< draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-11.txt   draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-12.txt >
BIER Working Group G. Mirsky BIER Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track L. Zheng Intended status: Standards Track L. Zheng
Expires: 7 April 2022 Individual Contributor Expires: 2 October 2022 Individual Contributor
M. Chen M. Chen
G. Fioccola G. Fioccola
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
4 October 2021 31 March 2022
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-11 draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-12
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 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 7 April 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 October 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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
multicast flow. [RFC8321] and [RFC8889] describe a hybrid multicast flow. [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis] and
performance measurement method, according to the classification of [I-D.fioccola-rfc8889bis] describe a hybrid performance measurement
measurement methods in [RFC7799]. The method, called Packet Network method, according to the classification of measurement methods in
Performance Monitoring (PNPM), can be used to measure packet loss, [RFC7799]. The method, called Packet Network Performance Monitoring
latency, and jitter on live traffic complies with requirements R-5 (PNPM), can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter on
and R-12 listed in [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]. Because this live traffic complies with requirements R-5 and R-12 listed in
method is based on marking consecutive batches of packets, the method [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]. Because this method is based on
is often referred to as a marking method. Terms PNPM and "marking marking consecutive batches of packets, the method is often referred
method" in this document are used interchangeably. 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
This document uses the terms related to the Alternate Marking Method This document uses the terms related to the Alternate Marking Method
as defined in [RFC8321], [RFC8889]. This document uses the terms as defined in [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis], [I-D.fioccola-rfc8889bis].
related to the Bit Indexed Explicit Replication as defined in This document uses the terms related to the Bit Indexed Explicit
[RFC8296]. Replication as defined in [RFC8296].
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 26
can be achieved by using an explicit Flow Identifiier. The can be achieved by using an explicit Flow Identifiier. The
definition of the Flow Identifier is outside the scope of this definition of the Flow Identifier is outside the scope of this
specification. It is expected that the marking values be set and specification. It is expected that the marking values be set and
cleared at the edge of BIER domain. Thus for the scenario presented 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 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 segments he may enable measurements on segments C-F and B-E at any
time. 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 [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis], marking can be applied to
of packets based either on the equal number of packets in a block or delineate blocks of packets based either on the equal number of
based on the equal time interval. The latter method offers better packets in a block or based on the equal time interval. The latter
control as it allows a better account for capabilities of downstream method offers better control as it allows a better account for
nodes to report statistics related to batches of packets and, at the capabilities of downstream nodes to report statistics related to
same time, time resolution that affects defect detection interval. batches of packets and, at the same time, time resolution that
affects defect detection interval.
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:
skipping to change at page 6, line 41 skipping to change at page 7, line 17
For the ease of operational procedures, the initial marking of a For the ease of operational procedures, the initial marking of a
multicast flow is performed at BFIR. and cleared, by way of removing multicast flow is performed at BFIR. and cleared, by way of removing
BIER encapsulation form a payload packet, at the edge of the BIER BIER encapsulation form a payload packet, at the edge of the BIER
domain by BFERs. domain by BFERs.
Since at the time of writing this specification, there are no Since at the time of writing this specification, there are no
proposals to using auto-discovery or signaling mechanism to inform proposals to using auto-discovery or signaling mechanism to inform
downstream nodes what methodology is used each monitoring point MUST downstream nodes what methodology is used each monitoring point MUST
be configured beforehand. be configured beforehand.
Section 4.3 [RFC8321] provides a detailed analysis of how packet re- Section 5 [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis] provides a detailed analysis of
ordering and the duration of the block in the Single-Marking mode of how packet re-ordering and the duration of the block in the Single-
the marking method impact the accuracy of the packet loss Marking mode of the marking method impact the accuracy of the packet
measurement. Re-ordering of packets in the Single-Marking mode will loss measurement. Re-ordering of packets in the Single-Marking mode
be noticeable only at the edge of a block of packets (re-ordering will be noticeable only at the edge of a block of packets (re-
within the block cannot be detected in the Single-Marking mode). If ordering within the block cannot be detected in the Single-Marking
the extra delay for some packets is much smaller than half of the mode). If the extra delay for some packets is much smaller than half
duration of a block, then it should be easier to attribute re-ordered of the duration of a block, then it should be easier to attribute re-
packets to the proper block and thus maintain the accuracy of the ordered packets to the proper block and thus maintain the accuracy of
packet loss measurement. the packet loss measurement.
Selection of a time interval to switch the marking of a batch of Selection of a time interval to switch the marking of a batch of
packets should be based on the service requirements. In the course packets should be based on the service requirements. In the course
of the regular operation, reports, including performance metrics like of the regular operation, reports, including performance metrics like
packet loss ratio, packet delay, and inter-packet delay variation, packet loss ratio, packet delay, and inter-packet delay variation,
are logged every 15 minutes. Thus, it is reasonable to maintain the are logged every 15 minutes. Thus, it is reasonable to maintain the
duration of the measurement interval at 5 minutes with 100 duration of the measurement interval at 5 minutes with 100
measurements per each interval. To support these measurements, measurements per each interval. To support these measurements,
marking of the packet batch is switched every 3 seconds. In case marking of the packet batch is switched every 3 seconds. In case
when performance metrics are required in near-real-time, the duration when performance metrics are required in near-real-time, the duration
interval of a single batch of identically marked packets will be in interval of a single batch of identically marked packets will be in
the range of tens of milliseconds. the range of tens of milliseconds.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document sets no requirements to IANA. This section can be This document sets no requirements to IANA. This section can be
removed before the publication. 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, [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis]
security concerns. First, the potential harm caused by the stressed two types of security concerns. First, the potential harm
measurements, is a lesser threat as [RFC8296] defines OAM field used caused by the measurements, is a lesser threat as [RFC8296] defines
by the marking method so that the value of "two bits have no effect OAM field used by the marking method so that the value of "two bits
on the path taken by a BIER packet and have no effect on the quality have no effect on the path taken by a BIER packet and have no effect
of service applied to a BIER packet." Second security concern, on the quality of service applied to a BIER packet." Second security
potential harm to the measurements can be mitigated by using policy, concern, potential harm to the measurements can be mitigated by using
suggested in [RFC8296], to accept BIER packets only from trusted policy, suggested in [RFC8296], to accept BIER packets only from
routers, not from customer-facing interfaces. trusted 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
Comments from Alvaro Retana helped improve the document and are much Comments from Alvaro Retana helped improve the document and are much
appreciated. appreciated.
Reviews and comments from Quan Xiong and Xiao Min are thankfully Reviews and comments from Quan Xiong and Xiao Min are thankfully
acknowledged. acknowledged.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis]
Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., Zhou,
T., and X. Min, "Alternate-Marking Method", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-03, 23
February 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-03>.
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8889bis]
Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and T.
Zhou, "Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-03, 23
February 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-03>.
[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>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., [RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
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,
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>.
[RFC8889] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto,
"Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and
Hybrid Performance Monitoring", RFC 8889,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8889, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8889>.
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, X., and M. Sivakumar, Chen, R., Hu, F., Zhang, Z., Dai, X., and M. Sivakumar,
"YANG Data Model for BIER Protocol", Work in Progress, "YANG Data Model for BIER Protocol", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang-07, 8 September Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-bier-yang-07, 8 September
2020, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- 2020, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
bier-bier-yang-07>. bier-bier-yang-07>.
[I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements] [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
62 lines changed or deleted 66 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/