Internet DRAFT - draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis

draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis







Routing Area  Working Group                                    G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Informational                               E. Nordmark
Expires: September 22, 2016                              Arista Networks
                                                            C. Pignataro
                                                                N. Kumar
                                                                D. Kumar
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                D. Mozes
                                              Mellanox Technologies Ltd.
                                                           S. Pallagatti
                                                          March 21, 2016


 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Overlay Networks:
                              Gap Analysis
                 draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-oam-gap-analysis-01

Abstract

   This document provides an overview of the Operations, Administration,
   and Maintenance (OAM) for overlay networks.  The OAM toolset includes
   set of fault management and performance monitoring capabilities
   (operating in the data plane) that comply with the Overlay OAM
   Requirements.  Insufficient functional coverage of existing OAM
   protocols also noted in this document.  The protocol definitions for
   each of the Overlay OAM tools to be defined in separate documents.

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 22, 2016.





Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Working Group Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  BIER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  NVO3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Overlay OAM Toolset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Overlay OAM Fault Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  Proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity
               Verification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.2.  On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity
               Verification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.3.  Alarm Indication Signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Overlay OAM Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.1.  Overlay OAM PM Active . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.2.  Overlay OAM PM Passive  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Telemetry in Overlay OAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13







Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


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.

   [RFC7276] provided detailed analysis of OAM protocols.  Since its
   completion several new protocols that define data plane encapsulation
   were introduced.  That presented both need to re-evaluate existing
   set of OAM tools and opportunity to build it into set of tools that
   can be used and re-used for different data plane protocols.

   Overlay OAM Requirements define the set of requirements for OAM in
   Overlay networks.  The OAM solution for Overlay networks, developed
   by the design team, has two objectives:

   o  The Overlay OAM toolset should be developed based on existing IP
      and IP/MPLS architecture, technology, and toolsets.

   o  The Overlay OAM operational experience should be similar to that
      in other, e.g.  IP and IP/MPLS, networks.

   The Overlay OAM toolset may use some or all of the following OAM
   protocols designed at IETF:

   o  proactive continuity check:

      *  Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for point-to-point as
         defined in [RFC5880], [RFC5882], [RFC5883], [RFC5884],
         [RFC5885], [RFC6428] and [RFC7726];

      *  BFD for multipoint network as defined in
         [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] and
         [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail];

      *  S-BFD as defined in [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base] and
         [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-ip];

   o  on-demand continuity check and connectivity verification:

      *  MPLS Echo Request/Reply, a.k.a.  LSP Ping, as defined in
         [RFC4379] and its numerous extensions;

      *  LSP Self-ping, as defined in [RFC7746];





Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


      *  [I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping] is a good example of generic
         troubleshooting and defect localization tool that can be
         extended and suited for more specific requirements of the
         particular type of an overlay network;

   o  performance measurement:

      *  packet loss and delay measurement in MPLS networks, as defined
         in [RFC6374] with ability to export measurement results for
         post-processing [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path];

      *  Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP), as defined in
         [RFC5357], [RFC6038], and [RFC7750];

      *  use of the Marking Method [I-D.tempia-ippm-p3m] that, if
         accordingly supported by the overlay layer, can behave as close
         as technically possible to a passive method to measure
         performance, e.g.  [I-D.mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam].

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".

   BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection

   FM Fault Management

   OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   PM Performance Measurement

   SLA Service Level Agreement

   TWAMP Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol

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].






Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


2.  Working Group Overview

2.1.  BIER

   The BIER working group has some WG documents on OAM which are
   discussed further in this document.

2.2.  NVO3

   The NVO3 encapsulations (Geneve [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve], GUE
   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue], and GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]) all have some
   notion of a OAM bit or flag.  In Geneve this is defined to not apply
   to intermediate (underlay) routers and that the setting of the bit
   doesn't affect the ECMP hash.  The other proposals do not have as
   succinct constraints on their OAM bit/flag.

   There are currently no NVO3 working group OAM protocol
   specifications.  The OAM documents that have been discussed are
   individual drafts such as [I-D.ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements],
   [I-D.nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute], [draft-pang-nvo3-vxlan-
   path-detection], [I-D.saum-nvo3-pmtud-over-vxlan], and
   [I-D.singh-nvo3-vxlan-router-alert].

2.3.  SFC

   TBD

3.  Overlay OAM Toolset

3.1.  Overlay OAM Fault Management

   Protocols that enable Fault Management functions of OAM toolset are
   comprised of protocols that perform proactive and on-demand defect
   detection and failure localization.

3.1.1.  Proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification

   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] is the protocol of
   choice for proactive Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification
   [RFC6428].

3.1.1.1.  Proactive CC/CV in BIER

   .  Bit-Indexed Explicit Replication (BIER) provides the multicast
   service.  For that BFD over multipoint network
   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] and [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail]
   are the most suitable of BFD family Figure 1 presents IP/UDP format
   of BFD over BIER in MPLS network.



Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Label Stack Element                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Label Stack Element                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              BIER-MPLS label          |     |1|               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 0 1|  Ver  |  Len  |              Entropy                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                BitString  (first 32 bits)                     ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                BitString  (last 32 bits)                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |OAM|     Reserved      | Proto |            BFIR-id            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                       IP Header                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Source Port            |   Destination Port (3784)     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Length            |           Checksum            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                  BFD control packet                           ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 1: BFD over BIER with IP/UDP format

   Proto field MUST be set to IPv4 or IPv6 vlalue.  Note that IP
   Destination address in Figure 1 must follow Section 7 [RFC5884], i.e.
   ?the destination IP address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8
   range for IPv4 and from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range for IPv6.?
   BFD packets in the reverse direction of the BFD session will be
   transmitted on IP network to the IP address mapped to the BFIR-id and
   the destination UDP port number set as source UDP port number of the
   received BFD packet.

   IP/UDP format presents overhead, particularly in case of IPv6 address
   family.  Thus option to avoid use of extra headers for OAM seems
   attractive.  Figure 2 presents G-ACh format of BFD over BIER in MPLS
   network.  Proto field of the BIER header MUST be set to OAM value.
   BFD control packet follows the BIER OAM header as defined in
   [I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping].  According to the Section 3.1 of
   [I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping], Ver is set to 1; BFD control packet over
   multi-point without or with active tail accordingly identified in




Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


   Message Type Field.  The Proto field ?is used to define if there is
   any data packet immediately following the OAM payload?.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Label Stack Element                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Label Stack Element                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              BIER-MPLS label          |     |1|               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 1 0 1|  Ver  |  Len  |              Entropy                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                BitString  (first 32 bits)                     ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                BitString  (last 32 bits)                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |OAM|     Reserved    | Proto |             BFIR-id             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Ver | Message Type  | Proto |          Reserved               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                  BFD control packet                           ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 2: BFD over BIER with G-ACh format

3.1.1.2.  Proactive CC/CV in NVO3

   There is currently no WG document on proactive CC/CV.  The individual
   requirements document [I-D.ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements] covers this
   and there is a related proposal for BFD over VXLAN in
   [I-D.spallagatti-bfd-vxlan].

3.1.1.3.  Proactive CC/CV over SFP

3.1.2.  On-demand Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification

3.1.2.1.  On-demand CC/CV in BIER

   [I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping] defines format of Echo Request/Reply
   control packet and set of TLVs that can be used to perform failure
   detection and isolation in BIER domain over MPLS network.






Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


3.1.2.2.  On-demand CC/CV in NVO3

   There is currently no WG document for on-demand CC/CV.

   Individual documents exist for tracing such as [draft-pang-nvo3-
   vxlan-path-detection] and
   [I-D.nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute].

3.1.2.3.  On-demand CC/CV over SFP

3.1.3.  Alarm Indication Signal

3.1.3.1.  AIS in BIER

3.1.3.2.  AIS in NVO3

   There is currently no WG document on Alarm Indication Signal.

   The individual draft [I-D.nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute]
   suggests reusing ICMP errors for error indications.

3.1.3.3.  AIS over SFP

3.2.  Overlay OAM Performance Measurement

3.2.1.  Overlay OAM PM Active

3.2.1.1.  Active PM in BIER

3.2.1.2.  Active PM in NVO3

   Performance management has been discussed in NVO3 but there is
   currently no draft in the WG.

3.2.1.3.  Active PM over SFP

3.2.2.  Overlay OAM PM Passive

3.2.2.1.  Passive PM in BIER

   [I-D.mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam] describes how the Marking Method can be
   used in BIER domain over MPLS networks.

3.2.2.2.  Passive PM in NVO3

   Marking has been discussed in NVO3 sessions, but there is no draft in
   the working group.




Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


3.2.2.3.  Passive PM over SFP

3.3.  Telemetry in Overlay OAM

   Excessive use of the in-band OAM channel may affect user flow and
   thus change network behavior.  For example, if operator uses passive
   measurement exporting massive amount of data over the OAM channel may
   affect network.  I think that a management channel should be used in
   such case.  Obviously it may traverse the same nodes and links but
   may not require the same QoS.  We can refer to LMAP Reference Model
   [RFC7594] with Controller, Measurement Agent and Data Collector.

   [I-D.lapukhov-dataplane-probe] proposes transport independent generic
   telemetry probe structure.

3.4.  Conclusions

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not propose any IANA consideration.  This section
   may be removed.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document list the OAM requirement for BIER-enabled domain and
   does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones
   common to networking.

6.  Acknowledgement

   TBD

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [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









Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


   [I-D.ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements]
              Chen, H., Ashwood-Smith, P., Xia, L., Iyengar, R., Tsou,
              T., Sajassi, A., Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Daikoku,
              M., Ghanwani, A., and R. Krishnan, "NVO3 Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance Requirements", draft-
              ashwood-nvo3-oam-requirements-04 (work in progress),
              October 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint]
              Katz, D., Ward, D., and J. Networks, "BFD for Multipoint
              Networks", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-07 (work in
              progress), August 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail]
              Katz, D., Ward, D., and J. Networks, "BFD Multipoint
              Active Tails.", draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-01
              (work in progress), November 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base]
              Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Bhatia, M., and J.
              Networks, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (S-BFD)", draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-08 (work in
              progress), February 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-ip]
              Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., and D. Ward, "Seamless
              Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6
              and MPLS", draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-03 (work in
              progress), February 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path]
              Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., and S. Soni, "RFC6374 UDP
              Return Path", draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04
              (work in progress), August 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve]
              Gross, J. and I. Ganga, "Geneve: Generic Network
              Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-01
              (work in progress), January 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue]
              Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
              Encapsulation", draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-02 (work in progress),
              December 2015.







Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


   [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
              Quinn, P., Manur, R., Kreeger, L., Lewis, D., Maino, F.,
              Smith, M., Agarwal, P., Yong, L., Xu, X., Elzur, U., Garg,
              P., and D. Melman, "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN",
              draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-01 (work in progress), November
              2015.

   [I-D.kumarzheng-bier-ping]
              Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
              and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", draft-kumarzheng-
              bier-ping-02 (work in progress), December 2015.

   [I-D.lapukhov-dataplane-probe]
              Lapukhov, P., "Data-plane probe for in-band telemetry
              collection", draft-lapukhov-dataplane-probe-00 (work in
              progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.mirsky-bier-pmmm-oam]
              Mirsky, G., Zheng, L., Chen, M., and G. Fioccola,
              "Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit
              Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer", draft-mirsky-
              bier-pmmm-oam-01 (work in progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute]
              Nordmark, E., Appanna, C., and A. Lo, "Layer-Transcending
              Traceroute for Overlay Networks like VXLAN", draft-
              nordmark-nvo3-transcending-traceroute-02 (work in
              progress), March 2016.

   [I-D.saum-nvo3-pmtud-over-vxlan]
              Dikshit, S. and N. A, "PMTUD Over Vxlan", draft-saum-nvo3-
              pmtud-over-vxlan-02 (work in progress), December 2015.

   [I-D.singh-nvo3-vxlan-router-alert]
              Singh, K., Jain, P., Rio, D., Henderickx, W., Shekhar, R.,
              and R. Rahman, "VxLAN Router Alert Option", draft-singh-
              nvo3-vxlan-router-alert-02 (work in progress), September
              2015.

   [I-D.spallagatti-bfd-vxlan]
              Networks, J., Basil, B., Paragiri, S., Govindan, V.,
              Mudigonda, M., and G. Mirsky, "BFD for VXLAN", draft-
              spallagatti-bfd-vxlan-02 (work in progress), October 2015.








Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


   [I-D.tempia-ippm-p3m]
              Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Fioccola, G., Castaldelli, L.,
              and A. Bonda, "A packet based method for passive
              performance monitoring", draft-tempia-ippm-p3m-03 (work in
              progress), March 2016.

   [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>.

   [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
              Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
              RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

   [RFC5882]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of
              Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5882, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5882>.

   [RFC5883]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD) for Multihop Paths", RFC 5883, DOI 10.17487/RFC5883,
              June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5883>.

   [RFC5884]  Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
              "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884,
              June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884>.

   [RFC5885]  Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
              Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
              Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>.

   [RFC6038]  Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement
              Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size
              Features", RFC 6038, DOI 10.17487/RFC6038, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6038>.







Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.

   [RFC6428]  Allan, D., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and J. Drake, Ed.,
              "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check,
              and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport
              Profile", RFC 6428, DOI 10.17487/RFC6428, November 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6428>.

   [RFC7276]  Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
              Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
              and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.

   [RFC7594]  Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
              Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
              Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.

   [RFC7726]  Govindan, V., Rajaraman, K., Mirsky, G., Akiya, N., and S.
              Aldrin, "Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD
              Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7726,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7726, January 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7726>.

   [RFC7746]  Bonica, R., Minei, I., Conn, M., Pacella, D., and L.
              Tomotaki, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Self-Ping", RFC 7746,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7746, January 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7746>.

   [RFC7750]  Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon, "Differentiated
              Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification
              Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
              (TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7750>.

Authors' Addresses

   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson

   Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com





Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       OAM for Overlays: Gap Analysis           March 2016


   Erik Nordmark
   Arista Networks

   Email: nordmark@acm.org


   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com


   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


   David Mozes
   Mellanox Technologies Ltd.

   Email: davidm@mellanox.com


   Santosh Pallagatti

   Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com












Mirsky, et al.         Expires September 22, 2016              [Page 14]