RFC 9772: Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Use in Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve)
- G. Mirsky,
- S. Boutros,
- D. Black,
- S. Pallagatti
Abstract
Geneve (Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation) is a flexible and extensible network virtualization overlay protocol designed to encapsulate network packets for transport across underlying physical networks. This document specifies the requirements and provides a framework for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Geneve networks. It outlines the OAM functions necessary to monitor, diagnose, and troubleshoot Geneve overlay networks to ensure proper operation and performance. The document aims to guide the implementation of OAM mechanisms within the Geneve protocol to support network operators in maintaining reliable and efficient virtualized network environments.¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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://
1. Introduction
Geneve [RFC8926] is designed to support various scenarios of network virtualization. It encapsulates multiple protocols, such as Ethernet and IPv4/IPv6, and includes metadata within the Geneve message.¶
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols provide fault management and performance monitoring functions necessary for comprehensive network operation. Active OAM protocols, as defined in [RFC7799], utilize specially constructed packets injected into the network. OAM protocols such as ICMP and ICMPv6 ([RFC0792] and [RFC4443] respectively), Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880], and the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] are examples of active OAM protocols. To ensure that performance metrics or detected failures are accurately related to a particular Geneve flow, it is critical that these OAM test packets share fate, i.e., are in-band, with the overlay data packets of that monitored flow when traversing the underlay network. In this document, "in-band OAM" is interpreted as follows:¶
Section 2.1 lists the general requirements for active OAM protocols in the Geneve overlay network. IP encapsulation meets these requirements and is suitable for encapsulating active OAM protocols within a Geneve overlay network. Active OAM messages in a Geneve overlay network are exchanged between two Geneve tunnel endpoints; each endpoint may be the tenant-facing interface of the Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) or another device acting as a Geneve tunnel endpoint. Testing end-to-end between tenants is out of scope. For simplicity, this document uses an NVE to represent the Geneve tunnel endpoint. 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), which can be used in combination with various values of the Protocol Type field in the Geneve header, such as 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. 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.¶
1.1.2. Acronyms
- Geneve:
- Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation¶
- NVO3:
- Network Virtualization over Layer 3¶
- OAM:
- Operations, Administration, and Maintenance¶
- VNI:
- Virtual Network Identifier¶
- BFD:
- Bidirectional Forwarding Detection¶
- STAMP:
- Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol¶
- NVE:
- Network Virtualization Edge¶
2. The Applicability of Active OAM Protocols in Geneve Networks
2.1. Requirements for 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:¶
- Requirement 1:
-
Geneve OAM test packets MUST share the same fate as the data traffic of the monitored Geneve tunnel. Specifically, the OAM test packets MUST be in-band with the monitored traffic and follow the same overlay and transport paths as packets carrying data payloads in the forward direction, i.e., from the ingress toward the egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test.¶
An OAM protocol MAY be employed to monitor an entire Geneve tunnel. In this case, test packets could be in-band relative to a subset of tenant flows transported over the Geneve tunnel. If the goal is to monitor the conditions experienced by the flow of a particular tenant, the test packets MUST be in-band with that specific flow within the Geneve tunnel. Both scenarios are discussed in detail in Section 2.2.¶
- Requirement 2:
-
The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data packets in the underlay network MUST be indistinguishab
le .¶ - Requirement 3:
-
The presence of an OAM control message in a Geneve packet MUST be unambiguously identifiable to Geneve functionality, such as at endpoints of Geneve tunnels.¶
- Requirement 4:
-
OAM test packets MUST NOT be forwarded to a tenant system.¶
A test packet generated by an active OAM protocol, whether for defect detection or performance measurement, MUST be in-band with the tunnel or data flow being monitored, as specified in Requirement 1. In environments 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 -- that is, traverse the same set of nodes and links as a data packet of the monitored flow. Therefore, the following requirement supports OAM packet fate-sharing with the data flow.¶
- Requirement 5:
-
There MUST be a way to encode entropy information into the underlay forwarding scheme so that OAM packets take the same data-flow paths as the transit traffic flows.¶
2.2. 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.¶
In the first case, consider when a communication problem between
Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) device A and NVE C exists.
Upon 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
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. However, 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, 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, so 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 2.3.¶
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
by the system that supports this specification 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
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. An example of the realization of that scenario is discussed in [RFC9521].¶
2.2.1. Echo Request and Echo Reply in Geneve Tunnel
ICMP and ICMPv6 ([RFC0792] and [RFC4443] respectively), as noted above, are examples of an active OAM protocol. They 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].¶
2.3. Active 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 0x0800 (IPv4) or 0x86DD (IPv6). [RFC9521] describes the use of IP encapsulation for BFD.¶
- Inner IP header:
-
- Destination IP:
-
The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 version. For IPv6, the address MUST be selected from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix 100:0:0:1::/64 [RFC9780]. A source-only IPv6 address is used as the destination to generate an exception and a reply message to the request message received.¶
- Source IP:
- IP address of the NVE.¶
- TTL or Hop Limit:
- MUST be set to 255 per [RFC5082]. The receiver of an active OAM Geneve packet with IP/UDP encapsulation MUST drop packets whose TTL/Hop Limit is not 255.¶
3. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.¶
4. 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.¶
5. References
5.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 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 , , <https:///RFC8174 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 , , <https:///RFC8926 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8926 - [RFC9780]
-
Mirsky, G., Mishra, G., and D. Eastlake 3rd, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint Networks over Point
-to , RFC 9780, DOI 10-Multipoint MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)" .17487 , , <https:///RFC9780 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9780
5.2. Informative References
- [RFC0792]
-
Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC0792 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc792 - [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 , , <https:///RFC4443 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 , , <https:///RFC4884 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 , , <https:///RFC5082 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5082 - [RFC5880]
-
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5880 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 , , <https:///RFC7365 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 , , <https:///RFC7799 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 , , <https:///RFC8014 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 , , <https:///RFC8029 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 , , <https:///RFC8762 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8762 - [RFC9521]
-
Min, X., Mirsky, G., Pallagatti, S., Tantsura, J., and S. Aldrin, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve)", RFC 9521, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9521 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9521
Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to Donald E. Eastlake 3rd for his suggestions that improved the readability of the document.¶