Internet-Draft OAM in GENEVE September 2024
Mirsky, et al. Expires 24 March 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
NVO3 Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-12
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
S. Boutros
Ciena
D. Black
Dell EMC
S. Pallagatti
VMware

OAM for use in GENEVE

Abstract

This document lists a set of general requirements for active OAM protocols in the Geneve overlay network. Based on these requirements, the IP encapsulation of active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance protocols in the Geneve protocol is defined. Considerations for using ICMP and UDP-based protocols are discussed.

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 24 March 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Geneve [RFC8926] is intended to support various scenarios of network virtualization. In addition to carrying multiple protocols, e.g., Ethernet, IPv4/IPv6, the Geneve message includes metadata. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols support fault management and performance monitoring functions necessary for comprehensive network operation. Active OAM protocols, as defined in [RFC7799], use specially constructed packets that are injected into the network. To ensure that a performance metric or a detected failure are related to a particular Geneve flow, it is critical that these OAM test packets share fate with overlay data packets for that flow when traversing the underlay network.

A set of general requirements for active OAM protocols in the Geneve overlay network is listed in Section 2. IP encapsulation conforms to these requirements and is a suitable encapsulation of active OAM protocols in a Geneve overlay network. Active OAM in a Geneve overlay network are exchanged between two Geneve tunnel endpoints, which may be an NVE (Network Virtualization Edge) or another device acting as a Geneve tunnel endpoint. For simplicity, an NVE is used to represent the Geneve tunnel endpoint. Please refer to [RFC7365] and [RFC8014] for detailed definitions and descriptions of an NVE. The IP encapsulation of Geneve OAM defined in this document applies to an overlay service by introducing a Management Virtual Network Identifier (VNI) that could be used in combination with various values of the Protocol Type field in the Geneve header, i.e., Ethertypes for IPv4 or IPv6. The analysis and definition of other types of OAM encapsulation in Geneve are outside the scope of this document.

1.1. Conventions used in this document

1.1.1. Terminology

  • In-band OAM is an active OAM or hybrid OAM method ([RFC7799]) that traverses the same set of links and interfaces receiving the same QoS treatment as the monitored object, i.e., a Geneve tunnel as a whole or a particular tenant flow within given Geneve tunnel.

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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

1.1.3. Acronyms

Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation

NVO3: Network Virtualization Overlays

OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

VNI: Virtual Network Identifier

2. Active OAM Protocols in Geneve Networks

OAM protocols, whether part of fault management or performance monitoring, are intended to provide reliable information that can be used to detect a failure, identify the defect and localize it, thus helping to identify and apply corrective actions to minimize the negative impact on service. Several OAM protocols are used to perform these functions; these protocols require demultiplexing at the receiving instance of Geneve. To improve the accuracy of the correlation between the condition experienced by the monitored Geneve tunnel and the state of the OAM protocol the OAM encapsulation is required to comply with the following requirements:

An OAM protocol MAY be used to monitor the particular Geneve tunnel as a whole. In that case, test packets could be in-band relative to a sub-set of tenant flows transported over the Geneve tunnel. If the goal is to monitor the condition experienced by the flow of a particular tenant, the test packets MUST be in-band with that specific flow in the Geneve tunnel. Both scenarios are discussed in detail in Section 2.1.

A test packet generated by an active OAM protocol, either for a defect detection or performance measurement, according to Requirement#1, MUST be in-band (Section 1.1.1) with the tunnel or data flow being monitored. In an environment where multiple paths through the domain are available, underlay transport nodes can be programmed to use characteristic information to balance the load across known paths. It is essential that test packets follow the same route, i.e., traverses the same set of nodes and links, as a data packet of the monitored flow. Thus, the following requirement to support OAM packet fate-sharing with the data flow:

2.1. Defect Detection and Troubleshooting in Geneve Network with Active OAM

This section considers two scenarios where active OAM is used to detect and localize defects in a Geneve network. Figure 1 presents an example of a Geneve domain.

       +--------+                                             +--------+
       | Tenant +--+                                     +----| Tenant |
       | VNI 28 |  |                                     |    | VNI 35 |
       +--------+  |          ................           |    +--------+
                   |  +----+  .              .  +----+   |
                   |  | NVE|--.              .--| NVE|   |
                   +--| A  |  .              .  | B  |---+
                      +----+  .              .  +----+
                      /       .              .
                     /        .     Geneve   .
       +--------+   /         .    Network   .
       | Tenant +--+          .              .
       | VNI 35 |             .              .
       +--------+             ................
                                     |
                                   +----+
                                   | NVE|
                                   | C  |
                                   +----+
                                     |
                                     |
                           =====================
                             |               |
                         +--------+      +--------+
                         | Tenant |      | Tenant |
                         | VNI 28 |      | VNI 35 |
                         +--------+      +--------+

Figure 1: An example of a Geneve domain

In the first case, consider when a communication problem between Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C exists. Upon the investigation, the operator discovers that the forwarding in the IP underlay network is working accordingly. Still, the Geneve connection is unstable for all NVE A and NVE C tenants. Detection, troubleshooting, and localization of the problem can be done regardless of the VNI value.

In the second case, traffic on VNI 35 between NVE A and NVE B has no problems, as on VNI 28 between NVE A and NVE C. But traffic on VNI 35 between NVE A and NVE C experiences problems, for example, excessive packet loss.

The first case can be detected and investigated using any VNI value, whether it connects tenant systems or not; however, to conform to Requirement#4 (Section 2) OAM test packets SHOULD be transmitted on a VNI that doesn't have any tenants. Such a Geneve tunnel is dedicated to carrying only control and management data between the tunnel endpoints, hence it is referred to as a Geneve control channel and that VNI is referred to as the Management VNI. A configured VNI MAY be used to identify the control channel, but it is RECOMMENDED that the default value 1 be used as the Management VNI. Encapsulation of test packets using the Management VNI is discussed in Section 2.2.

The control channel of a Geneve tunnel MUST NOT carry tenant data. As no tenants are connected using the control channel, a system that supports this specification, MUST NOT forward a packet received over the control channel to any tenant. A packet received over the control channel MUST be forwarded if and only if it is sent onto the control channel of the concatenated Geneve tunnel. Else, it MUST be terminated locally. The Management VNI SHOULD be terminated on the tenant-facing side of the Geneve encapsulation/decapsulation functionality, not the DC-network-facing side (per definitions in Section 4 of [RFC8014]) so that Geneve encap/decap functionality is included in its scope. This approach causes an active OAM packet, e.g., an ICMP echo request, to be decapsulated in the same fashion as any other received Geneve packet. In this example, the resulting ICMP packet is handed to NVE's local management functionality for the processing which generates an ICMP echo reply. The ICMP echo reply is encapsulated in Geneve as specified in Section 2.2. for forwarding back to the NVE that sent the echo request. One advantage of this approach is that a repeated ping test could detect an intermittent problem in Geneve encap/decap hardware, which would not be tested if the Management VNI were handled as a "special case" at the DC-network-facing interface.

The second case is when a test packet is transmitted using the VNI value associated with the monitored service flow. By doing that, the test packet experiences network treatment as the tenant's packets. Details of that use case are outside the scope of this specification.

2.2. OAM Encapsulation in Geneve

Active OAM over a Management VNI in the Geneve network uses an IP encapsulation. Protocols such as BFD [RFC5880] and STAMP [RFC8762] use UDP transport. The destination UDP port number in the inner UDP header (Figure 2) identifies the OAM protocol. This approach is well-known and has been used, for example, in MPLS networks [RFC8029]. To use IP encapsulation for an active OAM protocol, the Protocol Type field of the Geneve header MUST be set to the IPv4 (0x0800) or IPv6 (0x86DD) value.

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                        Outer IPvX Header                      ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                        Outer UDP Header                       ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                          Geneve Header                        ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                        Inner IPvX Header                      ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                        Inner UDP Header                       ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                        Active OAM Packet                      ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: An Example of Geneve IP/UDP Encapsulation of an Active OAM Packet

Inner IP header:

Destination IP: The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4, or the loopback address ::1/128 for IPv6 [RFC4291].
Source IP: IP address of the NVE.
TTL or Hop Limit: MUST be set to 255 per [RFC5082].

3. Echo Request and Echo Reply in Geneve Tunnel

ICMP and ICMPv6 ([RFC0792] and [RFC4443] respectively) provide required on-demand defect detection and failure localization. ICMP control messages immediately follow the inner IP header encapsulated in Geneve. ICMP extensions for Geneve networks use mechanisms defined in [RFC4884].

4. IANA Considerations

This document has no requirements for IANA. This section can be removed before the publication.

5. Security Considerations

As part of a Geneve network, active OAM inherits the security considerations discussed in [RFC8926]. Additionally, a system MUST provide control to limit the rate of Geneve OAM packets punted to the Geneve control plane for processing in order to avoid overloading that control plane.

OAM in GENEVE packets uses the General TTL Security Mechanism [RFC5082], and any packet received with an inner TTL / Hop Count other than 255 MUST be discarded.

6. Acknowledgments

The authors express their appreciation to Donald E. Eastlake 3rd for his suggestions that improved the readability of the document.

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, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8926]
Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed., "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation", RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC8926, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8926>.

7.2. Informative References

[RFC0792]
Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC4291]
Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4443]
Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4884]
Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, DOI 10.17487/RFC4884, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4884>.
[RFC5082]
Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C. Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.
[RFC5880]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC7365]
Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and Y. Rekhter, "Framework for Data Center (DC) Network Virtualization", RFC 7365, DOI 10.17487/RFC7365, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7365>.
[RFC7799]
Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8014]
Black, D., Hudson, J., Kreeger, L., Lasserre, M., and T. Narten, "An Architecture for Data-Center Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3)", RFC 8014, DOI 10.17487/RFC8014, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8014>.
[RFC8029]
Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8762]
Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.

Authors' Addresses

Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Sami Boutros
Ciena
David Black
Dell EMC
176 South Street
Hopkinton, MA, 01748
United States of America
Santosh Pallagatti
VMware