< draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag-00.txt   draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag-01.txt >
Network Working Group Z. Li Network Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft China Mobile Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen Intended status: Standards Track T. Zhou
Expires: August 23, 2021 Huawei Expires: July 28, 2022 Huawei
G. Mirsky J. Guo
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
February 19, 2021 G. Mirsky
Ericsson
R. Gandhi
Cisco
January 24, 2022
Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
Measurement on LAG Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag-00 draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag-01
Abstract Abstract
This document defines extensions to Simple Two-Way Active Measurement This document extends Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
Protocol (STAMP) to implement performance measurement on every member (STAMP) to implement performance measurement on every member link of
link of a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). Knowing the measured metrics a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). Knowing the measured metrics of each
of each member link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a member link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a performance based
performance metric-based traffic steering policy across the member traffic steering policy across the member links.
links.
Requirements Language 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 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
as shown here. as shown here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 28, 2022.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2021.
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 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. Micro-Session on LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Micro Session on LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Micro-STAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Member Link Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Micro-STAMP-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. LAG Member Link ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. LAG Member Link ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Micro-STAMP-Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides
mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical
link. This logical link offers higher bandwidth and better link. This logical link offers higher bandwidth and better
resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the
aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the
remaining operational physical member links. remaining operational physical member links.
Usually, when forwarding traffic over a LAG, a hash-based or similar Usually, when forwarding traffic over LAG, the hash-based mechanism
mechanism is used to load-balance the traffic across the LAG member is used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links.
links. In some cases, the link delays of the member links are Link delay of each member link varies because of different transport
different because they are over different transport paths. To paths. To provide low latency service for time sensitive traffic, we
provide low delay service to time-sensitive traffic, we have to know need to explicitly steer the traffic across the LAG member links
the link delay of each member link of a LAG and then steer traffic based on the link delay, loss and so on. That requires a solution to
accordingly. That requires a solution that could measure the measure the performance metrics of each member link of a LAG.
performance metrics of each member link of a LAG.
However, when using Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(STAMP) [RFC8762] to measure a LAG's performance, the LAG is treated
as a single logical link/path. The measured metrics reflect the
performance of one member link or an average of some/all member links
of the LAG.
In addition, for LAG, using passive or hybrid methods (like Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is an
alternative marking[RFC8321] or iOAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) can active measurement method according to the classification given in
only monitor the link crossed by traffic. It means that the measured RFC7799 [RFC7799]. It provides a mechanism to measure both one-way
metrics reflect the performance of some member links or an average of and round-trip performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and
some/all member links of the LAG. Therefore, in order to measure packet loss. Running a single STAMP test session over the
every link of a LAG, using active methods would be more appropriate. aggregation without the knowledge of each member link would make it
impossible to measure the performance of a given physical member
link. The measured metrics can only reflect the performance of one
member link or an average of some/all member links of the LAG.
This document defines extensions to STAMP [RFC8762] to implement This document extends STAMP to implement performance measurement on
performance measurement on every member link of a LAG. every member link of a LAG. The proposed method could also
potentially apply to layer 3 ECMP (Equal Cost Multi-Path), e.g., with
SR-Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
2. Micro-Session on LAG 2. Micro Session on LAG
This document intends to address the scenario (e.g., Figure 1) where This document intends to address the scenario (e.g., Figure 1) where
a LAG (e.g., the LAG includes three member links) directly connects a LAG (e.g., the LAG includes three member links) directly connects
two nodes (A and B) . The goal is to measure the performance of each two nodes (A and B) . The goal is to measure the performance of each
link of the LAG. link of the LAG.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| |-----------------------| | | |-----------------------| |
| A |-----------------------| B | | A |-----------------------| B |
| |-----------------------| | | |-----------------------| |
| |-----------------------| |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 1: PM for LAG Figure 1: PM for LAG
To measure performance metrics of every member link of a LAG, To measure the performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
established between the two hosts that are connected by the LAG. established between the two end points that are connected by the LAG.
These sessions are called micro-sessions for the remainder of this These sessions are called micro sessions in the remainder of this
document. document.
All micro-sessions of a LAG share the same Sender Address, Receiver All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
Address. As for the Sender Port and Receiver Port, the micro- Receiver IP Address. As for the UDP Port, the micro sessions may
sessions may share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or each micro
each micro session is configured with a different Sender Port and session is configured with a different Sender Port and Receiver Port
Receiver Port pair. But from simplifying operation point of view, pair. But from the operational point of view, the former is simpler
the former is recommended. and is recommended.
In addition, with micro-sessions, there needs a way to correlate a
session with a member link. For example, when the Reflector receives
a Test packet, it needs to know from which member link the packet is
received, and correlate it with a micro-session. That is a new
functionality for STAMP as defined in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972].
Upon receiving a Test packet for a micro-session, the receiver uses At the Sender side, each micro STAMP session MUST be assgined with a
the receiving link's identifier to correlate the packet to a unique SSID [RFC8972]. Both the micro STAMP Session Sender and
particular session. In addition, Test packets may need to carry the Reflector MUST use SSID to correlate the Test packet to a micro
member link information for validation checking. For example, when a session. If there is no such a session, or the SSID is not correct,
Session-Sender/Session-Reflector receives a Test packet, it may need the Test packet MUST be discarded.
to check whether the Test packet is from the expected member link.
3. Micro-STAMP Session Test packets MAY carry the member link information for validation
check. For example, when a micro STAMP Session-Sender receives a
reflected Test packet, it may need to check whether the Test packet
is from the expected member link. The detailed description about the
member link validation is in section 3.
3.1. Micro-STAMP-Test A micro STAMP Session-Sender MAY include the Follow-Up Telemetry TLV
[RFC8972] to request information from the micro Session-Reflector.
This timestamp might be important for the micro Session-Sender, as it
improves the accuracy of network delay measurement by minimizing the
impact of egress queuing delays on the measurement.
The micro-STAMP-Test protocol is based on the STAMP-Test protocol 3. Member Link Validation
[RFC8762] and [RFC8972] with the following extensions.
3.1.1. LAG Member Link ID TLV Test packets MAY carry the member link information for validation
check. The micro Session Sender can verify whether the test packet
is reveived from the expected member link. It can also verify
whether the packet is sent from the expected member link at the
Reflector side. The micro Session Reflector can verify whether the
test packet is received from the expected member link.
The LAG Member Link ID TLV is defined to carry the LAG member link 3.1. LAG Member Link ID TLV
identifiers associated with a micro-STAMP session. The member link
identifiers are used for the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector to
check whether a Test packet is received from the expected member
link. The detailed procedures are defined in Section 3.1.2.
The format is as below: STAMP TLV [RFC8972] mechanism extends STAMP Test packets with one or
more optional TLVs. This document defines the TLV Type (value TBA1)
for the LAG Member Link ID TLV that carries the micro STAMP Session-
Sender member link identifier and Session-Reflector member link
identifier. The format of the LAG Member Link ID TLV is shown as
follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type | Length | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type = TBA1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Member Link ID | Reflector Member Link ID | | Sender Member Link ID | Reflector Member Link ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: LAG Member Link ID TLV Figure 2: LAG Member Link ID TLV
Sender Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry o Type: A one-octet field. Value TBA1 is allocated by IANA
the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side. The value of the (Section 5).
Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender.
Reflector Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector side. The value of
the Reflector Member ID MUST be unique at the Session-Reflector.
3.1.2. Micro-STAMP-Test Procedures
The micro-STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of o Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Value field
STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions: in octets. The Length field value MUST be 4 octets.
The micro-STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro-STAMP-Test packets o Sender Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
over the member link associated with the session. The micro STAMP the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side. The value of
Session-Reflector MUST send the reflected Test packets over the the Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender.
receiving member link.
The configuration and management of the association between a micro- o Reflector Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
STAMP session and the Sender/Reflector member link identifiers are carry the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector side. The
outside the scope of this document. value of the Reflector Member ID MUST be unique at the Session-
Reflector.
When the Session-Sender sends a Test packet, the LAG Member Link ID 3.2. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures
TLV MUST be carried, and the Sender member link identifier associated
with the micro-STAMP session MUST be put in the Sender Member Link ID
field. If the Session-Sender knows the Reflector member link
identifier, it MUST set it as the Reflector Member Link ID field's
value. Otherwise, the Reflector Member Link ID field MUST be set to
zero.
The Session-Sender uses the Sender Member Link ID field's value to The micro STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of
check whether the reflected Test packet is received from the member STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions.
link associated with the correct micro-STAMP session. Therefore, the
Session-Reflector MUST copy the Sender Member Link ID value to the
reflected Test packet.
The Session-Reflector uses the Reflector Member Link ID value to The micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro STAMP-Test packets
check whether a Test packet is received from the member link over the member link with which the session is associated. The
associated with the correct micro-STAMP session. configuration and management of the mapping between a micro STAMP
session and the Sender/Reflector member link identifiers are outside
the scope of this document.
The Reflector member link identifier can be obtained from pre- When sending a Test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST set
configuration or learned through the data plane (e.g., learned from a the Sender Member Link ID field with the member link identifier
reflected Test packet). How to obtain/learn the Reflector member associated with the micro STAMP session. If the Session-Sender knows
link identifier is outside of this document's scope. the Reflector member link identifier, the Reflector Member Link ID
field MUST be set. Otherwise, the Reflector Member Link ID field
MUST be zero. The Reflector member link identifier can be obtained
from pre-configuration or learned through data plane (e.g., learned
from a reflected Test packet). How to obtain/learn the Reflector
member link identifier is outside of this document's scope.
When the micro-STAMP Session-Reflector receives a Test packet, it When the micro STAMP Session-Reflector receives a Test packet, if the
MUST use the receiving member link to correlate the Test packet to a Reflector Member Link ID is not zero, the micro STAMP Session-
micro-STAMP session. If there is no such a micro-STAMP session, the Reflector MUST use the Reflector member link identifier to check
Test packet MUST be discarded. Suppose the Reflector Member Link ID whether it is associated with the micro STAMP session. If the
is not zero. In that case, the micro-STAMP Session-Reflector MUST validation fails, the Test packet MUST be discarded. If all
use the Reflector member link identifier to check whether it is validations passed, the Session-Reflector sends a reflected Test
associated with the micro-STAMP session. If it is not, the Test packet to the Session-Sender. The micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST
packet MUST be discarded and no reflected Test packet will be sent put the Sender and Reflector member link identifiers that are
back to the Session-Sender. If all validation passed, the Session- associated with the micro STAMP session in the Sender Member Link ID
Reflector sends a reflected Test packet to the Session-Sender over and Reflector Member Link ID fields respectively. The Sender member
the receiving member link. The micro-STAMP Session-Reflector MUST link identifier is copied from the received Test packet.
put the Sender and Reflector member link identifiers associated with
the micro-STAMP session in the Sender Member Link ID and Reflector
Member Link ID fields, respectively. The Sender member link
identifier is copied from the received Test packet.
When the micro-STAMP Session-Sender receives a reflected Test packet, When receiving a reflected Test packet, the micro Session-Sender MUST
it MUST use the receiving member link to correlate the reflected Test use the Sender Member Link ID to validate whether the reflected Test
packet to a micro-STAMP session. If there is no such a session, the packet is correctly transmitted over the expected member link. If
reflected Test packet MUST be discarded. If a matched micro-STAMP the validation fails, the Test packet MUST be discarded. The micro
session exists, the Session-Sender MUST use the identifier carried in Session-Sender MUST use the Reflector Member Link ID to validate the
the Sender Member Link ID field to check whether it associates with Reflector's behavior. If the validation fails, the Test packet MUST
the session. If the checking failed, the Test packet MUST be be discarded.
discarded.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document requires the IANA to allocate the following the TLV In the "STAMP TLV Types" registry created for [RFC8972], a new STAMP
type from the "STAMP TLV Types" sub-registry. TLV Type for LAG Member Link ID TLV is requested from IANA as
follows:
Value |Description | Reference +----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
---------+----------------------+---------------------- | STAMP TLV Type | Description | Semantics | Reference |
TBD1 |LAG Member Link ID | This document | Value | | Definition | |
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
| TBA1 | LAG Member Link | Section 3 | This |
| | ID TLV | | Document |
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
New STAMP TLV Type
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce additional security requirements and The STAMP extension defined in this document is intended for
mechanisms other than the ones described in [RFC8762] apply to this deployment in LAG scenario where Session-Sender and Session-Reflector
document. are directly connnected. As such, it's assumed that a node involved
in STAMP protocol operation has previously verified the integrity of
the LAG connection and the identity of its one-hop-away peer node.
This document does not introduce any additional security issues and
the security mechanisms defined in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] apply in
this document.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Min Xiao, Fang Xin for the valuable The authors would like to thank Mach Chen, Min Xiao, Fang Xin for the
comments to this work. valuable comments to this work.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. 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>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[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>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple [RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A., [RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972, Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11 (work in P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
progress), November 2020. ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-14 (work in progress),
October 2021.
[IEEE802.1AX] [IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
2008. 2008.
[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
Zhenqiang Li Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile China Mobile
Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Tianran Zhou
Huawei Huawei
China
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Greg Mirsky Jun Guo
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
China
Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
 End of changes. 46 change blocks. 
164 lines changed or deleted 175 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/