idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 10 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (April 10, 2021) is 1105 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to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC-to-be' is mentioned on line 142, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-04 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Graf 3 Internet-Draft Swisscom 4 Intended status: Standards Track April 10, 2021 5 Expires: October 12, 2021 7 Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in 8 IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 9 draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 11 Abstract 13 This document introduces additional code points in the 14 mplsTopLabelType Information Element for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and 15 BGP MPLS Segment Routing (SR) extensions to enable Segment Routing 16 label protocol type information in IP Flow Information Export 17 (IPFIX). 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2021. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 1. Introduction 64 Besides BGP-4 [RFC8277], LDP [RFC5036] and BGP VPN [RFC4364], four 65 new routing-protocols, OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3 Extensions 66 [RFC8666], IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667] and BGP Prefix-SID [RFC8669] 67 have been added to the list of routing-protocols able to propagate 68 Segment Routing labels for the MPLS data plane [RFC8660]. 70 Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks 71 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] describes how IPFIX can be 72 leveraged to account traffic to MPLS Segment Routing label dimensions 73 within a Segment Routing domain. 75 In the Information Model for IP Flow Information Export IPFIX 76 [RFC7012], the information element mplsTopLabelType(46) describes 77 which MPLS control plane protocol allocated the top-of-stack label in 78 the MPLS label stack. RFC 7012 section 7.2 [RFC7012] describes the 79 "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" sub-registry [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] 80 where new code points should be added. 82 2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type 84 By introducing four new code points to information element 85 mplsTopLabelType(46) for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-SID, 86 when Segment Routing with one of these four routing protocols is 87 deployed, we get insight into which traffic is being forwarded based 88 on which MPLS control plane protocol. 90 A typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane 91 migrations from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF Segment Routing. Such a 92 migration can be done node by node as described in RFC8661 [RFC8661]. 94 Another use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane migrations 95 from dynamic BGP labels according to RFC8277 [RFC8277] to BGP Prefix- 96 SID according to RFC8669 [RFC8669] in context of Seamless MPLS SR 97 [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr]. 99 Both use cases can be verified by using mplsTopLabelType(46), 100 mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(47), mplsTopLabelIPv6Address(140), 101 mplsTopLabelStackSection(70) and forwardingStatus(89) dimensions to 102 get insights into 104 o how many packets are forwarded or dropped 106 o if dropped, for which reasons 108 o the MPLS provider edge loopback address and label protocol 110 By looking at the MPLS label value itself, it is not always clear as 111 to which label protocol it belongs, since they could potentially 112 share the same label allocation range. This is the case for IGP- 113 Adjacency SID's, LDP and dynamic BGP labels as an example. 115 3. IANA Considerations 117 IANA is requested to allocate four code points in the existing sub- 118 registry "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" of the "IPFIX Information 119 Elements" registry for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-SID 120 Segment Routing extensions. 122 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 123 | Value| Description | Reference | Requester | 124 |---------------------------------------------------|-------------- 125 | TBD1 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing | RFC8665 | [RFC-to-be] | 126 |---------------------------------------------------|-------------- 127 | TBD2 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing | RFC8666 | [RFC-to-be] | 128 |---------------------------------------------------|-------------- 129 | TBD3 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | [RFC-to-be] | 130 |---------------------------------------------------|------------ 131 | TBD4 | BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID | RFC8669 | [RFC-to-be] | 132 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 134 Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" SubRegistry 136 Note to IANA: 138 o Please assign TBD1 to 4 to the next available numbers according to 139 the "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" sub-registry 140 [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] procedure. 142 o Please replace the [RFC-to-be] with the RFC number assigned to 143 this document. 145 Note to RFC-editor: 147 o Please remove above two IANA notes. 149 4. Operational Considerations 151 In the information element mplsTopLabelType(46), the BGP code point 4 152 refers to the label value in MP_REACH_NLRI path attribute described 153 in section 2 of RFC8277 [RFC8277], and the BGP Segment Routing 154 Prefix-SID code point TBD4 to the label index value in the Label- 155 Index TLV described in section 3.1 of RFC8669 [RFC8669]. 157 5. Security Considerations 159 There exists no extra security considerations regarding the 160 allocation of these new IPFIX information elements compared to 161 RFC7012 [RFC7012]. 163 6. Acknowledgements 165 I would like to thank to the IE doctors, Paul Aitken and Andrew 166 Feren, as well Benoit Claise, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, Pierre 167 Francois, Bruno Decreane, Paolo Lucente, Hannes Gredler, Ketan 168 Talaulikar, Sabrina Tanamal, Erik Auerswald, Sergey Fomin, Mohamed 169 Boucadair and Tom Petch for their review and valuable comments. 171 7. References 173 7.1. Normative References 175 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 176 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 177 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 178 . 180 7.2. Informative References 182 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] 183 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer, 184 M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton, 185 "Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", draft- 186 ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 (work in progress), 187 February 2020. 189 [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr] 190 Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Xu, X., Gulko, A., Bogdanov, A., 191 Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Khaddam, M., and A. Alston, 192 "Seamless Segment Routing", draft-hegde-spring-mpls- 193 seamless-sr-04 (work in progress), January 2021. 195 [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] 196 "IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information 197 Element #46 SubRegistry", 198 . 201 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 202 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 203 2006, . 205 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., 206 "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, 207 October 2007, . 209 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 210 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 211 . 213 [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 214 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 215 Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, 216 DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, 217 . 219 [RFC8661] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 220 Decraene, B., and S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing MPLS 221 Interworking with LDP", RFC 8661, DOI 10.17487/RFC8661, 222 December 2019, . 224 [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, 225 H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 226 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, 227 DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, 228 . 230 [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions 231 for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, 232 December 2019, . 234 [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., 235 Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS 236 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, 237 DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, 238 . 240 [RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah, 241 A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment 242 Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669, 243 DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019, 244 . 246 Author's Address 248 Thomas Graf 249 Swisscom 250 Binzring 17 251 Zurich 8045 252 Switzerland 254 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com