< draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01.txt   draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-02.txt >
Network Working Group G. Fioccola, Ed. Network Working Group G. Fioccola, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Obsoletes: 8321 (if approved) M. Cociglio Obsoletes: 8321 (if approved) M. Cociglio
Intended status: Standards Track Telecom Italia Intended status: Standards Track Telecom Italia
Expires: June 12, 2022 G. Mirsky Expires: August 21, 2022 G. Mirsky
Ericsson Ericsson
T. Mizrahi T. Mizrahi
T. Zhou T. Zhou
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
December 9, 2021 X. Min
ZTE Corp.
February 17, 2022
Alternate-Marking Method Alternate-Marking Method
draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01 draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-02
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the Alternate-Marking technique to perform This document describes the Alternate-Marking technique to perform
packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic. This packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic. This
technology can be applied in various situations and for different technology can be applied in various situations and for different
protocols. It could be considered Passive or Hybrid depending on the protocols. It could be considered Passive or Hybrid depending on the
application. This document obsoletes [RFC8321]. application. This document obsoletes [RFC8321].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 40
4. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.1. Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Data Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2. Data Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. Packet Reordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.3. Packet Reordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Packet Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.4. Packet Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Results of the Alternate Marking Experiment . . . . . . . . . 20 5. Results of the Alternate Marking Experiment . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. Controlled Domain requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1. Controlled Domain requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Compliance with Guidelines from RFC 6390 . . . . . . . . . . 22 6. Compliance with Guidelines from RFC 6390 . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A. Changes Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Appendix A. Changes Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Nowadays, most Service Providers' networks carry traffic with Nowadays, most Service Providers' networks carry traffic with
contents that are highly sensitive to packet loss [RFC7680], delay contents that are highly sensitive to packet loss [RFC7680], delay
[RFC7679], and jitter [RFC3393]. [RFC7679], and jitter [RFC3393].
In view of this scenario, Service Providers need methodologies and In view of this scenario, Service Providers need methodologies and
tools to monitor and measure network performance with an adequate tools to monitor and measure network performance with an adequate
skipping to change at page 20, line 17 skipping to change at page 20, line 17
4.4. Packet Fragmentation 4.4. Packet Fragmentation
Fragmentation can be managed with the Alternate-Marking Method and in Fragmentation can be managed with the Alternate-Marking Method and in
particular it is possible to give the following guidance: particular it is possible to give the following guidance:
Marking nodes MUST mark all fragments if there are flag bits to Marking nodes MUST mark all fragments if there are flag bits to
use (i.e. it is in the specific encapsulation), as if they were use (i.e. it is in the specific encapsulation), as if they were
separate packets. separate packets.
Nodes that fragment packets within the measurement domain MUST NOT Nodes that fragment packets within the measurement domain SHOULD,
replicate marks, but SHOULD mark the first fragment if they have if they have the capability to do so, ensure that only one
the capability to do so. resulting fragment carries the marking bit(s) of the original
packet. Failure to do so can introduce errors into the
measurement.
Measurement points MAY simply ignore unmarked fragments and count Measurement points MAY simply ignore unmarked fragments and count
marked fragments as full packets. However, if resources allow, marked fragments as full packets. However, if resources allow,
measurement points MAY make note of both marked and unmarked measurement points MAY make note of both marked and unmarked
initial fragments and only increment the corresponding counter if initial fragments and only increment the corresponding counter if
(a) other fragments are also marked, or (b) it observes all other (a) other fragments are also marked, or (b) it observes all other
fragments and they are unmarked. fragments and they are unmarked.
The proposed approach allows the marking node to mark all the The proposed approach allows the marking node to mark all the
fragments except in the case of fragmentation within the network fragments except in the case of fragmentation within the network
skipping to change at page 21, line 42 skipping to change at page 21, line 44
o flexibility: all the timestamp formats are allowed, because they o flexibility: all the timestamp formats are allowed, because they
are managed out of band. The format (the Network Time Protocol are managed out of band. The format (the Network Time Protocol
(NTP) [RFC5905] or the IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol (PTP) (NTP) [RFC5905] or the IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol (PTP)
[IEEE-1588]) depends on the precision you want; and [IEEE-1588]) depends on the precision you want; and
o no interoperability issues: the features required are available on o no interoperability issues: the features required are available on
all current routing platforms. Both a centralized or distributed all current routing platforms. Both a centralized or distributed
solution can be used to harvest data from the routers. solution can be used to harvest data from the routers.
A deployment of the Alternate-Marking Method SHOULD also take into
account how to handle and recognize marked and unmarked traffic
depending on whether the technique is applied as Hybrid or Passive.
In the case where the marking method is applied by changing existing
fields of the packets, it is RECOMMENDED to use an additional flag or
some out-of-band signaling to indicate if the measurement is
activated or not in order to inform the measurement points. While,
in the case where the marking field is dedicated, reserved, and
included in a protocol extension, the measurement points can learn
whether the measurement is activated or not by checking if the
specific extension is included or not within the packets.
It is worth mentioning some related work: in particular It is worth mentioning some related work: in particular
[IEEE-Network-PNPM] explains the Alternate-Marking method together [IEEE-Network-PNPM] explains the Alternate-Marking method together
with new mechanisms based on hashing techniques as also further with new mechanisms based on hashing techniques as also further
described in [I-D.mizrahi-ippm-marking]; while described in [I-D.mizrahi-ippm-marking]; while
[I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking] extends the Alternate- [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking] extends the Alternate-
Marking Data Fields, to provide enhanced capabilities and allow Marking Data Fields, to provide enhanced capabilities and allow
advanced functionalities. advanced functionalities.
5.1. Controlled Domain requirement 5.1. Controlled Domain requirement
skipping to change at page 25, line 45 skipping to change at page 26, line 10
only to delay-colored packets, causing systematic error in the delay only to delay-colored packets, causing systematic error in the delay
measurements. As discussed in previous sections, the methods measurements. As discussed in previous sections, the methods
described in this document rely on an underlying time synchronization described in this document rely on an underlying time synchronization
protocol. Thus, by attacking the time protocol, an attacker can protocol. Thus, by attacking the time protocol, an attacker can
potentially compromise the integrity of the measurement. A detailed potentially compromise the integrity of the measurement. A detailed
discussion about the threats against time protocols and how to discussion about the threats against time protocols and how to
mitigate them is presented in RFC 7384 [RFC7384]. mitigate them is presented in RFC 7384 [RFC7384].
9. Contributors 9. Contributors
Xiao Min Mach(Guoyi) Chen
ZTE Corp. Huawei Technologies
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Alessandro Capello
Telecom Italia
Email: alessandro.capello@telecomitalia.it
10. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Alessandro Capello, Luca Castaldelli, The authors would like to thank Alberto Tempia Bonda, Luca
Mach Chen and Lianshu Zheng for their contribution to the definition Castaldelli and Lianshu Zheng for their contribution to the
and the implementation of the method. experimentation of the method.
The authors would also thank Martin Duke and Tommy Pauly for their The authors would also thank Martin Duke and Tommy Pauly for their
assistance and their detailed and precious reviews. assistance and their detailed and precious reviews.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[IEEE-1588] [IEEE-1588]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
skipping to change at page 26, line 40 skipping to change at page 27, line 8
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8889bis] [I-D.fioccola-rfc8889bis]
Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto, Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and T.
"Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method", draft-fioccola- Zhou, "Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method", draft-
rfc8889bis-00 (work in progress), November 2021. fioccola-rfc8889bis-01 (work in progress), December 2021.
[I-D.mizrahi-ippm-marking] [I-D.mizrahi-ippm-marking]
Mizrahi, T., Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Chen, M., and G. Mizrahi, T., Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Chen, M., and G.
Mirsky, "Marking Methods for Performance Measurement", Mirsky, "Marking Methods for Performance Measurement",
draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking-00 (work in progress), October draft-mizrahi-ippm-marking-00 (work in progress), October
2021. 2021.
[I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking] [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking]
Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., Liu, Y., Lee, S., Cociglio, M., Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., Liu, Y., Lee, S., Cociglio, M.,
and W. Li, "Enhanced Alternate Marking Method", draft- and W. Li, "Enhanced Alternate Marking Method", draft-
zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-07 (work in zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-08 (work in
progress), July 2021. progress), January 2022.
[IEEE-Network-PNPM] [IEEE-Network-PNPM]
IEEE Network, "AM-PM: Efficient Network Telemetry using IEEE Network, "AM-PM: Efficient Network Telemetry using
Alternate Marking", DOI 10.1109/MNET.2019.1800152, 2019. Alternate Marking", DOI 10.1109/MNET.2019.1800152, 2019.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.
skipping to change at page 29, line 23 skipping to change at page 29, line 37
is only mentioned but not detailed. is only mentioned but not detailed.
o Explanation of the the intrinsic error in section 3.3.1 on o Explanation of the the intrinsic error in section 3.3.1 on
"Single-Marking Methodology" "Single-Marking Methodology"
o Deleted some parts in section 4 "Considerations" that no longer o Deleted some parts in section 4 "Considerations" that no longer
apply apply
o New section on "Packet Fragmentation" o New section on "Packet Fragmentation"
Changes in v-(02) include:
o Considerations on how to handle unmarked traffic in section 5 on
"Results of the Alternate Marking Experiment"
o Minor rewording in section 4.4 on "Packet Fragmentation"
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe Fioccola (editor) Giuseppe Fioccola (editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Riesstrasse, 25 Riesstrasse, 25
Munich 80992 Munich 80992
Germany Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Mauro Cociglio Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274 Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148 Torino 10148
Italy Italy
Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
Ericsson Ericsson
skipping to change at page 30, line 4 skipping to change at page 30, line 21
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
Ericsson Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Tal Mizrahi Tal Mizrahi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
Tianran Zhou Tianran Zhou
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
156 Beiqing Rd. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 50 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/