limited to 255 octets when encapsulated into IPv6.
4. IOAM Deployment In IPv6 Networks
4.1. Considerations for IOAM deployment and implementation in IPv6
networks
IOAM deployments in IPv6 networks MUST take the following
considerations and requirements into account:
C1 IOAM MUST be deployed in an IOAM-Domain. An IOAM-Domain is a set
of nodes that use IOAM. An IOAM-Domain is bounded by its
perimeter or edge. The set of nodes forming an IOAM-Domain may be
connected to the same physical infrastructure (e.g., a service
provider's network). They may also be remotely connected to each
other (e.g., an enterprise VPN or an overlay). It is expected
that all nodes in an IOAM-Domain are managed by the same
administrative entity. Please refer to [RFC9197]) for more
details on IOAM-Domains.
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
C2 Implementations of IOAM MUST ensure that the addition of IOAM
data fields does not alter the way routers forward packets or the
forwarding decisions they make. Packets with added IOAM
information must follow the same path within the domain as an
identical packet without IOAM information would, even in the
presence of Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP). This behavior is
important for deployments where IOAM data fields are only added
"on-demand". Implementations of IOAM MUST ensure that ECMP
behavior for packets with and without IOAM data fields is the
same. In order for IOAM to work in IPv6 networks, IOAM MUST be
explicitly enabled per interface on every node within the IOAM
domain. Unless a particular interface is explicitly enabled
(i.e., explicitly configured) for IOAM, a router MUST ignore IOAM
Options.
C3 In order to maintain the integrity of packets in an IOAM domain,
the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) of transit routers and
switches must be configured to a value that does not lead to an
ICMP Packet Too Big error message being sent to the originator and
the packet being dropped. The PMTU tolerance range must be
identified and IOAM encapsulation operations or data field
insertion must not exceed this range. Control of the MTU is
critical to the proper operation of IOAM. The PMTU tolerance must
be identified through configuration and IOAM operations must not
exceed the packet size beyond PMTU.
C4 [RFC8200] precludes insertion of IOAM data directly into the
original IPv6 header of in-flight packets. IOAM deployments which
do not encapsulate/decapsulate IOAM on the host but desire to
encapsulate/decapsulate IOAM on transit nodes MUST add an
additional IPv6 header to the original packet. IOAM data is added
to this additional IPv6 header.
4.2. IOAM domains bounded by hosts
For deployments where the IOAM domain is bounded by hosts, hosts will
perform the operation of IOAM data field encapsulation and
decapsulation, i.e., hosts will place the IOAM data fields directly
in the IPv6 header or remove the IOAM data fields directly from the
IPv6 header. IOAM data is carried in IPv6 packets as hop-by-hop or
destination options as specified in this document.
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
4.3. IOAM domains bounded by network devices
For deployments where the IOAM domain is bounded by network devices,
network devices such as routers form the edge of an IOAM domain.
Network devices will perform the operation of IOAM data field
encapsulation and decapsulation. Network devices will encapsulate
IOAM data fields in an additional, outer, IPv6 header which carries
the IOAM data fields.
5. Security Considerations
This document describes the encapsulation of IOAM data fields in
IPv6. For general IOAM security considerations, see [RFC9197].
Security considerations of the specific IOAM data fields for each
case (i.e., Trace, Proof of Transit, and E2E) are also described and
defined in [RFC9197].
As this document describes new options for IPv6, the security
considerations of [RFC8200] and [RFC8250] apply.
From a network-protection perspective, there is an assumed trust
model such that any node that adds IOAM to a packet, removes IOAM
from a packet, or modifies IOAM data fields of a packet is assumed to
be allowed to do so. By default, packets that include IPv6 extension
headers with IOAM information MUST NOT be leaked through the
boundaries of the IOAM-Domain.
IOAM-Domain boundary routers MUST filter any incoming traffic from
outside the IOAM-Domain that contains IPv6 extension headers with
IOAM information. IOAM-Domain boundary routers MUST also filter any
outgoing traffic leaving the IOAM-Domain that contains IPv6 extension
headers with IOAM information.
In the general case, an IOAM node only adds, removes, or modifies an
IPv6 extension header with IOAM information, if the directive to do
so comes from a trusted source and the directive is validated.
Problems may occur if the above behaviors are not implemented or if
the assumed trust model is violated (e.g., through a security
breach). In addition to the security considerations discussed in
[RFC9197], the security considerations associated with IPv6 extension
headers listed in [RFC9098] apply.
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
5.1. Applicability of AH
The network devices in an IOAM-Domain are trusted to add, update and
remove IOAM options according to the constraints specified in
[RFC8200]. IOAM domain does not rely on the Authentication Header
(AH) as defined in [RFC4302] to secure IOAM options. The use of IOAM
options with AH and its processing is not defined in this document.
Future documents may define the use of IOAM with AH and its
processing.
6. IANA Considerations
This draft requests the following IPv6 Option Type assignments from
the destination options and hop-by-hop options sub-registry of
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-
parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2
Hex Value Binary Value Description Reference
act chg rest
------------------------------------------------------------------
TBD_1_0 00 0 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft]
destination option
and
IOAM hop-by-hop option
TBD_1_1 00 1 TBD_1 IOAM [This draft]
destination option
and
IOAM hop-by-hop option
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Tom Herbert, Eric Vyncke, Nalini
Elkins, Srihari Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra
Babu, Akshaya Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik
Nordmark, LJ Wobker, Mark Smith, Andrew Yourtchenko and Justin Iurman
for the comments and advice. For the IPv6 encapsulation, this
document leverages concepts described in
[I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route]. The authors would like to
acknowledge the work done by the author Hiroshi Kitamura and people
involved in writing it.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route]
Kitamura, H., "Record Route for IPv6 (PR6) Hop-by-Hop
Option Extension", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-kitamura-ipv6-record-route-00, November 2000,
<https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kitamura-ipv6-record-
route-00.txt>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4302, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4302>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.
[RFC9098] Gont, F., Hilliard, N., Doering, G., Kumari, W., Huston,
G., and W. Liu, "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets
with Extension Headers", RFC 9098, DOI 10.17487/RFC9098,
September 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9098>.
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
Contributors
This document was the collective effort of several authors. The text
and content were contributed by the editors and the co-authors listed
below. The contact information of the co-authors appears at the end
of this document.
* Carlos Pignataro
* Hannes Gredler
* John Leddy
* Stephen Youell
* Tal Mizrahi
* Aviv Kfir
* Barak Gafni
* Petr Lapukhov
* Mickey Spiegel
* Suresh Krishnan
* Rajiv Asati
* Mark Smith
Contributors' Addresses
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
John Leddy
Email: john@leddy.net
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
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
Aviv Kfir
Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
U.S.A.
Email: avivk@mellanox.com
Barak Gafni
Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
U.S.A.
Email: gbarak@mellanox.com
Petr Lapukhov
Facebook
1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
US
Email: petr@fb.com
Mickey Spiegel
Barefoot Networks, an Intel company
4750 Patrick Henry Drive
Santa Clara, CA 95054
US
Email: mickey.spiegel@intel.com
Suresh Krishnan
Kaloom
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation May 2023
Email: suresh@kaloom.com
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Mark Smith
PO BOX 521
HEIDELBERG, VIC 3084
AU
Email: markzzzsmith+id@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses
Shwetha Bhandari (editor)
Thoughtspot
3rd Floor, Indiqube Orion, 24th Main Rd, Garden Layout, HSR Layout
Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 102
India
Email: shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com
Frank Brockners (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
40549 DUESSELDORF
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Bhandari & Brockners Expires 8 November 2023 [Page 12]
