idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-05.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 169: '... a RLOC-probe Map-Reply, it SHOULD NOT...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 172: '... 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 110 has weird spacing: '... Record a tel...' -- The document date (November 29, 2020) is 1237 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for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36 == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-21 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: June 2, 2021 E. Nordmark 6 Zededa 7 November 29, 2020 9 LISP Data-Plane Telemetry 10 draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-05 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 June 2, 2021. 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-05 . . . . . . 8 63 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-04 . . . . . . 8 64 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-03 . . . . . . 8 65 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-02 . . . . . . 8 66 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-01 . . . . . . 8 67 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-00 . . . . . . 8 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 1. Introduction 72 This document describes how the Locator/Identifier Separation 73 Protocol (LISP) can obtain, measure, and distribute data-plane 74 telemetry information. LISP is an encapsulation protocol built 75 around the fundamental idea of separating the topological location of 76 a network attachment point from the node's identity 77 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. As a result LISP creates two namespaces: 78 Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are used to identify end-hosts and 79 routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network 80 attachment points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between 81 the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by 82 devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network 83 infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. 85 This document specifies how a decapsulating xTR returns telemetry 86 data to an encapsulating xTR using RLOC-probe messages defined in 87 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 89 Early versions of this document will define the type and format of 90 the telemetry data and how it will be distributed. Later versions of 91 this document will describe how telemetry measurement will be 92 performed. 94 2. Definition of Terms 96 Encapsulating xTR is a LISP ITR, RTR, or PITR data-plane network 97 element [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. An encapsulating xTR 98 typically sends RLOC-probe Map-Request messages to decapsulating 99 xTRs to test for reachability of RLOC addresses. For the design 100 scope of this specification, RLOC-probes are also sent to obtain 101 LISP telemetry data measured by a decapsulating xTR. 103 Decapsulating xTR is a LISP ETR, RTR, or PETR data-plane network 104 element [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. A decapsulating xTR typically 105 RLOC-probe replies with a Map-Reply message to an RLOC-probe Map- 106 Request sent by an encapsulating xTR. When a decapsulating xTR 107 does data-plane telemetry measurement, it returns measurement data 108 in RLOC-probe Map-Reply messages to an encapsulating xTR. 110 Telemetry Record a telemetry record is an RLOC-record that contains 111 telemetry data specified in this document. The telemetry data is 112 encoded as an LCAF JSON Type specified in [RFC8060]. 114 3. Overview 116 The following list of telemetry data has been identified as being 117 useful to obtain: 119 o Packet Count - the number of packets received within a given time 120 window between the encapsulating xTR and decapsulating xTR. 122 o Byte Count - the number bytes summed from all packets received 123 within a given time window between the encapsulating xTR and 124 decapsulating xTR. 126 o Packet Rate - the rate in packets per second an encapsulating xTR 127 is sending encapsulated packets to a decapsulating xTR. 129 o Bit Rate - the bit rate per second an encapsulating xTR is sending 130 encapsulated packets to a decapsulating xTR. 132 o Bandwidth - the amount of bandwidth used between encapsulating xTR 133 and decapsulating xTR in bytes per second. 135 o Packet Loss - the number of packets lost within a given time 136 window between the encapsulating xTR and decapsulating xTR. 138 o Packet Jitter - the amount of inter-packet time for a train of 139 packets within a given time window between the encapsulating xTR 140 and decapsulating xTR. 142 o Forward Hop-Count - the number underlay router hops from the 143 encapsulating xTR to the decapsulating xTR. 145 o Forward One-Way Latency - the amount of time from the 146 encapsulating xTR to the decapsulating xTR. Available when a 147 universal clock and rough time synchronization is available. 149 o Reverse TTL - the TTL value a decapsulating xTR is using for the 150 RLOC-probe Map-Reply. This is used to compute the return or 151 Reverse Hop-Count or number of underlay router hops between the 152 decapsulating xTR and encapsulating xTR. 154 o Reverse Timestamp - the universal clock timestamp when the 155 decapsulating xTR sent the RLOC-probe Map-Reply message. This is 156 used to compute the return or Reverse One-Way Latency between the 157 decapsulating xTR to the encapsulating xTR. 159 4. Telemetry Record Encoding 161 A Telemetry Record is an RLOC-record encoded in LCAF JSON Type format 162 [RFC8060] within the EID-record inserted in a RLOC-probe Map-Reply 163 message. The RLOC-record is appended to the existing RLOC-records 164 for the EID being probed. 166 An encapsulating xTR does not need to request telemetry data so the 167 decapsulating xTR can provide it unilaterally by default or via 168 configuration to enable the feature. When an encapsulating xTR 169 receives a Telemetry Record in a RLOC-probe Map-Reply, it SHOULD NOT 170 store it in the map-cache and not use the RLOC-record for forwarding 171 (since there are no RLOCs in this record). The priority for this 172 RLOC-record MUST be set to 255 and the weight MUST be set to 0. 174 The JSON key values imply directionality. The directionality is from 175 encapsulating xTR to decapsulating xTR. That is, the same direction 176 of RLOC-probe Map-Requests and encapsulated packet flow. The JSON 177 string format is defined to be: 179 { "type" : "telemetry", 180 "packet-count" : "", 181 "packet-loss" : "", 182 "byte-count" : "", 183 "packet-rate" : "", 184 "bit-rate" : "
", 185 "bandwidth" : "", 186 "packet-jitter" : "", 187 "forward-latency" : "", 188 "forward-hop-count" : "", 189 "reverse-ttl" : "", 190 "reverse-timestamp" : "" 191 } 192 JSON data values: 194 +--------+----------------------------------------------------------+ 195 | JSON | Encoding Description | 196 | Value | | 197 +--------+----------------------------------------------------------+ 198 | | Number of packets encoded as an integer value within a | 199 | | string. | 200 | | | 201 | | Number of lost packets encoded as an integer value | 202 | | within a string. | 203 | | | 204 | | Number of bytes encoded as an integer value within a | 205 | | string. | 206 | | | 207 | | Packet rate in packets per second encoded as an integer | 208 | | value within a string. | 209 | | | 210 |
| Bit rate in kilobits per second encoded as an integer | 211 | | value within a string. | 212 | | | 213 | | Bandwidth in kilobytes encoded as an integer value | 214 | | within a string. | 215 | | | 216 | | Packet jitter in milliseconds encoded as an integer | 217 | | value within a string. | 218 | | | 219 | | Latency in milliseconds encoded as an integer value | 220 | | within a string. | 221 | | | 222 | | Hop count encoded as an integer value within a string. | 223 | | | 224 | | Map-Reply IP header TTL encoded as an integer value | 225 | | within a string. | 226 | | | 227 | | Timestamp encoded in Linux UTC format as an within a | 228 | | string (i.e. Tue Jun 26 16:27:25 UTC 2018). | 229 +--------+----------------------------------------------------------+ 231 5. Security Considerations 233 RLOC-probe Map-Reply messages are signed to protect and authenticate 234 the Telemetry Record according to details in [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 235 Telemetry Records can be kept confidential by encrypting RLOC-probe 236 Map-Reply message with the asymmetric keys described in 237 [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] or the symmetric keys computed by the key 238 exchange detailed in [RFC8061]. 240 6. IANA Considerations 242 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 244 7. References 246 7.1. Normative References 248 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 249 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 250 February 2017, . 252 [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol 253 (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, 254 DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, 255 . 257 7.2. Informative References 259 [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] 260 Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA 261 Authentication and Authorization", draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa- 262 auth-04 (work in progress), September 2020. 264 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 265 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 266 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 267 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36 (work in progress), 268 November 2020. 270 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 271 Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos- 272 Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control- 273 Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress), 274 November 2020. 276 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 277 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 278 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-21 279 (work in progress), July 2020. 281 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 283 The authors would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 284 acceptance of this draft. A special thanks to Colin Cantrell for his 285 review, commentary and guidance. 287 Appendix B. Document Change Log 289 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 291 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-05 293 o Posted November 2020. 295 o Document timer and reference update. 297 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-04 299 o Posted June 2020. 301 o Document timer and reference update. 303 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-03 305 o Posted December 2019. 307 o Document timer and reference update. 309 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-02 311 o Posted June 2019. 313 o Document timer and reference update. 315 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-01 317 o Posted December 2018. 319 o Document timer and reference update. 321 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-telemetry-00 323 o Initial draft posted June 2018. 325 Authors' Addresses 327 Dino Farinacci 328 lispers.net 329 San Jose, CA 330 USA 332 Email: farinacci@gmail.com 333 Said Ouissal 334 Zededa 335 Santa Clara, CA 336 USA 338 Email: said@zededa.com 340 Erik Nordmark 341 Zededa 342 Santa Clara, CA 343 USA 345 Email: erik@zededa.com