idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-11.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 (18 September 2021) is 951 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC-to-be' is mentioned on line 144, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-05 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: Informational 18 September 2021 5 Expires: 22 March 2022 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-11 11 Abstract 13 This document introduces new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) code 14 points to identify which traffic is being forwarded based on which 15 MPLS control plane protocol used within a Segment Routing domain. In 16 particular, this document defines five code points for the IPFIX 17 mplsTopLabelType Information Element for PCE, IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, 18 and BGP MPLS Segment Routing extensions. 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on 22 March 2022. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 44 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 45 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 46 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 47 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 48 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 49 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 1. Introduction 66 Four routing protocol extensions, OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3 67 Extensions [RFC8666], IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667], BGP Prefix Segment 68 Identifiers (Prefix-SIDs) [RFC8669] and one Path Computation Element 69 Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension [RFC8664] have been defined 70 to be able to propagate Segment Routing (SR) labels for the MPLS data 71 plane [RFC8660]. 73 Also, [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] describes how IP Flow 74 Information Export [RFC7012] can be leveraged in dimensional data 75 modelling to account traffic to MPLS SR label dimensions within a 76 Segment Routing domain. 78 In [RFC7012], the Information Element (IE) mplsTopLabelType(46) 79 identifies which MPLS control plane protocol allocated the top-of- 80 stack label in the MPLS label stack. Section 7.2 of [RFC7012] 81 creates the "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" subregistry 82 [IANA-IPFIX] where MPLS label type should be added. This document 83 defines new code points to address typical use cases that are 84 discussed in Section 2. 86 2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type 88 By introducing five new code points to the IPFIX IE 89 mplsTopLabelType(46) for PCE, IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix- 90 SID, it is possible to identify which traffic is being forwarded 91 based upon which MPLS SR control plane protocol is in use. 93 A typical use case is to monitor MPLS control plane migrations from 94 LDP to IS-IS or OSPF Segment Routing. Such a migration can be done 95 node by node as described in Appendix A of [RFC8661]. 97 Another use case is to monitor MPLS control plane migrations from 98 dynamic BGP labels [RFC8277] to BGP Prefix-SIDs [RFC8669]. For 99 example, the motivation and benefits for such a migration in large- 100 scale data centers are described in [RFC8670]. 102 Both use cases can be verified by using mplsTopLabelType(46), 103 mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(47), mplsTopLabelIPv6Address(140), 104 mplsTopLabelStackSection(70) and forwardingStatus(89) IEs to infer 106 * how many packets are forwarded or dropped 108 * if dropped, for which reasons, and 110 * the MPLS provider edge loopback address and label protocol 112 By looking at the MPLS label value itself, it is not always clear as 113 to which label protocol it belongs. This is because they may share 114 the same label allocation range. This is, for example, the case for 115 IGP-Adjacency SIDs, LDP and dynamic BGP labels. 117 3. IANA Considerations 119 This document requests IANA to allocate the following code points in 120 the existing subregistry "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" under the 121 "IPFIX Information Elements" registry [RFC7012] available at 122 [IANA-IPFIX]. 124 +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ 125 | Value | Description | Reference | 126 +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ 127 | TBD1 | Path Computation Element | [RFC-to-be], RFC8664 | 128 +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ 129 | TBD2 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing | [RFC-to-be], RFC8665 | 130 +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ 131 | TBD3 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing | [RFC-to-be], RFC8666 | 132 +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ 133 | TBD4 | IS-IS Segment Routing | [RFC-to-be], RFC8667 | 134 +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ 135 | TBD5 | BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID | [RFC-to-be], RFC8669 | 136 +-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+ 138 Table 1: Updates to "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" subregistry 140 Note to the RFC-Editor: 142 * Please replace TBD1 - TBD5 with the values allocated by IANA 144 * Please replace the [RFC-to-be] with the RFC number assigned to 145 this document 147 Note IANA: 149 * Suggest to move the existing RFC references in the additional 150 information column of IE mplsTopLabelType(46) to reference column 151 for codepoint 3, 4 and 5. 153 4. Operational Considerations 155 In the IE mplsTopLabelType(46), the BGP code point 4 refers to the 156 label value in MP_REACH_NLRI path attribute described in Section 2 of 157 [RFC8277], while the BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID code point TBD5 158 corresponds to the label index value in the Label-Index TLV described 159 in Section 3.1 of [RFC8669]. These values are thus used for those 160 distinct purposes. 162 5. Security Considerations 164 There exists no significant extra security considerations regarding 165 the allocation of these new IPFIX IEs compared to [RFC7012]. 167 6. Acknowledgements 169 I would like to thank the IE doctors, Paul Aitken and Andrew Feren, 170 as well Benoit Claise, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, Pierre Francois, 171 Bruno Decreane, Paolo Lucente, Hannes Gredler, Ketan Talaulikar, 172 Sabrina Tanamal, Erik Auerswald, Sergey Fomin, Mohamed Boucadair, Tom 173 Petch, Qin Wu and Matthias Arnold for their review and valuable 174 comments. Many thanks also to Robert Wilton for the AD review. 175 Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Eric Vyncke and Benjamin Kaduk for the IESG 176 review. 178 7. References 180 7.1. Normative References 182 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 183 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 184 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 185 . 187 7.2. Informative References 189 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] 190 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer, 191 M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton, 192 "Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", Work in 193 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic- 194 accounting-05, 12 April 2021, 195 . 198 [IANA-IPFIX] 199 "IANA, IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)", 200 . 203 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 204 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 205 . 207 [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 208 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 209 Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, 210 DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, 211 . 213 [RFC8661] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 214 Decraene, B., and S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing MPLS 215 Interworking with LDP", RFC 8661, DOI 10.17487/RFC8661, 216 December 2019, . 218 [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., 219 and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication 220 Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, 221 DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, 222 . 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 [RFC8670] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and 247 P. Lapukhov, "BGP Prefix Segment in Large-Scale Data 248 Centers", RFC 8670, DOI 10.17487/RFC8670, December 2019, 249 . 251 Author's Address 253 Thomas Graf 254 Swisscom 255 Binzring 17 256 CH-8045 Zurich 257 Switzerland 259 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com