idnits 2.17.1 draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-03.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 29, 2020) is 1488 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 'IANA-IPFIX-IE46' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5102 (Obsoleted by RFC 7012) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-08 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-03 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).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 29, 2020 5 Expires: September 30, 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-03 11 Abstract 13 This document introduces additional code points in the Information 14 Element mplsTopLabelType for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 MPLS Segment 15 Routing (SR) extensions and a new SID type element to enable Segment 16 Routing label and segment type information in IP Flow Information 17 Export (IPFIX). 19 Requirements Language 21 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 22 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 23 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 24 14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they 25 appear in all capitals, as shown here. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2020. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 3. Segment Routing Segment Identifier Type . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 1. Introduction 72 Besides existing MPLS control plane protocols such as BGP-4 73 [RFC8277], LDP [RFC5036] and BGP VPN [RFC4364], three new routing- 74 protocols, OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3 Extensions [RFC8666] 75 and IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667] had been added to propagate Segment 76 Routing labels for the MPLS dataplane [RFC8660]. 78 Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks 79 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] describes how IPFIX can be 80 leveraged to account traffic to MPLS-SR label dimensions within a 81 Segment Routing domain. 83 In the Information Model for IP Flow Information Export IPFIX 84 [RFC5102], the information element #46 mplsTopLabelType describes 85 which MPLS control plane protocol allocated the top-of-stack label in 86 the MPLS label stack. RFC 7012 section 7.2 [RFC7012] describes the 87 IANA Information Element #46 SubRegistry [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] where new 88 code points should be added. 90 2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type 92 By introducing three new code points to information element #46 93 mplsTopLabelType for IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, when Segment Routing 94 with one of these three routing protocols is deployed, we get insight 95 into which traffic is being forwarded based on which MPLS control 96 plane protocol. 98 A typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane 99 migrations from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF. By looking at the label value 100 itself, it is not always clear as to which label protocol it belongs, 101 since they could potentially share the same label allocation range. 102 This is the case for IGP-Adjacency SID's and LDP as an example. 104 3. Segment Routing Segment Identifier Type 106 By introducing a new information element called SrSidType, which 107 contains the Segment Routing Segment Identifier type according to 108 Segment Routing Architectur [RFC8402], we get the intended Segment 109 Routing forwarding behaviour in the forwarding plane. 111 A typical use case scenario is to monitor the forwarding behaviour 112 when Topology Independent Fast Reroute 113 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] or micro loop avoidance 114 [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop] tunnel traffic with IGP- 115 Adjacency Segment SID's or when ECMP load balancing should occur with 116 Anycast-SID's. 118 4. IANA Considerations 120 This document specifies three additional code points for IS-IS, OSPv2 121 and OSPFv3 Segment Routing extension in the existing sub-registry 122 "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" of the "IPFIX Information 123 Elements" and one new "IPFIX Information Element" with a new sub- 124 registry in the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" name 125 space. 127 ---------------------------------------------- 128 | Value| Description | Reference | 129 |--------------------------------------------| 130 | TBD1 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing | RFC8665 | 131 |--------------------------------------------| 132 | TBD2 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing | RFC8666 | 133 |--------------------------------------------| 134 | TBD3 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | 135 ---------------------------------------------- 137 Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX Information Element #46" SubRegistry 139 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 140 |ElementID| Name |Abstract |Data Type | Description |Reference| 141 | | |Data Type|Semantics | | | 142 |------------------------------------------------------------------| 143 | TBD4 |SrSidType|unsigned8|identifier|This field | RFC8402 | 144 | | | | |identifies the | | 145 | | | | |Segment Routing| | 146 | | | | |Identifier Type| | 147 | | | | |of the | | 148 | | | | |top-of-stack. | | 149 | | | | |SID types for | | 150 | | | | |this field are | | 151 | | | | |listed in the | | 152 | | | | |SR SID type | | 153 | | | | |registry. | | 154 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 156 Figure 2: New "IPFIX Information Element #TBD4" 158 ------------------------------------- 159 | Value | Description | Reference | 160 |-----------------------------------| 161 | TBD5 | Prefix-SID | RFC8402 | 162 |-----------------------------------| 163 | TBD6 | Node-SID | RFC8402 | 164 |-----------------------------------| 165 | TBD7 | Anycast-SID | RFC8402 | 166 |-----------------------------------| 167 | TBD8 | Adjacency-SID | RFC8402 | 168 |-----------------------------------| 169 | TBD9 | PeerNode-SID | RFC8402 | 170 |-----------------------------------| 171 | TBD10 | PeerAdj-SID | RFC8402 | 172 |-----------------------------------| 173 | TBD11 | PeerSet-SID | RFC8402 | 174 ------------------------------------- 176 Figure 3: New "IPFIX Information Element #TBD4" SubRegistry 178 5. Security Considerations 180 The same security considerations apply as for the IPFIX Protocol 181 RFC7012 [RFC7012]. 183 6. Acknowledgements 185 I would like to thank Paul Aitken, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, 186 Pierre Francois, Bruno Decreane and Paolo Lucente for their review 187 and valuable comments. 189 7. References 191 7.1. Normative References 193 [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] 194 "IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information 195 Element #46 SubRegistry", 196 . 199 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 200 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 201 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 202 . 204 [RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J. 205 Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export", 206 RFC 5102, DOI 10.17487/RFC5102, January 2008, 207 . 209 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 210 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 211 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 212 . 214 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 215 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 216 May 2017, . 218 7.2. Informative References 220 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] 221 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer, 222 M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton, 223 "Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", draft- 224 ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 (work in progress), 225 February 2020. 227 [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop] 228 Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., 229 Francois, P., and P. Psenak, "Loop avoidance using Segment 230 Routing", draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-08 231 (work in progress), January 2020. 233 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] 234 Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., 235 Francois, P., Voyer, D., Clad, F., and P. Camarillo, 236 "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing", 237 draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-03 (work in 238 progress), March 2020. 240 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 241 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 242 2006, . 244 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., 245 "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, 246 October 2007, . 248 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 249 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 250 . 252 [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., 253 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 254 Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, 255 July 2018, . 257 [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 258 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 259 Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, 260 DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, 261 . 263 [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, 264 H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 265 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, 266 DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, 267 . 269 [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions 270 for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, 271 December 2019, . 273 [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., 274 Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS 275 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, 276 DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, 277 . 279 Author's Address 281 Thomas Graf 282 Swisscom 283 Binzring 17 284 Zurich 8045 285 Switzerland 287 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com