<?xml version="1.0"encoding="US-ASCII"?>encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE rfcSYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"> <?rfc toc="yes"?> <?rfc tocompact="yes"?> <?rfc tocdepth="4"?> <?rfc tocindent="yes"?> <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> <?rfc comments="yes"?> <?rfc inline="yes"?> <?rfc compact="yes"?> <?rfc subcompact="no"?>[ <!ENTITY nbsp " "> <!ENTITY zwsp "​"> <!ENTITY nbhy "‑"> <!ENTITY wj "⁠"> ]> <rfccategory="std"xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" docName="draft-ietf-sfc-oam-packet-03" number="9451" submissionType="IETF" category="std" consensus="true" ipr="trust200902"updates="8300">updates="8300" obsoletes="" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3"> <front> <titleabbrev="SFC OAM Packet">OAMabbrev="OAM Packet NSH">Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Packet and Behavior in the Network Service Header (NSH)</title> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9451"/> <author fullname="Mohamed Boucadair" initials="M." surname="Boucadair"> <organization>Orange</organization> <address> <postal><street></street><street/> <city>Rennes</city><region></region><region/> <code>35000</code> <country>France</country> </postal> <email>mohamed.boucadair@orange.com</email> </address> </author> <date/>year="2023" month="August"/> <area>rtg</area> <workgroup>sfc</workgroup> <keyword>Diagnostic</keyword> <keyword>Troubelshooting</keyword> <keyword>Service Function Chaining</keyword> <keyword>Automation</keyword> <keyword>SDN</keyword> <keyword>Programmable Networks</keyword> <keyword>Service Differentiation</keyword> <abstract> <t>This document clarifies an ambiguity in the Network Service Header (NSH) specification related to the handling of O bit. In particular, this document clarifies the meaning of "OAM packet".</t> <t>This document updates RFC 8300.</t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <section anchor="introduction"title="Introduction">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Introduction</name> <t>This document clarifies an ambiguity related to the definition of the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) packet discussed in <xreftarget="RFC8300"></xref>.</t> <t>The processingtarget="RFC8300" format="default"/>.</t> <t>Processing of the O bit in the Network Service Header (NSH) must follow the updated behavior specified in <xreftarget="anupdate"></xref>.</t>target="anupdate" format="default"/>.</t> </section> <section anchor="notation"title="Terminology"> <t>Thenumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Terminology</name> <t> The key words"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY","<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and"OPTIONAL""<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as described inBCP 14BCP 14 <xreftarget="RFC2119"></xref>target="RFC2119"/> <xreftarget="RFC8174"></xref>target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shownhere.</t>here. </t> <t>This document makes use of the terms defined in <xreftarget="RFC7665"></xref>target="RFC7665" format="default"/> and <xreftarget="RFC8300"></xref>.</t>target="RFC8300" format="default"/>.</t> <t>The document defines the followingterms:<list style="hanging"> <t hangText="SFCterms:</t> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> <dt>Service Function Chaining (SFC) data planeelement:">referselement:</dt> <dd>refers to the SFC-aware Service Function (SF), Service Function Forwarder (SFF), SFC Proxy, or Classifier as defined in the SFC data plane architecture <xreftarget="RFC7665"></xref>target="RFC7665" format="default"/> and further refined in <xreftarget="RFC8300"></xref>.</t> <t hangText="OAMtarget="RFC8300" format="default"/>.</dd> <dt>OAM controlelement:">anelement:</dt> <dd>an NSH-aware element that is capable of generating NSH OAM packets. An SFC data plane element may behave as an OAM controlelement.</t> <t hangText="SFCelement.</dd> <dt>SFC OAMdata:">refersdata:</dt> <dd>refers to an OAM request (e.g., Connectivity Verification and Continuity Checks <xreftarget="RFC7276"></xref>),target="RFC7276" format="default"/>), any data that influences how to execute a companion OAM request (e.g., identity of a terminating SF), the output data of an OAM request, and any combinationthereof.</t> <t hangText="User data:">refersthereof.</dd> <dt>User data:</dt> <dd>refers to user packets cited inSection 5.7 of<xreftarget="RFC7665"></xref>.</t> </list></t>target="RFC7665" sectionFormat="of" section="5.7"/>.</dd> </dl> </section> <section anchor="anupdate"title="Annumbered="true" toc="default"> <name>An Update toRFC8300">RFC 8300</name> <t>This document updatesSection 2.2 of<xreftarget="RFC8300"></xref>target="RFC8300" sectionFormat="of" section="2.2"/> as follows:</t><t><list style="hanging"> <t hangText="OLD: "><vspace blankLines="1" /><list style="hanging"> <t hangText="O bit:">Setting<t>OLD:</t> <blockquote> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> <dt>O bit:</dt> <dd><t>Setting this bit indicates an OAM packet (see[RFC6291]).<xref target="RFC6291" format="default"/>). The actual format and processing of SFC OAM packets is outside the scope of this specification (for example, see [SFC-OAM-FRAMEWORK] for oneapproach).<vspace blankLines="1" />Theapproach).</t> <t>The O bitMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set for OAM packets andMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be set for non-OAM packets. The O bitMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be modified along theSFP.<vspace blankLines="1" />SF/SFF/SFCSFP.</t> <t>SF/SFF/SFC Proxy/Classifier implementations that do not support SFC OAM proceduresSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> discard packets with O bit set, butMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> support a configurable parameter to enable forwarding received SFC OAM packets unmodified to the next element in the chain. Forwarding OAM packets unmodified by SFC elements that do not support SFC OAM procedures may be acceptable for a subset of OAM functions, but it can result in unexpected outcomes for others; thus, it is recommended to analyze the impact of forwarding an OAM packet for all OAM functions prior to enabling this behavior. The configurable parameterMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be disabled by default.</t></list></t> <t hangText="NEW: "><vspace blankLines="1" /><list style="hanging"> <t hangText="O bit:">Setting</dd> </dl> </blockquote> <t>NEW:</t> <blockquote> <dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> <dt>O bit:</dt> <dd><t>Setting this bit indicates an NSH OAM packet. Such a packet is any NSH-encapsulated packet that exclusively includes SFC OAM data. SFC OAM data can be included in the Fixed-Length Context Header, optional Context Headers, and/or the inner packet.<vspace blankLines="1" />The</t> <t>The O bit is typically set by an OAM controller or a final destination of an NSH OAM packet that triggers a response (e.g., a specific SFC-awareSF,SF or the last SFF of an SFP).<vspace blankLines="1" />The</t> <t>The O bitMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set for NSH OAM packets andMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be set for non-OAM packets. The O bitMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be modified along theSFP.<vspace blankLines="1" />NSH-encapsulatedSFP.</t> <t>NSH-encapsulated packets that include user data are not consideredasNSH OAM packets even if some SFC OAM data (e.g., record route) is also supplied in the packet.<vspace blankLines="1" />When</t> <t>When SFC OAM data is included in the inner packet, the Next Protocol field is set to reflect the structure of that inner OAM packet. The setting and processing of the O bit neither assumes nor expects detailed analysis of the content of any inner IP packet carried by the NSH. In order to preventnon deterministicnon-deterministic behaviors, SFC data plane elementsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> support a configuration parameter to filter valid Next Protocol values in NSH OAM packets. Absent explicit configuration, SFFs, SFC-aware SFs, and SFC ProxiesSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> discard any NSH packets with the O bit set and Next Protocol set to something that is not itself an OAM protocol. This includes discarding the packet when the O bit is set and the Next Protocol is set to 0x01 (IPv4), 0x02 (IPv6), 0x03 (MPLS), or 0x05 (Ethernet).<vspace blankLines="1" />An</t> <t>An NSH OAM packetMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> include optional Context Headers (e.g., a subscriber identifier <xreftarget="RFC8979"></xref>target="RFC8979" format="default"/> or a flow identifier <xreftarget="RFC9263"></xref>)target="RFC9263" format="default"/>) that are used to influence the processing of the packet by SFC data plane elements.<vspace blankLines="1" />An</t> <t>An NSH OAM packetMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> include SFC OAM data in both Context Headers and the inner packet. The processing(including the order)of the SFC OAM dataSHOULD(including the order) <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be specified in the relevant OAM or Context Header specification.<vspace blankLines="1" />SFC-aware SF/SFF/SFC Proxy/Classifier</t> <t>SFC-aware implementations of SF, SFF, SFC Proxy, and Classifier that do not support SFC OAM proceduresSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> discard packets with the O bitset,set butMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> support a configurable parameter to enable forwarding received NSH OAM packets unmodified to the next element in the chain. Forwarding NSH OAM packets unmodified by SFC data plane elements that do not support SFC OAM procedures may be acceptable for a subset of OAM functions, but it can result in unexpected outcomes forothers; thus,others. Thus, it is recommended to analyze the impact of forwarding an NSH OAM packet for all OAM functions prior to enabling this behavior. The configurable parameterMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be disabled by default.<vspace blankLines="1" />The</t> <t>The actual format and additional processing of NSH OAM packets is outside the scope of this specification.</t></list></t> </list></t></dd> </dl> </blockquote> </section> <sectiontitle="IANA Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <t>This documentdoes not make any request to IANA.</t>has no IANA actions.</t> </section> <section anchor="security"title="Security Considerations">numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t>Data plane SFC-related security considerations, including privacy, are discussed inSection 6 of<xreftarget="RFC7665"></xref>target="RFC7665" sectionFormat="of" section="6"/> andSection 8 of<xreftarget="RFC8300"></xref>.target="RFC8300" sectionFormat="of" section="8"/>. Additional security considerations related to SFC OAM are discussed inSection 9 of<xreftarget="RFC8924"></xref>.</t>target="RFC8924" sectionFormat="of" section="9"/>.</t> <t>Any data included in an NSH OAM packetSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> beintegrity-protectedintegrity protected <xreftarget="RFC9145"></xref>.</t>target="RFC9145" format="default"/>.</t> </section> </middle> <back> <references> <name>References</name> <references> <name>Normative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8300.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9145.xml"/> </references> <references> <name>Informative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7665.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8979.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9263.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8924.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7276.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6291.xml"/> </references> </references> <section anchor="ack"title="Acknowledgments">numbered="false" toc="default"> <name>Acknowledgments</name> <t>Thanks toJim Guichard, Greg Mirsky, Joel Halpern, Christian Jacquenet, Dirk von-Hugo, Carlos Pignataro, and Frank Brockners<contact fullname="Jim Guichard"/>, <contact fullname="Greg Mirsky"/>, <contact fullname="Joel Halpern"/>, <contact fullname="Christian Jacquenet"/>, <contact fullname="Dirk von-Hugo"/>, <contact fullname="Carlos Pignataro"/>, and <contact fullname="Frank Brockners"/> for the comments.</t> <t>Thanks toBarry Leiba<contact fullname="Barry Leiba"/> for the art directorate review andRuss Housley<contact fullname="Russ Housley"/> for the security directorate review.</t> <t>Thanks toAlvaro Retana and Robert Wilton<contact fullname="Alvaro Retana"/> and <contact fullname="Robert Wilton"/> forthetheir IESGreview.</t>reviews.</t> </section></middle> <back> <references title="Normative References"> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8300'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9145'?> </references> <references title="Informative References"> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7665'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8979'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9263'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8924'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7276'?> <?rfc include='reference.RFC.6291'?> </references></back> </rfc>