idnits 2.17.1 draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-02.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 26, 2020) is 1491 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) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-IPFIX-IE46' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5102 (Obsoleted by RFC 7012) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).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 26, 2020 5 Expires: September 27, 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-02 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 27, 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. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 1. Introduction 69 Besides existing MPLS control plane protocols such as BGP-4 70 [RFC8277], LDP [RFC5036] and BGP VPN [RFC4364], IS-IS Extensions 71 [RFC8667] and OSPF Extensions [RFC8665] had been added to propagate 72 Segment Routing labels for the MPLS dataplane [RFC8660]. 74 Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks 75 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] describes how IPFIX can be 76 leveraged to account traffic to MPLS Segment Routing label dimensions 77 within a Segment Routing domain. 79 In the Information Model for IP Flow Information Export IPFIX 80 [RFC5102], the information element #46 mplsTopLabelType describes 81 which MPLS control plane protocol allocated the top-of-stack label in 82 the MPLS label stack. RFC 7012 section 7.2 [RFC7012] describes the 83 IANA Information Element #46 SubRegistry [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] where new 84 values should be added. 86 By introducing two new values to information element #46 87 mplsTopLabelType for IS-IS and OSPF, when Segment Routing with one of 88 these two routing protocols is deployed, we get insight which traffic 89 is being forwarded based on which MPLS control plane protocol. A 90 typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane migrations 91 from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF. By looking at the label value itself, it 92 is not always clear to which label protocol it belongs to, since they 93 could potentially share the same label allocation range. This is the 94 case for IGP-Adjacency Segment SID's and LDP as an example. 96 2. IANA Considerations 98 This document specifies two additional values for IS-IS and OSPF 99 Segment Routing extension in the sub-registry "IPFIX MPLS label type 100 (Value 46)" of the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry in the "IP 101 Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" name space. 103 -------------------------------------------- 104 | Value| Description | Reference | 105 |------------------------------------------| 106 | TBD1 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | 107 |------------------------------------------| 108 | TBD2 | OSPF Segment Routing | RFC8665 | 109 -------------------------------------------- 111 Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX Information Element #46" SubRegistry 113 3. Security Considerations 115 The same security considerations apply as for the IPFIX Protocol 116 [RFC7012]. 118 4. Acknowledgements 120 I would like to thank Paul Aitken, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, 121 Pierre Francois, Paulo Lucente for their review and valuable 122 comments. 124 5. References 126 5.1. Normative References 128 [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] 129 "IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information 130 Element #46 SubRegistry", 131 . 134 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 135 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 136 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 137 . 139 [RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J. 140 Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export", 141 RFC 5102, DOI 10.17487/RFC5102, January 2008, 142 . 144 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 145 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 146 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 147 . 149 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 150 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 151 May 2017, . 153 5.2. Informative References 155 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] 156 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer, 157 M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton, 158 "Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", draft- 159 ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 (work in progress), 160 February 2020. 162 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 163 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 164 2006, . 166 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., 167 "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, 168 October 2007, . 170 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 171 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 172 . 174 [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 175 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 176 Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, 177 DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, 178 . 180 [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, 181 H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 182 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, 183 DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, 184 . 186 [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., 187 Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS 188 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, 189 DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, 190 . 192 Author's Address 194 Thomas Graf 195 Swisscom 196 Binzring 17 197 Zurich 8045 198 Switzerland 200 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com