< draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-01.txt   draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-02.txt >
BIER Working Group G. Mirsky BIER Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track L. Zheng Intended status: Standards Track L. Zheng
Expires: July 27, 2017 M. Chen Expires: January 19, 2018 M. Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
G. Fioccola G. Fioccola
Telecom Italia Telecom Italia
January 23, 2017 July 18, 2017
Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit
Replication (BIER) Layer Replication (BIER) Layer
draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-01 draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-02
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a passive performance measurement method for This document describes a hybrid performance measurement method for
multicast service over Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) domain. multicast service over Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) domain.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 July 27, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. OAM Field in BIER Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. OAM Field in BIER Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Single Mark Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Single Mark Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Double Mark Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Double Mark Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] introduces and explains Bit Index [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] introduces and explains Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER) architecture and how it supports Explicit Replication (BIER) architecture and how it supports
forwarding of multicast data packets. forwarding of multicast data packets.
[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] specified that in case of BIER [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] specified that in case of BIER
encapsulation in MPLS network a BIER-MPLS label, label that is at the encapsulation in MPLS network a BIER-MPLS label, label that is at the
bottom of the label stack, uniquely identifies the multicast flow. bottom of the label stack, uniquely identifies the multicast flow.
[I-D.tempia-ippm-p3m] describes passive performance measurement [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] describes hybrid performance measurement
method , Packet Network Performance Monitoring (PNPM), which can be method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement methods. Packet
used to measure packet loss, latency and jitter on live traffic. Network Performance Monitoring (PNPM), which can be used to measure
Because this method is based on marking consecutive batches of packet loss, latency and jitter on live traffic. Because this method
packets the method often referred as Marking Method (MM). is based on marking consecutive batches of packets the method often
referred as Marking Method (MM).
This document defines how marking method can be used on BIER layer to This document defines how marking method can be used on BIER layer to
measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in MPLS measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in MPLS
network. network.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Terminology
BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router
skipping to change at page 2, line 50 skipping to change at page 3, line 4
measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in MPLS measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in MPLS
network. network.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Terminology
BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router
BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router
BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication
MM: Marking Method MM: Marking Method
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
2.2. Requirements Language 2.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
[RFC2119]. 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. OAM Field in BIER Header 3. OAM Field in BIER Header
[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] defined two bit long field, [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] defined two bit long field,
referred as OAM, designated for the marking performance measurement referred as OAM, designated for the marking performance measurement
method. The OAM field MUST NOT be used in defining forwarding and/or method. The OAM field MUST NOT be used in defining forwarding and/or
quality of service treatment of a BIER packet. The OAM field MUST be quality of service treatment of a BIER packet. The OAM field MUST be
used only for the performance measurement of data traffic in BIER used only for the performance measurement of data traffic in BIER
layer. Because setting of the field to any value does not affect layer. Because setting of the field to any value does not affect
forwarding and/or quality of service treatment of a packet, the forwarding and/or quality of service treatment of a packet, the
marking method in BIER layer can be viewed as true example of passive marking method in BIER layer can be viewed as example of hybrid
performance measurement method. performance measurement method.
The Figure 1 displays format of the OAM field The Figure 1 displays format of the OAM field
0 0
0 1 0 1
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
| S | D | | S | D |
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 4, line 32 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
Figure 2: Multicast network Figure 2: Multicast network
Using the marking method a BFR creates distinct sub-flows in the Using the marking method a BFR creates distinct sub-flows in the
particular multicast traffic over BIER layer. Each sub-flow consists particular multicast traffic over BIER layer. Each sub-flow consists
of consecutive blocks that are unambiguously recognizable by a of consecutive blocks that are unambiguously recognizable by a
monitoring point at any BFR and can be measured to calculate packet monitoring point at any BFR and can be measured to calculate packet
loss and/or packet delay metrics. loss and/or packet delay metrics.
4.1. Single Mark Enabled Measurement 4.1. Single Mark Enabled Measurement
As explained in the [I-D.tempia-ippm-p3m], marking can be applied to As explained in the [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark], marking can be applied
delineate blocks of packets based either on equal number of packets to delineate blocks of packets based either on equal number of
in a block or based on equal time interval. The latter method offers packets in a block or based on equal time interval. The latter
better control as it allows better account for capabilities of method offers better control as it allows better account for
downstream nodes to report statistics related to batches of packets capabilities of downstream nodes to report statistics related to
and, at the same time, time resolution that affects defect detection batches of packets and, at the same time, time resolution that
interval. affects defect detection interval.
If the Single Mark measurement used, then the D flag MUST be set to If the Single Mark measurement used, then the D flag MUST be set to
zero on transmit and ignored by monitoring point. zero on transmit and ignored by monitoring point.
The S flag is used to create alternate flows to measure the packet The S flag is used to create alternate flows to measure the packet
loss by switching value of the S flag every N-th packet or at certain loss by switching value of the S flag every N-th packet or at certain
time intervals. Delay metrics MAY be calculated with the alternate time intervals. Delay metrics MAY be calculated with the alternate
flow using any of the following methods: flow using any of the following methods:
o First/Last Packet Delay calculation: whenever the marking, i.e. o First/Last Packet Delay calculation: whenever the marking, i.e.
skipping to change at page 6, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 35
common to networking. common to networking.
7. Acknowledgement 7. Acknowledgement
TBD TBD
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-architecture]
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and
S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-05 (work in
progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J., Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J.,
Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index
Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks", Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06 (work in progress), draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07 (work in progress),
December 2016. June 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.tempia-ippm-p3m] [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture]
Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Fioccola, G., Castaldelli, L., Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and
and A. Bonda, "A packet based method for passive S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
performance monitoring", draft-tempia-ippm-p3m-03 (work in Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07 (work in
progress), March 2016. progress), June 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L.,
Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid
performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-05 (work
in progress), June 2017.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Lianshu Zheng Lianshu Zheng
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 48 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/