idnits 2.17.1 draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-01.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 (July 7, 2019) is 1754 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) -- 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 'SP-MPLS-Label' == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).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: January 8, 2020 ZTE 6 T. Zhou 7 Huawei 8 X. Dong 9 FiberHome 10 Y. Peleg 11 Broadcom 12 July 7, 2019 14 Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking 15 Method 16 draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-01 18 Abstract 20 This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance 21 measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based 22 packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2020. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2. Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID in a label stack . . . . . 4 64 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation . . . 7 65 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 1. Introduction 75 [I-D.fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark] describes how the alternate 76 marking method can be used as the passive performance measurement 77 method in an IPv6 domain, actually the alternate marking method can 78 also be applied to an MPLS domain, and what's missed is the 79 encapsulation for MPLS performance measurement with alternate marking 80 method. 82 [RFC8372] discusses the desired capabilities for MPLS flow 83 identification, in order to perform a better in-band performance 84 monitoring of user data packets. Synonymous Flow Label (SFL), which 85 is introduced in [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework], is identified as a 86 method of accomplishing MPLS flow identification. This document 87 employs a method, other than SFL, to accomplish MPLS flow 88 identification. The method described in this document is simple and 89 flexible, furthermore, it complies with the current MPLS forwarding 90 paradigm. 92 This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance 93 measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based 94 packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic. 96 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 98 1.1.1. Terminology 100 LSP: Label Switched Path 102 MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching 104 NMS: Network Management System 106 PM: Performance Measurement 108 PW: PseudoWire 110 SFL: Synonymous Flow Label 112 TC: Traffic Class 114 TTL: Time to Live 116 VC: Virtual Channel 118 VPN: Virtual Private Network 120 1.1.2. Requirements Language 122 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 123 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 124 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 125 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 126 capitals, as shown here. 128 2. Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS 130 Flow-based MPLS performance measurement encapsulation with alternate 131 marking method has the following format: 133 0 1 2 3 134 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 1 135 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 136 | Flow-ID Indicator Label (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL | 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 138 | Flow-ID |L|D|R|S| Reserved | 139 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 140 | | 141 ~ Payload ~ 142 | | 143 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 145 Figure 1: Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS 147 Where Flow-ID Indicator Label is defined in this document as value 148 TBA1, and the other fields related to the Flow-based PM encapsulation 149 are defined as follows: 151 o Flow-ID - an MPLS label value used as MPLS flow identification 152 [RFC8372], it should be unique within the administrative domain. 153 Flow-ID values can be allocated by an external NMS or a 154 controller, based on measurement object instance such as LSP and 155 PW. There is a one-to-one mapping between Flow-ID and flow. The 156 specific method on how to allocate the Flow-ID values is outside 157 the scope of this draft. Note that the Flow-ID Label can be 158 placed either at the bottom of the MPLS label stack or not, and 159 the Flow-ID Indicator Label MAY appear multiple times in a label 160 stack, which means more than one Flow-ID can be present within an 161 MPLS label stack. Section 2.1 of this document provides several 162 examples to illustrate how to apply Flow-ID in a label stack. 164 o L and D - L(oss) bit and D(elay) bit are used for coloring the 165 packets (called double-marking methodology), which is required by 166 the alternate marking method. 168 o R - R bit is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero. 170 o Reserved - one octet long field reserved for future use and MUST 171 be set to zero. 173 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID in a label stack 175 Three examples on different layout of Flow-ID label (4 octets) are 176 illustrated as follows: 178 (1) Layout of Flow-ID label when applied to MPLS LSP. 180 +----------------------+ 181 | | 182 | LSP | 183 | Label | 184 +----------------------+ 185 | | 186 | Flow-ID Indicator | 187 | Label | 188 +----------------------+ 189 | | 190 | Flow-ID | 191 | Label | 192 +----------------------+ 193 | | 194 | VPN | 195 | Label | 196 +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack 197 | | 198 | Payload | 199 | | 200 +----------------------+ 202 Figure 2: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS LSP 204 (2) Layout of Flow-ID label when applied to MPLS VPN traffic. 206 +----------------------+ 207 | | 208 | LSP | 209 | Label | 210 +----------------------+ 211 | | 212 | VPN | 213 | Label | 214 +----------------------+ 215 | | 216 | Flow-ID Indicator | 217 | Label | 218 +----------------------+ 219 | | 220 | Flow-ID | 221 | Label | 222 +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack 223 | | 224 | Payload | 225 | | 226 +----------------------+ 228 Figure 3: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS VPN 230 (3) Layout of Flow-ID label when applied to both MPLS LSP and MPLS 231 VPN traffic. 233 +----------------------+ 234 | | 235 | LSP | 236 | Label | 237 +----------------------+ 238 | | 239 | Flow-ID Indicator | 240 | Label | 241 +----------------------+ 242 | | 243 | Flow-ID | 244 | Label | 245 +----------------------+ 246 | | 247 | VPN | 248 | Label | 249 +----------------------+ 250 | | 251 | Flow-ID Indicator | 252 | Label | 253 +----------------------+ 254 | | 255 | Flow-ID | 256 | Label | 257 +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack 258 | | 259 | Payload | 260 | | 261 +----------------------+ 263 Figure 4: Applying Flow-ID to both MPLS LSP and MPLS VPN 265 Note that here VPN label can be MPLS PW label, MPLS Ethernet VPN 266 label or MPLS IP VPN label, and it's also called VC label as defined 267 in [RFC4026]. 269 Also note that for this example the two Flow-ID values appearing in a 270 label stack MUST be different, that is to say, Flow-ID applied to 271 MPLS LSP and Flow-ID applied to MPLS VPN share the same value space. 273 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation 275 The procedures for Flow-ID label encapsulation, look-up and 276 decapsulation are summarized as follows: 278 o The ingress node inserts the Flow-ID Indicator Label, alongside 279 with the Flow-ID label, into the MPLS label stack. At the same 280 time, the ingress node sets the L bit and D bit, as needed by 281 alternate-marking technique, and sets the Flow-ID value, as 282 defined in this document. 284 o The transit nodes look up the Flow-ID label with the help of the 285 Flow-ID Indicator Label, and transmit the collected information to 286 an external NMS or a controller, which includes the values of the 287 block counters and the timestamps of the marked packets, along 288 with the value of the Flow-ID, referring to the procedures of 289 alternate marking method. 291 o The egress node pops the Flow-ID Indicator Label, alongside with 292 the Flow-ID label, from the MPLS label stack. This document 293 doesn't introduce any new procedure regarding to the process of 294 the decapsulated packet. 296 4. Security Considerations 298 This document does not introduce additional security requirements and 299 mechanisms. 301 5. IANA Considerations 303 In the Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry defined in 304 [SP-MPLS-Label], a new Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Flow-ID 305 Indicator is requested from IANA as follows: 307 +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ 308 | Special-Purpose | Description | Semantics | Reference | 309 | MPLS Label Value | | Definition | | 310 +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ 311 | TBA1 | Flow-ID | Section 2 | This | 312 | | Indicator Label | | Document | 313 +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ 315 Table 1: New Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Flow-ID Indicator 317 6. Acknowledgements 319 The authors would like to acknowledge Greg Mirsky, Aihua Liu, 320 Shuangping Zhan and Ming Ke for their careful review and very helpful 321 comments. 323 7. References 324 7.1. Normative References 326 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 327 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 328 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 329 . 331 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 332 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 333 May 2017, . 335 [SP-MPLS-Label] 336 "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values", 2014, 337 . 340 7.2. Informative References 342 [I-D.fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark] 343 Fioccola, G., Velde, G., Cociglio, M., and P. Muley, 344 "Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Performance Measurement 345 with Alternate Marking Method in Segment Routing", draft- 346 fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01 (work in progress), 347 October 2017. 349 [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework] 350 Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., 351 and G. Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", draft- 352 ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04 (work in progress), December 353 2018. 355 [RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual 356 Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, 357 DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005, 358 . 360 [RFC8372] Bryant, S., Pignataro, C., Chen, M., Li, Z., and G. 361 Mirsky, "MPLS Flow Identification Considerations", 362 RFC 8372, DOI 10.17487/RFC8372, May 2018, 363 . 365 Authors' Addresses 366 Weiqiang Cheng 367 China Mobile 368 Beijing 369 China 371 Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com 373 Xiao Min 374 ZTE 375 Nanjing 376 China 378 Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn 380 Tianran Zhou 381 Huawei 382 Beijing 383 China 385 Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com 387 Ximing Dong 388 FiberHome 389 Wuhan 390 China 392 Email: dxm@fiberhome.com 394 Yoav Peleg 395 Broadcom 396 USA 398 Email: yoav.peleg@broadcom.com