< draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-07.txt   draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-08.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 6, 2020 M. Chen Expires: November 26, 2020 M. Chen
G. Fioccola G. Fioccola
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
January 3, 2020 May 25, 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-07 draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-08
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a hybrid performance measurement method for This document describes the applicability of a hybrid performance
measurement method for packet loss and packet delay measurements of a
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.
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 July 6, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
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 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Single-Marking Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Double-Marking Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Double-Marking Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC8279] introduces and explains the Bit Index Explicit Replication [RFC8279] introduces and explains the Bit Index Explicit Replication
(BIER) architecture and how it supports the forwarding of multicast (BIER) architecture and how it supports the forwarding of multicast
data packets. [RFC8296] specified that in the case of BIER data packets. [RFC8296] specified that in the case of BIER
encapsulation in an MPLS network, a BIER-MPLS label, the label that encapsulation in an MPLS network, a BIER-MPLS label, the label that
is at the bottom of the label stack, uniquely identifies the is at the bottom of the label stack, uniquely identifies the
multicast flow. [RFC8321] describes a hybrid performance measurement multicast flow. [RFC8321] describes a hybrid performance measurement
method, per RFC7799's classification of measurement methods method, according to the classification of measurement methods in
[RFC7799]. The method, called Packet Network Performance Monitoring [RFC7799]. The method, called Packet Network Performance Monitoring
(PNPM), can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter on (PNPM), can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter on
live traffic complies with requirements #5 and #12 listed in live traffic complies with requirements #5 and #12 listed in
[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]. Because this method is based on [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]. Because this method is based on
marking consecutive batches of packets, the method is often referred marking consecutive batches of packets, the method is often referred
to as a marking method. to as a marking method. Terms PNPM and "marking method" in this
document are used interchangeably.
This document defines how the marking method can be used on the BIER This document defines how the marking method can be used on the BIER
layer to measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in layer to measure packet loss and delay metrics of a multicast flow in
an MPLS network. an MPLS 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 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 4, line 43
Figure 2: Multicast network Figure 2: Multicast network
Using the marking method, a BFIR creates distinct sub-flows in the Using the marking method, a BFIR 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 of identically marked packets. For example, a of consecutive blocks of identically marked packets. For example, a
block of N packets, with each packet being marked as X, is followed block of N packets, with each packet being marked as X, is followed
by the block of M packets with each packet being marked as Y. These by the block of M packets with each packet being marked as Y. These
blocks are unambiguously recognizable by a monitoring point at any blocks are unambiguously recognizable by a monitoring point at any
Bit Forwarding Router (BFR) and can be measured to calculate packet Bit Forwarding Router (BFR) and can be measured to calculate packet
loss and/or packet delay metrics. It is expected that the marking loss and/or packet delay metrics. The marking method can be used on
values be set and cleared at the edge of BIER domain. Thus for the multiple flows concurently. Demultiplexing of monitored flows might
scenario presented in Figure 2 if the operator initially monitors the be achived using n-tuple, for example, two-tuple as combination of
A-C-G and A-B-D segments he may enable measurements on segments C-F the values in the Entropy and BFIR-id fields [RFC8296]. Also, that
and B-E at any time. can be achieved by using an explicit Flow Identifiier. The
definition of the Flow Identifier is outside the scope of this
specification. It is expected that the marking values be set and
cleared at the edge of BIER domain. Thus for the scenario presented
in Figure 2 if the operator initially monitors the A-C-G and A-B-D
segments he may enable measurements on segments C-F and B-E at any
time.
4.1. Single-Marking Enabled Measurement 4.1. Single-Marking Enabled Measurement
As explained in [RFC8321], marking can be applied to delineate blocks As explained in [RFC8321], marking can be applied to delineate blocks
of packets based either on the equal number of packets in a block or of packets based either on the equal number of packets in a block or
based on the equal time interval. The latter method offers better based on the equal time interval. The latter method offers better
control as it allows a better account for capabilities of downstream control as it allows a better account for capabilities of downstream
nodes to report statistics related to batches of packets and, at the nodes to report statistics related to batches of packets and, at the
same time, time resolution that affects defect detection interval. same time, time resolution that affects defect detection interval.
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 41
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,
suggested in [RFC8296], to accept BIER packets only from trusted suggested in [RFC8296], to accept BIER packets only from trusted
routers, not from customer-facing interfaces. routers, not from customer-facing interfaces.
All the security considerations for BIER discussed in [RFC8296] are All the security considerations for BIER discussed in [RFC8296] are
inherited by this document. inherited by this document.
7. Acknowledgement 7. Acknowledgement
TBD Comments from Alvaro Retana helped improve the document and are much
appreciated.
8. References Reviews and comments from Quan Xiong and Xiao Min are thankfully
acknowledged.
8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[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>.
skipping to change at page 8, line 22 skipping to change at page 8, line 32
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] [I-D.ietf-bier-bier-yang]
Chen, R., hu, f., Zhang, Z., dai.xianxian@zte.com.cn, d., Chen, R., hu, f., Zhang, Z., dai.xianxian@zte.com.cn, d.,
and M. Sivakumar, "YANG Data Model for BIER Protocol", and M. Sivakumar, "YANG Data Model for BIER Protocol",
draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang-05 (work in progress), May 2019. draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang-06 (work in progress), February
2020.
[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements] [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]
Mirsky, G., Nordmark, E., Pignataro, C., Kumar, N., Mirsky, G., Nainar, N., Chen, M., and J. Networks,
Aldrin, S., Zheng, L., Chen, M., Akiya, N., and S. "Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
Pallagatti, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
(OAM) Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication Layer", draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-10 (work in
(BIER) Layer", draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-08 (work progress), May 2020.
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. 
23 lines changed or deleted 34 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/