< draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-03.txt   draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-04.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: April 6, 2018 M. Chen Expires: December 21, 2018 M. Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
G. Fioccola G. Fioccola
Telecom Italia Telecom Italia
October 3, 2017 June 19, 2018
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-03 draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-04
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a hybrid 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.
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 April 6, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 21, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] introduces and explains Bit Index [RFC8279] introduces and explains Bit Index Explicit Replication
Explicit Replication (BIER) architecture and how it supports (BIER) architecture and how it supports forwarding of multicast data
forwarding of multicast data packets. packets. [RFC8296] specified that in case of BIER encapsulation in
[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] specified that in case of BIER MPLS network a BIER-MPLS label, the label that is at the bottom of
encapsulation in MPLS network a BIER-MPLS label, label that is at the the label stack, uniquely identifies the multicast flow. [RFC8321]
bottom of the label stack, uniquely identifies the multicast flow. describes hybrid performance measurement method, per [RFC7799]
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] describes hybrid performance measurement classification of measurement methods. Packet Network Performance
method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement methods. Packet Monitoring (PNPM), which can be used to measure packet loss, latency,
Network Performance Monitoring (PNPM), which can be used to measure and jitter on live traffic. Because this method is based on marking
packet loss, latency and jitter on live traffic. Because this method consecutive batches of packets the method often referred to as
is based on marking consecutive batches of packets the method often Marking Method (MM).
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
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 BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. 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, [RFC8296] defined the two-bit long field, referred to as OAM,
referred as OAM, designated for the marking performance measurement designated for the marking performance measurement method. The OAM
method. The OAM field MUST NOT be used in defining forwarding and/or field MUST NOT be used in defining forwarding and/or quality of
quality of service treatment of a BIER packet. The OAM field MUST be service treatment of a BIER packet. The OAM field MUST be used only
used only for the performance measurement of data traffic in BIER for the performance measurement of data traffic in BIER layer.
layer. Because setting of the field to any value does not affect Because the 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 example of hybrid marking method in BIER layer can be viewed as the example of the
performance measurement method. hybrid 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
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
| L | D | | L | D |
+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: OAM field of BIER Header format Figure 1: OAM field of BIER Header format
skipping to change at page 4, line 40 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
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.ietf-ippm-alt-mark], marking can be applied As explained in the [RFC8321], marking can be applied to delineate
to delineate blocks of packets based either on equal number of blocks of packets based either on the equal number of packets in a
packets in a block or based on equal time interval. The latter block or based on equal time interval. The latter method offers
method offers better control as it allows better account for better control as it allows better account for capabilities of
capabilities of downstream nodes to report statistics related to downstream nodes to report statistics related to batches of packets
batches of packets and, at the same time, time resolution that and, at the same time, time resolution that affects defect detection
affects defect detection interval. interval.
If the Single Mark measurement used to measure pcket loss, then the D If the Single Mark measurement used to measure packet loss, then the
flag MUST be set to zero on transmit and ignored by monitoring point. D flag MUST be set to zero on transmit and ignored by monitoring
point.
The L flag is used to create alternate flows to measure the packet The L flag is used to create alternate flows to measure the packet
loss by switching value of the L flag every N-th packet or at certain loss by switching the value of the L flag every N-th packet or at
time intervals. Delay metrics MAY be calculated with the alternate certain time intervals. Delay metrics MAY be calculated with the
flow using any of the following methods: alternate 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.
value of L flag, changes a BFR can store the timestamp of the value of L flag changes, a BFR can store the timestamp of the
first/last packet of the block. The timestamp can be compared first/last packet of the block. The timestamp can be compared
with the timestamp of the packet that arrived in the same order with the timestamp of the packet that arrived in the same order
through a monitoring point at downstream BFR to compute packet through a monitoring point at downstream BFR to compute packet
delay. Because timestamps collected based on order of arrival delay. Because timestamps collected based on order of arrival
this method is sensitive to packet loss and re-ordering of packets this method is sensitive to packet loss and re-ordering of packets
o Average Packet Delay calculation: an average delay is calculated o Average Packet Delay calculation: an average delay is calculated
by considering the average arrival time of the packets within a by considering the average arrival time of the packets within a
single block. A BFR may collect timestamps for each packet single block. A BFR may collect timestamps for each packet
received within a single block. Average of the timestamp is the received within a single block. Average of the timestamp is the
sum of all the timestamps divided by the total number of packets sum of all the timestamps divided by the total number of packets
received. Then difference between averages calculated at two received. Then the difference between averages calculated at two
monitoring points is the average packet delay on that segment. monitoring points is the average packet delay on that segment.
This method is robust to out of order packets and also to packet This method is robust to out of order packets and also to packet
loss (only a small error is introduced). This method only loss (only a small error is introduced). This method only
provides single metric for the duration of the block and it provides a single metric for the duration of the block and it
doesn't give the minimum and maximum delay values. This doesn't give the minimum and maximum delay values. This
limitation could be overcome by reducing the duration of the block limitation could be overcome by reducing the duration of the block
by means of an highly optimized implementation of the method. by means of a highly optimized implementation of the method.
4.2. Double Mark Enabled Measurement 4.2. Double Mark Enabled Measurement
Double Mark method allows measurement of minimum and maximum delays Double Mark method allows measurement of minimum and maximum delays
for the monitored flow but it requires more nodal and network for the monitored flow but it requires more nodal and network
resources. If the Double Mark method used, then the L flag MUST be resources. If the Double Mark method used, then the L flag MUST be
used to create the alternate flow, i.e. mark larger batches of used to create the alternate flow, i.e. mark larger batches of
packets. The D flag MUST be used to mark single packets to measure packets. The D flag MUST be used to mark single packets to measure
delay jitter. delay jitter.
The first marking (L flag alternation) is needed for packet loss and The first marking (L flag alternation) is needed for packet loss and
also for average delay measurement. The second marking (D flag is also for average delay measurement. The second marking (D flag is
put to one) creates a new set of marked packets that are fully put to one) creates a new set of marked packets that are fully
identified over the BIER network, so that a BFR can store the identified over the BIER network, so that a BFR can store the
timestamps of these packets; these timestamps can be compared with timestamps of these packets; these timestamps can be compared with
the timestamps of the same packets on a second BFR to compute packet the timestamps of the same packets on a second BFR to compute packet
delay values for each packet. The number of measurements can be delay values for each packet. The number of measurements can be
easily increased by changing the frequency of the second marking. easily increased by changing the frequency of the second marking.
But the frequency of the second marking must be not too high in order But the frequency of the second marking must be not too high in order
to avoid out of order issues. This method is useful to have not only to avoid out of order issues. This method is useful to measure not
the average delay but also the minimum and maximum delay values and, only the average delay but also the minimum and maximum delay values
in wider terms, to know more about the statistic distribution of and, in wider terms, to know more about the statistic distribution of
delay values. delay values.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to register format of the OAM field of This document requests IANA to register format of the OAM field of
BIER Header as the following: BIER Header as the following:
+--------------+---------+--------------------------+---------------+ +--------------+---------+--------------------------+---------------+
| Bit Position | Marking | Description | Reference | | Bit Position | Marking | Description | Reference |
+--------------+---------+--------------------------+---------------+ +--------------+---------+--------------------------+---------------+
skipping to change at page 6, line 35 skipping to change at page 6, line 33
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-mpls-encapsulation]
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J.,
Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index
Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09 (work in progress),
September 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References [RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
[I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08 (work in
progress), September 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] 8.2. Informative References
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-12 (work
in progress), October 2017.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
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. 24 change blocks. 
67 lines changed or deleted 65 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/