< draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-06.txt		draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-07.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: January 2, 2020 M. Chen		Expires: July 6, 2020 M. Chen
	G. Fioccola		G. Fioccola
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	July 1, 2019		January 3, 2020
	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-06		draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-07
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes a hybrid performance measurement method for		This document describes a hybrid performance measurement method for
	multicast service through a Bit Index Explicit Replication domain.		multicast service through a Bit Index Explicit Replication 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 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶
	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 January 2, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4.1. Single-Marking Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4.1. Single-Marking Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.2. Double-Marking Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.2. Double-Marking Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[RFC8279] introduces and explains the Bit Index Explicit Replication		[RFC8279] introduces and explains the Bit Index Explicit Replication
	skipping to change at page 3, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 16 ¶
	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
	OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance		OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
			PNPM: Packet Network Performance Monitoring
	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
	[RFC8296] defined the two-bits long field, referred to as OAM. The		[RFC8296] defined the two-bits long field, referred to as OAM. The
	OAM field can be used for the marking performance measurement method.		OAM field can be used for the marking performance measurement method.
	Because the 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, using the		forwarding and/or quality of service treatment of a packet, using the
	OAM field for PNPM in BIER layer can be viewed as the example of the		OAM field for PNPM in BIER layer can be viewed as the example of the
	hybrid performance measurement method.		hybrid performance measurement method.
	Figure 1 displays the interpretation of the OAM field defined in this		Figure 1 displays the interpretation of the OAM field defined in this
	specification for the use by PNPM method.		specification for the use of the PNPM method. The context of
			interpretation of the OAM field MAY be signaled via the control plane
			or configured using an extension to the BIER YANG data model
			[I-D.ietf-bier-bier-yang]. These extensions are outside the scope of
			this document.
	0		0
	0 1		0 1
	+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+
	| S | D |		| S | D |
	+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1: OAM field of BIER Header format		Figure 1: OAM field of BIER Header format
	where:		where:
	o S - Single-Marking flag;		o S - Single-Marking flag;
	skipping to change at page 6, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 5 ¶
	ordering and the duration of the block in the Single-Marking mode of		ordering and the duration of the block in the Single-Marking mode of
	the marking method impact the accuracy of the packet loss		the marking method impact the accuracy of the packet loss
	measurement. Re-ordering of packets in the Single-Marking mode will		measurement. Re-ordering of packets in the Single-Marking mode will
	be noticeable only at the edge of a block of packets (re-ordering		be noticeable only at the edge of a block of packets (re-ordering
	within the block cannot be detected in the Single-Marking mode). If		within the block cannot be detected in the Single-Marking mode). If
	the extra delay for some packets is much smaller than half of the		the extra delay for some packets is much smaller than half of the
	duration of a block, then it should be easier to attribute re-ordered		duration of a block, then it should be easier to attribute re-ordered
	packets to the proper block and thus maintain the accuracy of the		packets to the proper block and thus maintain the accuracy of the
	packet loss measurement.		packet loss measurement.
	5. IANA Considerations		Selection of a time interval to switch the marking of a batch of
			packets should be based on the service requirements. In the course
	This document requests IANA to register format of the OAM field of		of the regular operation, reports, including performance metrics like
	BIER Header as the following:		packet loss ratio, packet delay, and inter-packet delay variation,
			are logged every 15 minutes. Thus, it is reasonable to maintain the
			duration of the measurement interval at 5 minutes with 100
			measurements per each interval. To support these measurements,
			marking of the packet batch is switched every 3 seconds. In case
			when performance metrics are required in near-real-time, the duration
			interval of a single batch of identically marked packets will be in
			the range of tens of milliseconds.
	+--------------+---------+-----------------+---------------+		5. IANA Considerations
	| Bit Position | Marking | Description | Reference |
	+--------------+---------+-----------------+---------------+
	| 0 | S | Single-Marking | This document |
	| 1 | D | Double-Marking | This document |
	+--------------+---------+-----------------+---------------+
	Table 1: OAM field of BIER Header		This document sets no requirements to IANA. This section can be
			removed before the publication.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	Regarding using the marking method, [RFC8321] stressed two types of		Regarding using the marking method, [RFC8321] stressed two types of
	security concerns. First, the potential harm caused by the		security concerns. First, the potential harm caused by the
	measurements, is a lesser threat as [RFC8296] defines OAM field used		measurements, is a lesser threat as [RFC8296] defines OAM field used
	by the marking method so that the value of "two bits have no effect		by the marking method so that the value of "two bits have no effect
	on the path taken by a BIER packet and have no effect on the quality		on the path taken by a BIER packet and have no effect on the quality
	of service applied to a BIER packet." Second security concern,		of service applied to a BIER packet." Second security concern,
	potential harm to the measurements can be mitigated by using policy,		potential harm to the measurements can be mitigated by using policy,
	skipping to change at page 8, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 19 ¶
	2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.		2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
	[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,		[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
	L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,		L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
	"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid		"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
	Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,		Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
	January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.		January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
			[I-D.ietf-bier-bier-yang]
			Chen, R., hu, f., Zhang, Z., dai.xianxian@zte.com.cn, d.,
			and M. Sivakumar, "YANG Data Model for BIER Protocol",
			draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang-05 (work in progress), May 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]		[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]
	Mirsky, G., Nordmark, E., Pignataro, C., Kumar, N.,		Mirsky, G., Nordmark, E., Pignataro, C., Kumar, N.,
	Aldrin, S., Zheng, L., Chen, M., Akiya, N., and S.		Aldrin, S., Zheng, L., Chen, M., Akiya, N., and S.
	Pallagatti, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance		Pallagatti, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance
	(OAM) Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication		(OAM) Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication
	(BIER) Layer", draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-07 (work		(BIER) Layer", draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-08 (work
	in progress), February 2019.		in progress), August 2019.
	[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.,		[RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
	Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index		Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
	Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,		Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.
End of changes. 15 change blocks.
	24 lines changed or deleted		38 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/