



BIER Working Group                                        G. Mirsky, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Informational                                  N. Kumar
Expires: 17 April 2026                                            Oracle
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                      S. Pallagatti, Ed.
                                                                  VMware
                                                         14 October 2025


 Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Requirements for Bit
                Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer
                  draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-19

Abstract

   This document specifies a list of functional requirements for
   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance mechanisms, protocols,
   and tools that support operations in the Bit Index Explicit
   Replication layer of a network.

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 17 April 2026.

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://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



Mirsky, et al.            Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          OAM Requirements for BIER           October 2025


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
       1.1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
       1.1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.3.  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   [RFC8279] specifies a Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
   architecture and how it supports forwarding of multicast data
   packets.

   This document lists the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
   (OAM) requirements for the BIER layer see Section 4.2 of [RFC8279])
   of the multicast domain.  The list can further be used for gap
   analysis of available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of
   existing or whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive
   and on-demand path monitoring and service validation.

1.1.  Conventions used in this document

1.1.1.  Terminology

   The reader is expected to be familiar with [RFC7799], particularly
   definitions of Active, Passive, and Hybrid measurement methods and
   metrics.

   The term "BIER OAM" is used in this document interchangeably with a
   more extended version, "set of OAM protocols, methods, and tools for
   BIER layer".

   Downstream - is the direction from the ingress toward the egress
   endpoints of a multicast distribution tree.



Mirsky, et al.            Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          OAM Requirements for BIER           October 2025


   *  In-band OAM is an active OAM or hybrid OAM method [RFC7799] in
      which OAM packets traverse the same set of links and interfaces,
      and receive the same QoS treatment, as the monitored BIER flow
      (traffic flows in [RFC7011]).

   *  Out-of-band OAM refers to an active OAM method in which the path
      traversed through the BIER domain is not topologically identical
      to that of the monitored BIER flow, or in which the OAM test
      packets receive different QoS treatment, or both.

   *  OAM session is a communication established between network nodes
      to perform OAM functions like fault detection, performance
      monitoring, and localization [RFC7276].  These sessions can be
      proactive (continuous, persistent configuration) or on-demand
      (manual, temporary diagnostics).

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.

   The requirements language is used in Section 2 and applies to
   implementations of BIER OAM conformant to the listed requirements.

1.1.3.  Acronyms

   BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC8562]

   BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router [RFC8279]

   BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router [RFC8279]

   BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication [RFC8279]

   OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance [RFC6291]

   p2mp: Point-to-Multipoint [RFC8562]

   RDI: Remote Defect Indication

   STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol [RFC8762]







Mirsky, et al.            Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          OAM Requirements for BIER           October 2025


2.  Requirements

   This section lists the requirements for OAM of the BIER layer:

   1.   The listed requirements MUST be supported with any routing
        underlay [RFC8279] over which the BIER layer can be realized.

   2.   It MUST be possible to initialize a BIER OAM session from any
        Bit-Forwarding Router (BFR) of the given BIER domain.

   3.   It SHOULD be possible to initialize a BIER OAM session from a
        centralized controller.

   4.   BIER OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring and
        measurement methods.

   5.   BIER OAM MUST support downstream path continuity check.
        Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC8562] is an example
        of a protocol that monitors the continuity of a multicast
        distribution tree.

   6.   BIER OAM MUST support downstream performance measurement.
        Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is
        an example of a protocol that supports measurement of
        performance metrics, e.g., packet loss ratio, delay, and delay
        variation.

   7.   BIER OAM packets in the forward direction (i.e., from the
        ingress toward the egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test session)
        MUST be transmitted in-band, as defined in Section 1.1.1.

   8.   BIER OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods.  Such methods
        MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the forward
        direction with out-of-band notification, as defined in
        Section 1.1.1, in the reverse direction (i.e., from the egress
        toward the ingress endpoint of the OAM test session, as in
        Point-to-Multipoint (p2mp) BFD with active tail [RFC9780]).

   9.   BIER OAM MUST support the ability of any BFR in the given BIER
        domain to monitor BFER availability proactively.  The p2mp BFD
        with active tail support [RFC9780] is an example of a protocol
        that provides notifications about the loss of connectivity in a
        multicast distribution tree.

   10.  BIER OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery
        [RFC1191].





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          OAM Requirements for BIER           October 2025


   11.  BIER OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication (RDI) [RFC6428]
        notification of the source of continuity checking BFR by Bit-
        Forwarding Egress Routers (BFERs).  The Diagnostic field in p2mp
        BFD with active tail support, as described in Section 5 of
        [RFC9780], is an example of the RDI mechanism.

   12.  BIER OAM MUST support active and passive performance measurement
        methods [RFC7799].

   13.  BIER OAM MUST support downstream performance measurement
        method(s) that (together) calculate performance metrics, e.g.,
        throughput, loss, delay, and delay variation metrics [RFC6374].
        STAMP ([RFC8762] and [RFC8972]) is an example of an active
        performance measurement method of performance metrics that may
        be applied in a BIER domain.  The Alternate Marking Method,
        described in [RFC9341] and [RFC9342], is an example of a hybrid
        measurement method ([RFC7799]) that may be applied in a BIER
        domain.

   14.  BIER OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism(s), like
        Alarm Indication Signal [RFC6427].

   15.  BIER OAM MUST support a way for any BFR in the given BIER domain
        to originate a fault management message addressed to any subset
        of BFRs within the domain.  [RFC6427] provides an example of a
        Fault Management messaging mechanism.

   16.  BIER OAM MUST support methods to enable the survivability of a
        BIER layer.  Protection switching and restoration are examples
        of survivability methods.

3.  IANA Considerations

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

4.  Security Considerations

   This document lists the OAM requirement for a BIER-enabled domain and
   thus inherits security considerations discussed in [RFC8279] and
   [RFC8296].  Another general security aspect results from using active
   OAM protocols, according to the [RFC7799], in a multicast network.

   Active OAM protocols inject specially constructed test packets, and
   some active OAM protocols are based on the echo request/reply
   principle.  In the multicast network, test packets are replicated as
   data packets, thus creating a possible amplification effect of
   multiple echo responses being transmitted to the sender of the echo



Mirsky, et al.            Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          OAM Requirements for BIER           October 2025


   request.  Thus, an implementation of BIER OAM MUST protect the
   control plane from spoofed replies.  Also, an implementation of BIER
   OAM MUST provide control of the number of BIER OAM messages sent to
   the control plane.

5.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the comments and suggestions from
   Gunter van de Velde that helped improve this document.

6.  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,
              <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>.

7.  Informative References

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.

   [RFC6291]  Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
              D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
              Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.

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

   [RFC6427]  Swallow, G., Ed., Fulignoli, A., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed.,
              Boutros, S., and D. Ward, "MPLS Fault Management
              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",
              RFC 6427, DOI 10.17487/RFC6427, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6427>.








Mirsky, et al.            Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          OAM Requirements for BIER           October 2025


   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6428>.

   [RFC7011]  Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
              "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
              Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
              RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.

   [RFC7799]  Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
              Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
              May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
              Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.

   [RFC8296]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
              for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
              MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.

   [RFC8562]  Katz, D., Ward, D., Pallagatti, S., Ed., and G. Mirsky,
              Ed., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for
              Multipoint Networks", RFC 8562, DOI 10.17487/RFC8562,
              April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8562>.

   [RFC8762]  Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
              Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.








Mirsky, et al.            Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          OAM Requirements for BIER           October 2025


   [RFC8972]  Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
              and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
              Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.

   [RFC9341]  Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
              and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.

   [RFC9342]  Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and
              T. Zhou, "Clustered Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9342,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9342, December 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9342>.

   [RFC9780]  Mirsky, G., Mishra, G., and D. Eastlake 3rd,
              "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint
              Networks over Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Label Switched
              Paths (LSPs)", RFC 9780, DOI 10.17487/RFC9780, May 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9780>.

Contributors' Addresses

   Erik Nordmark
   Email: nordmark@acm.org


   Sam Aldrin
   Google
   Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com


   Lianshu Zheng
   Email: veronique_cheng@hotmail.com


   Nobo Akiya
   Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com


Authors' Addresses

   Greg Mirsky (editor)
   Ericsson
   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com





Mirsky, et al.            Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          OAM Requirements for BIER           October 2025


   Nagendra Kumar
   Oracle
   Email: nagendrakumar.nainar@gmail.com


   Mach Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com


   Santosh Pallagatti (editor)
   VMware
   Email: santosh.pallagatti@gmail.com






































Mirsky, et al.            Expires 17 April 2026                 [Page 9]
