idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-04.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 168: '... a RLOC-probe Map-Reply, it SHOULD NOT...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 171: '... RLOC-record MUST be set to 255 and ...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 109 has weird spacing: '... Record a tel...' -- The document date (June 8, 2020) is 1411 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-32 == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-20 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Farinacci 3 Internet-Draft lispers.net 4 Intended status: Experimental S. Ouissal 5 Expires: December 10, 2020 E. Nordmark 6 Zededa 7 June 8, 2020 9 LISP Data-Plane Telemetry 10 draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-04 12 Abstract 14 This draft specs a JSON formatted RLOC-record for telemetry data 15 which decapsulating xTRs include in RLOC-probe Map Reply messages. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2020. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 4. Telemetry Record Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 56 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-04 . . . . . . 8 63 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-03 . . . . . . 8 64 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-02 . . . . . . 8 65 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-01 . . . . . . 8 66 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-00 . . . . . . 8 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 1. Introduction 71 This document describes how the Locator/Identifier Separation 72 Protocol (LISP) can obtain, measure, and distribute data-plane 73 telemetry information. LISP is an encapsulation protocol built 74 around the fundamental idea of separating the topological location of 75 a network attachment point from the node's identity 76 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. As a result LISP creates two namespaces: 77 Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are used to identify end-hosts and 78 routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network 79 attachment points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between 80 the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by 81 devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network 82 infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. 84 This document specifies how a decapsulating xTR returns telemetry 85 data to an encapsulating xTR using RLOC-probe messages defined in 86 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 88 Early versions of this document will define the type and format of 89 the telemetry data and how it will be distributed. Later versions of 90 this document will describe how telemetry measurement will be 91 performed. 93 2. Definition of Terms 95 Encapsulating xTR is a LISP ITR, RTR, or PITR data-plane network 96 element [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. An encapsulating xTR 97 typically sends RLOC-probe Map-Request messages to decapsulating 98 xTRs to test for reachability of RLOC addresses. For the design 99 scope of this specification, RLOC-probes are also sent to obtain 100 LISP telemetry data measured by a decapsulating xTR. 102 Decapsulating xTR is a LISP ETR, RTR, or PETR data-plane network 103 element [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. A decapsulating xTR typically 104 RLOC-probe replies with a Map-Reply message to an RLOC-probe Map- 105 Request sent by an encapsulating xTR. When a decapsulating xTR 106 does data-plane telemetry measurement, it returns measurement data 107 in RLOC-probe Map-Reply messages to an encapsulating xTR. 109 Telemetry Record a telemetry record is an RLOC-record that contains 110 telemetry data specified in this document. The telemetry data is 111 encoded as an LCAF JSON Type specified in [RFC8060]. 113 3. Overview 115 The following list of telemetry data has been identified as being 116 useful to obtain: 118 o Packet Count - the number of packets received within a given time 119 window between the encapsulating xTR and decapsulating xTR. 121 o Byte Count - the number bytes summed from all packets received 122 within a given time window between the encapsulating xTR and 123 decapsulating xTR. 125 o Packet Rate - the rate in packets per second an encapsulating xTR 126 is sending encapsulated packets to a decapsulating xTR. 128 o Bit Rate - the bit rate per second an encapsulating xTR is sending 129 encapsulated packets to a decapsulating xTR. 131 o Bandwidth - the amount of bandwidth used between encapsulating xTR 132 and decapsulating xTR in bytes per second. 134 o Packet Loss - the number of packets lost within a given time 135 window between the encapsulating xTR and decapsulating xTR. 137 o Packet Jitter - the amount of inter-packet time for a train of 138 packets within a given time window between the encapsulating xTR 139 and decapsulating xTR. 141 o Forward Hop-Count - the number underlay router hops from the 142 encapsulating xTR to the decapsulating xTR. 144 o Forward One-Way Latency - the amount of time from the 145 encapsulating xTR to the decapsulating xTR. Available when a 146 universal clock and rough time synchronization is available. 148 o Reverse TTL - the TTL value a decapsulating xTR is using for the 149 RLOC-probe Map-Reply. This is used to compute the return or 150 Reverse Hop-Count or number of underlay router hops between the 151 decapsulating xTR and encapsulating xTR. 153 o Reverse Timestamp - the universal clock timestamp when the 154 decapsulating xTR sent the RLOC-probe Map-Reply message. This is 155 used to compute the return or Reverse One-Way Latency between the 156 decapsulating xTR to the encapsulating xTR. 158 4. Telemetry Record Encoding 160 A Telemetry Record is an RLOC-record encoded in LCAF JSON Type format 161 [RFC8060] within the EID-record inserted in a RLOC-probe Map-Reply 162 message. The RLOC-record is appended to the existing RLOC-records 163 for the EID being probed. 165 An encapsulating xTR does not need to request telemetry data so the 166 decapsulating xTR can provide it unilaterally by default or via 167 configuration to enable the feature. When an encapsulating xTR 168 receives a Telemetry Record in a RLOC-probe Map-Reply, it SHOULD NOT 169 store it in the map-cache and not use the RLOC-record for forwarding 170 (since there are no RLOCs in this record). The priority for this 171 RLOC-record MUST be set to 255 and the weight MUST be set to 0. 173 The JSON key values imply directionality. The directionality is from 174 encapsulating xTR to decapsulating xTR. That is, the same direction 175 of RLOC-probe Map-Requests and encapsulated packet flow. The JSON 176 string format is defined to be: 178 { "type" : "telemetry", 179 "packet-count" : "", 180 "packet-loss" : "", 181 "byte-count" : "", 182 "packet-rate" : "", 183 "bit-rate" : "
", 184 "bandwidth" : "", 185 "packet-jitter" : "", 186 "forward-latency" : "", 187 "forward-hop-count" : "", 188 "reverse-ttl" : "", 189 "reverse-timestamp" : "" 190 } 191 JSON data values: 193 +--------+----------------------------------------------------------+ 194 | JSON | Encoding Description | 195 | Value | | 196 +--------+----------------------------------------------------------+ 197 | | Number of packets encoded as an integer value within a | 198 | | string. | 199 | | | 200 | | Number of lost packets encoded as an integer value | 201 | | within a string. | 202 | | | 203 | | Number of bytes encoded as an integer value within a | 204 | | string. | 205 | | | 206 | | Packet rate in packets per second encoded as an integer | 207 | | value within a string. | 208 | | | 209 |
| Bit rate in kilobits per second encoded as an integer | 210 | | value within a string. | 211 | | | 212 | | Bandwidth in kilobytes encoded as an integer value | 213 | | within a string. | 214 | | | 215 | | Packet jitter in milliseconds encoded as an integer | 216 | | value within a string. | 217 | | | 218 | | Latency in milliseconds encoded as an integer value | 219 | | within a string. | 220 | | | 221 | | Hop count encoded as an integer value within a string. | 222 | | | 223 | | Map-Reply IP header TTL encoded as an integer value | 224 | | within a string. | 225 | | | 226 | | Timestamp encoded in Linux UTC format as an within a | 227 | | string (i.e. Tue Jun 26 16:27:25 UTC 2018). | 228 +--------+----------------------------------------------------------+ 230 5. Security Considerations 232 RLOC-probe Map-Reply messages are signed to protect and authenticate 233 the Telemetry Record according to details in [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 234 Telemetry Records can be kept confidential by encrypting RLOC-probe 235 Map-Reply message with the asymmetric keys described in 236 [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] or the symmetric keys computed by the key 237 exchange detailed in [RFC8061]. 239 6. IANA Considerations 241 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 243 7. References 245 7.1. Normative References 247 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 248 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 249 February 2017, . 251 [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol 252 (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, 253 DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, 254 . 256 7.2. Informative References 258 [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] 259 Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA 260 Authentication and Authorization", draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa- 261 auth-03 (work in progress), March 2020. 263 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 264 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 265 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 266 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-32 (work in progress), 267 March 2020. 269 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 270 Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos- 271 Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control- 272 Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27 (work in progress), 273 January 2020. 275 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 276 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 277 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-20 278 (work in progress), January 2020. 280 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 282 The authors would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 283 acceptance of this draft. A special thanks to Colin Cantrell for his 284 review, commentary and guidance. 286 Appendix B. Document Change Log 288 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 290 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-04 292 o Posted June 2020. 294 o Document timer and reference update. 296 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-03 298 o Posted December 2019. 300 o Document timer and reference update. 302 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-02 304 o Posted June 2019. 306 o Document timer and reference update. 308 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-01 310 o Posted December 2018. 312 o Document timer and reference update. 314 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-00 316 o Initial draft posted June 2018. 318 Authors' Addresses 320 Dino Farinacci 321 lispers.net 322 San Jose, CA 323 USA 325 Email: farinacci@gmail.com 327 Said Ouissal 328 Zededa 329 Santa Clara, CA 330 USA 332 Email: said@zededa.com 333 Erik Nordmark 334 Zededa 335 Santa Clara, CA 336 USA 338 Email: erik@zededa.com