idnits 2.17.1 draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-04.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 (April 26, 2020) is 1460 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-08 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-03 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 26, 2020 5 Expires: October 28, 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-04 11 Abstract 13 This document introduces additional code points in the 14 mplsTopLabelType Information Element for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 MPLS 15 Segment Routing (SR) extensions and a new SID type element to enable 16 Segment Routing label and segment type information in IP Flow 17 Information Export (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 28, 2020. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2020 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. Segment Routing Segment Identifier Type . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 1. Introduction 64 Besides BGP-4 [RFC8277], LDP [RFC5036] and BGP VPN [RFC4364], three 65 new routing-protocols, OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3 Extensions 66 [RFC8666] and IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667] have been added to the list 67 of routing-protocols able to propagate Segment Routing labels for the 68 MPLS dataplane [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 #46 mplsTopLabelType 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 IANA Information Element #46 SubRegistry [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] where new 80 code points should be added. 82 2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type 84 By introducing three new code points to information element #46 85 mplsTopLabelType for IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, when Segment Routing 86 with one of these three routing protocols is deployed, we get insight 87 into which traffic is being forwarded based on which MPLS control 88 plane protocol. 90 A typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane 91 migrations from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF. By looking at the MPLS label 92 value itself, it is not always clear as to which label protocol it 93 belongs, since they could potentially share the same label allocation 94 range. This is the case for IGP-Adjacency SID's and LDP as an 95 example. 97 3. Segment Routing Segment Identifier Type 99 The introduction of a new Information Element called SrSidType, which 100 contains the Segment Routing Segment Identifier type according to 101 Segment Routing Architecture [RFC8402], allows the Segment Routing 102 forwarding behaviour to be exported in IPFIX. 104 A typical use case scenario is to monitor the forwarding behaviour 105 when Topology Independent Fast Reroute 106 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] or micro loop avoidance 107 [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop] tunnel traffic with IGP- 108 Adjacency Segment SID's or when ECMP load balancing should occur with 109 Anycast-SID's. 111 4. IANA Considerations 113 This document specifies three additional code points for IS-IS, OSPv2 114 and OSPFv3 Segment Routing extension in the existing sub-registry 115 "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" of the "IPFIX Information 116 Elements" and one new "IPFIX Information Element" with a new sub- 117 registry in the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" name 118 space. 120 ---------------------------------------------- 121 | Value| Description | Reference | 122 |--------------------------------------------| 123 | TBD1 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing | RFC8665 | 124 |--------------------------------------------| 125 | TBD2 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing | RFC8666 | 126 |--------------------------------------------| 127 | TBD3 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | 128 ---------------------------------------------- 130 Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX Information Element #46" SubRegistry 132 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 133 |ElementID| Name |Abstract |Data Type | Description |Reference| 134 | | |Data Type|Semantics | | | 135 |------------------------------------------------------------------| 136 | TBD4 |SrSidType|unsigned8|identifier|This field | RFC8402 | 137 | | | | |identifies the | | 138 | | | | |Segment Routing| | 139 | | | | |Identifier Type| | 140 | | | | |of the MPLS | | 141 | | | | |top-of-stack | | 142 | | | | |label. SID | | 143 | | | | |types for this | | 144 | | | | |field are | | 145 | | | | |listed in the | | 146 | | | | |SR SID type | | 147 | | | | |registry. | | 148 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 150 Figure 2: New "IPFIX Information Element #TBD4" 152 ----------------------------------------- 153 | Value | Description | Reference | 154 |---------------------------------------| 155 | TBD5 | Unknown SID Type | RFC8402 | 156 |---------------------------------------| 157 | TBD6 | Prefix-SID | RFC8402 | 158 |---------------------------------------| 159 | TBD7 | Node-SID | RFC8402 | 160 |---------------------------------------| 161 | TBD8 | Anycast-SID | RFC8402 | 162 |---------------------------------------| 163 | TBD9 | Adjacency-SID | RFC8402 | 164 |---------------------------------------| 165 | TBD10 | LAN-Adjacency-SID | RFC8402 | 166 |---------------------------------------| 167 | TBD11 | PeerNode-SID | RFC8402 | 168 |---------------------------------------| 169 | TBD12 | PeerAdj-SID | RFC8402 | 170 |---------------------------------------| 171 | TBD13 | PeerSet-SID | RFC8402 | 172 |---------------------------------------| 173 | TBD14 | Binding-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 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 194 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 195 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 196 . 198 7.2. Informative References 200 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] 201 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer, 202 M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton, 203 "Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", draft- 204 ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 (work in progress), 205 February 2020. 207 [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop] 208 Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., 209 Francois, P., and P. Psenak, "Loop avoidance using Segment 210 Routing", draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-08 211 (work in progress), January 2020. 213 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] 214 Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., 215 Francois, P., Voyer, D., Clad, F., and P. Camarillo, 216 "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing", 217 draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-03 (work in 218 progress), March 2020. 220 [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] 221 "IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information 222 Element #46 SubRegistry", 223 . 226 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 227 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 228 2006, . 230 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., 231 "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, 232 October 2007, . 234 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 235 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 236 . 238 [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., 239 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 240 Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, 241 July 2018, . 243 [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 244 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 245 Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, 246 DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, 247 . 249 [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, 250 H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 251 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, 252 DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, 253 . 255 [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions 256 for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, 257 December 2019, . 259 [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., 260 Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS 261 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, 262 DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, 263 . 265 Author's Address 267 Thomas Graf 268 Swisscom 269 Binzring 17 270 Zurich 8045 271 Switzerland 273 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com