< draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-09.txt		draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-10.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: June 5, 2021 M. Chen		Expires: 1 October 2021 M. Chen
	G. Fioccola		G. Fioccola
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	December 2, 2020		30 March 2021
	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-09		draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-10
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes the applicability of a hybrid performance		This document describes the applicability of a hybrid performance
	measurement method for packet loss and packet delay measurements of a		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
	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 June 5, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 October 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 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/
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		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
	skipping to change at page 4, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 7 ¶
	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;		* S - Single-Marking flag;
	o D - Double-Marking flag.		* D - Double-Marking flag.
	4. Theory of Operation		4. Theory of Operation
	The marking method can be used in the multicast environment supported		The marking method can be used in the multicast environment supported
	by BIER layer. Without limiting any generality consider multicast		by BIER layer. Without limiting any generality consider multicast
	network presented in Figure 2. Any combination of markings can be		network presented in Figure 2. Any combination of markings can be
	applied to a multicast flow by the Bit Forwarding Ingress Router		applied to a multicast flow by the Bit Forwarding Ingress Router
	(BFIR) at either ingress or egress point to perform node, link,		(BFIR) at either ingress or egress point to perform node, link,
	segment or end-to-end measurement to detect performance degradation		segment or end-to-end measurement to detect performance degradation
	defect and localize it efficiently.		defect and localize it efficiently.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 27 ¶
	If the Single-Marking measurement is used to measure packet loss,		If the Single-Marking measurement is used to measure packet loss,
	then the D flag MUST be set to zero on transmit and ignored by the		then the D flag MUST be set to zero on transmit and ignored by the
	monitoring point.		monitoring point.
	The S flag is used to create sub-flows to measure the packet loss by		The S flag is used to create sub-flows to measure the packet loss by
	switching the value of the S flag every N-th packet or at certain		switching the value of the S flag every N-th packet or at certain
	time intervals. Delay metrics MAY be calculated with the sub-flow		time intervals. Delay metrics MAY be calculated with the sub-flow
	using any of the following methods:		using any of the following methods:
	o First/Last Packet Delay calculation: whenever the marking, i.e.,		* First/Last Packet Delay calculation: whenever the marking, i.e.,
	the value of S flag changes, a BFR can store the timestamp of the		the value of S 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 a downstream BFR to compute packet		through a monitoring point at a downstream BFR to compute packet
	delay. Because timestamps collected based on the order of arrival		delay. Because timestamps collected based on the 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
	(see Section 4.3 for more details).		(see Section 4.3 for more details).
	o Average Packet Delay calculation: an average delay is calculated		* 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 the difference between the average packet arrival		received. Then the difference between the average packet arrival
	time calculated for the downstream monitoring point and the same		time calculated for the downstream monitoring point and the same
	metric but calculated at the upstream monitoring point is the		metric but calculated at the upstream monitoring point is the
	average packet delay on the segment between these two points.		average packet delay on the segment between these two points.
	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 on the segment between the measurement points (packet loss		loss on the segment between the measurement points (packet loss
	skipping to change at page 8, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 29 ¶
	[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]		[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, X., and M. Sivakumar,
	and M. Sivakumar, "YANG Data Model for BIER Protocol",		"YANG Data Model for BIER Protocol", Work in Progress,
	draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang-07 (work in progress), September		Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang-07, 8 September
	2020.		2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-bier-
			yang-07>.
	[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]		[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]
	Mirsky, G., Nainar, N., Chen, M., and S. Pallagatti,		Mirsky, G., Kumar, N., Chen, M., and S. Pallagatti,
	"Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)		"Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
	Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)		Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
	Layer", draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-11 (work in		Layer", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-
	progress), November 2020.		oam-requirements-11, 15 November 2020,
			<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-oam-
			requirements-11>.
	[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>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Greg Mirsky		Greg Mirsky
	ZTE Corp.		ZTE Corp.
	Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com		Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com, gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
	Lianshu Zheng		Lianshu Zheng
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com		Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com
	Mach Chen		Mach Chen
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Email: mach.chen@huawei.com		Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
End of changes. 17 change blocks.
	28 lines changed or deleted		30 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/