idnits 2.17.1 draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-00.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 doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text resembling RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (March 15, 2020) is 1497 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting (ref. 'I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-IPFIX-IE46' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5102 (Obsoleted by RFC 7012) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). 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 March 15, 2020 5 Expires: September 16, 2020 7 Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in 8 IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 9 draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-00 11 Abstract 13 This document introduces two additional values in the Information 14 Element mplsTopLabelType for IS-IS and OSPF MPLS Segment Routing (SR) 15 extensions to enable Segment Routing label type information in IP 16 Flow Information Export (IPFIX). 18 Requirements Language 20 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 21 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 22 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 23 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they 24 appear in all capitals, as shown here. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 16, 2020. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 1. Introduction 69 Besides existing MPLS controlplane protocols such as BGP-4 [RFC8277], 70 LDP [RFC5036] and BGP VPN [RFC4364], IS-IS Extensions 71 [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] and OSPF Extensions 72 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] had been added to 73 propagate Segment Routing labels for the MPLS dataplane 74 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]. 76 Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks 77 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] describes how IPFIX can be 78 laveraged to account traffic to MPLS Segment Routing label dimensions 79 within a Segment Routing domain. 81 In the Information Model for IP Flow Information Export IPFIX 82 [RFC5102], the information element #46 mplsTopLabelType describes 83 which MPLS controlplane protocol allocated the top-of-stack label in 84 the MPLS label stack. RFC 7012 section 7.2 [RFC7012] describes the 85 IANA Information Element #46 SubRegistry [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] where new 86 values should be added. 88 By introducing two new values to information element #46 89 mplsTopLabelType for IS-IS and OSPF, when Segment Routing with one of 90 these two routing protocols is deployed, we get inisghts which 91 traffic is being forwarded based on which MPLS controlplane protocol. 92 A typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS controlplane 93 migrations from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF 95 2. Acknowledgements 97 I would like to thank Zafar Ali for his valuable comments. 99 3. IANA Considerations 101 This document specifies two additional values for IS-IS and OSPF 102 Segment Routing extension in the Information Element #46 at IP Flow 103 Information Export (IPFIX). 105 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 106 |ElementID|Value| Description | Abstract | Data Type | 107 | | | | Data Type | Semantics | 108 |----------------------------------------------------------------| 109 | 46 | x | IS-IS Segment Routing | unsigned8 | identifier | 110 |----------------------------------------------------------------| 111 | 46 | x | OSPF Segment Routing | unsigned8 | identifier | 112 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 114 Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX Information Element #46" SubRegistry 116 4. Security Considerations 118 It is not believed that this document adds any additional security 119 considerations. 121 5. Normative References 123 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] 124 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer, 125 M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton, 126 "Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", draft- 127 ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 (work in progress), 128 February 2020. 130 [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] 131 Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., 132 Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for 133 Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- 134 extensions-25 (work in progress), May 2019. 136 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] 137 Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 138 Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 139 Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- 140 routing-extensions-27 (work in progress), December 2018. 142 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] 143 Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., 144 Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS 145 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22 146 (work in progress), May 2019. 148 [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] 149 "IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information 150 Element #46 SubRegistry", 151 . 154 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 155 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 156 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 157 . 159 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 160 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 161 2006, . 163 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., 164 "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, 165 October 2007, . 167 [RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J. 168 Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export", 169 RFC 5102, DOI 10.17487/RFC5102, January 2008, 170 . 172 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 173 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 174 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 175 . 177 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 178 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 179 May 2017, . 181 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 182 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 183 . 185 Author's Address 186 Thomas Graf 187 Swisscom 188 Binzring 17 189 Zurich 8045 190 Switzerland 192 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com