idnits 2.17.1 draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 10, 2019) is 1874 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 8321 (Obsoleted by RFC 9341) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SP-MPLS-Label' == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MPLS Working Group W. Cheng 3 Internet-Draft China Mobile 4 Intended status: Standards Track X. Min 5 Expires: September 11, 2019 ZTE 6 T. Zhou 7 Huawei 8 X. Dong 9 FiberHome 10 March 10, 2019 12 Encapsulation For MPLS Inband Performance Measurement 13 draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-00 15 Abstract 17 This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS inband performance 18 measurement, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter 19 measurements on live traffic, by using the alternate-marking method. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2019. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. Flow-based Inband PM Encapsulation in MPLS . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID and Nested Flow-ID . . . . 4 61 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation . . . 7 62 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 1. Introduction 72 [RFC8321] describes an alternate-marking (coloring) technique, and 73 generally by which how to achieve hop-by-hop packet loss, delay, and 74 jitter measurements, specifically, section 5 of [RFC8321] mentions 75 the alternate-marking method application of MPLS performance 76 measurement, but it fails to define the encapsulation for MPLS inband 77 performance measurement using alternate-marking method. 79 As mentioned in section 5 of [RFC8321], [RFC8372] discusses the 80 desired capabilities for MPLS flow identification in order to perform 81 a better MPLS inband performance measurement, and Synonymous Flow 82 Label (SFL) introduced in [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework] is identified 83 as a method of accomplishing MPLS flow identification. This document 84 employs a method other than SFL to accomplish MPLS flow 85 identification. 87 This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS inband performance 88 measurement, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter 89 measurements on live traffic, by using the alternate-marking method. 91 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 92 1.1.1. Terminology 94 LSP: Label Switched Path 96 MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching 98 NMS: Network Management System 100 PM: Performance Measurement 102 PW: PseudoWire 104 SFL: Synonymous Flow Label 106 TC: Traffic Class 108 TTL: Time to Live 110 VC: Virtual Channel 112 VPN: Virtual Private Network 114 1.1.2. Requirements Language 116 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 117 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 118 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 119 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 120 capitals, as shown here. 122 2. Flow-based Inband PM Encapsulation in MPLS 124 Flow-based MPLS inband performance measurement encapsulation has the 125 following format: 127 0 1 2 3 128 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 1 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 130 | Inband PM Indicator Label (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL | 131 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 132 | Flow-ID |L|D|R|S| Reserved | 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 134 | | 135 ~ Payload ~ 136 | | 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 139 Figure 1: Flow-based Inband PM Encapsulation in MPLS 141 Where Inband PM Indicator Label is defined in this document as value 142 TBA1, and the other fields related to the encapsulation of Inband PM 143 are defined as follows: 145 o Flow-ID - an MPLS label value used as MPLS flow identification 146 [RFC8372], it should be unique within the administrative domain. 147 Flow-ID values can be allocated by an external NMS or a controller 148 based on service object such as LSP and PW, and the specific 149 method on how to allocate the Flow-ID values is outside the scope 150 of this draft. Note that Flow-ID can be placed either at the 151 bottom of the MPLS label stack or not, and the Flow-ID can be 152 nested, which means more than one Flow-ID can be present within an 153 MPLS label stack. Section 2.1 of this document provides several 154 examples to illustrate how to apply Flow-ID and nested Flow-ID. 156 o L and D - L(oss) bit and D(elay) bit are used for coloring the 157 packets (called double-marking methodology), which is required by 158 alternate-marking method defined in [RFC8321]. 160 o R - R bit is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero. 162 o Reserved - one octet long field reserved for future use and MUST 163 be set to zero. 165 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID and Nested Flow-ID 167 Several examples of different Flow-ID label (4 octets) layout are 168 illustrated as follows: 170 (1) Flow-ID label layout when applied to MPLS LSP. 172 +----------------------+ 173 | | 174 | LSP | 175 | Label | 176 +----------------------+ 177 | | 178 | Inband PM Indicator | 179 | Label | 180 +----------------------+ 181 | | 182 | Flow-ID | 183 | Label | 184 +----------------------+ 185 | | 186 | VPN | 187 | Label | 188 +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack 189 | | 190 | Payload | 191 | | 192 +----------------------+ 194 Figure 2: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS LSP 196 (2) Flow-ID label layout when applied to MPLS VPN traffic. 198 +----------------------+ 199 | | 200 | LSP | 201 | Label | 202 +----------------------+ 203 | | 204 | VPN | 205 | Label | 206 +----------------------+ 207 | | 208 | Inband PM Indicator | 209 | Label | 210 +----------------------+ 211 | | 212 | Flow-ID | 213 | Label | 214 +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack 215 | | 216 | Payload | 217 | | 218 +----------------------+ 220 Figure 3: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS VPN 222 (3) Flow-ID label layout when applied to both MPLS LSP and MPLS VPN 223 traffic. 225 +----------------------+ 226 | | 227 | LSP | 228 | Label | 229 +----------------------+ 230 | | 231 | Inband PM Indicator | 232 | Label | 233 +----------------------+ 234 | | 235 | Flow-ID | 236 | Label | 237 +----------------------+ 238 | | 239 | VPN | 240 | Label | 241 +----------------------+ 242 | | 243 | Inband PM Indicator | 244 | Label | 245 +----------------------+ 246 | | 247 | Flow-ID | 248 | Label | 249 +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack 250 | | 251 | Payload | 252 | | 253 +----------------------+ 255 Figure 4: Applying Flow-ID to both MPLS LSP and MPLS VPN 257 Note that here VPN label can be MPLS PW label or MPLS IP VPN label, 258 and it's also called VC label as defined in [RFC4026]. 260 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation 262 The procedures for Flow-ID label encapsulation, look-up and 263 decapsulation are summarized as follows: 265 o The ingress node inserts the Inband PM Indicator Label alongside 266 with the Flow-ID label in the MPLS label stack. At the same time, 267 the ingress node sets the L bit and D bit as needed by alternate- 268 marking technique, and sets the Flow-ID value as defined in this 269 document. 271 o The transit nodes look up the Flow-ID label with the help of the 272 Inband PM Indicator Label, and transmit the collected information 273 to an external NMS or a controller, which includes the values of 274 the block counters and the timestamps of the marked packets along 275 with the value of the Flow-ID, referring to the procedures defined 276 in [RFC8321]. 278 o The egress node pops the Inband PM Indicator Label alongside with 279 the Flow-ID label from the MPLS label stack. This document 280 doesn't introduce any new procedure regarding to the process of 281 the decapsulated packet. 283 4. Security Considerations 285 This document does not introduce additional security requirements and 286 mechanisms. 288 5. IANA Considerations 290 In the Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry defined in 291 [SP-MPLS-Label], a new Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Inband PM 292 Indicator is requested from IANA as follows: 294 +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ 295 | Special-Purpose | Description | Semantics | Reference | 296 | MPLS Label Value | | Definition | | 297 +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ 298 | TBA1 | Inband PM | Section 2 | This | 299 | | Indicator Label | | Document | 300 +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ 302 Table 1: New Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Inband PM Indicator 304 6. Acknowledgements 306 To be added. 308 7. References 310 7.1. Normative References 312 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 313 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 314 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 315 . 317 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 318 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 319 May 2017, . 321 [RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, 322 L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, 323 "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid 324 Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, 325 January 2018, . 327 [SP-MPLS-Label] 328 "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values", 2014, 329 . 332 7.2. Informative References 334 [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework] 335 Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., 336 and G. Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", draft- 337 ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04 (work in progress), December 338 2018. 340 [RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual 341 Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, 342 DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005, 343 . 345 [RFC8372] Bryant, S., Pignataro, C., Chen, M., Li, Z., and G. 346 Mirsky, "MPLS Flow Identification Considerations", 347 RFC 8372, DOI 10.17487/RFC8372, May 2018, 348 . 350 Authors' Addresses 352 Weiqiang Cheng 353 China Mobile 354 Beijing 355 China 357 Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com 358 Xiao Min 359 ZTE 360 Nanjing 361 China 363 Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn 365 Tianran Zhou 366 Huawei 367 Beijing 368 China 370 Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com 372 Ximing Dong 373 FiberHome 374 China 376 Email: dxm@fiberhome.com