idnits 2.17.1 draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-06.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 (February 18, 2021) is 1163 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-04 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: Standards Track February 18, 2021 5 Expires: August 22, 2021 7 Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in 8 IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 9 draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-06 11 Abstract 13 This document introduces additional code points in the 14 mplsTopLabelType Information Element for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and 15 BGP MPLS Segment Routing (SR) extensions to enable Segment Routing 16 label protocol type information in IP Flow Information Export 17 (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 August 22, 2021. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2021 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. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 1. Introduction 63 Besides BGP-4 [RFC8277], LDP [RFC5036] and BGP VPN [RFC4364], four 64 new routing-protocols, OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3 Extensions 65 [RFC8666], IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667] and BGP Prefix-SID [RFC8669] 66 have been added to the list of routing-protocols able to propagate 67 Segment Routing labels for the MPLS data plane [RFC8660]. 69 Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks 70 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] describes how IPFIX can be 71 leveraged to account traffic to MPLS Segment Routing label dimensions 72 within a Segment Routing domain. 74 In the Information Model for IP Flow Information Export IPFIX 75 [RFC7012], the information element mplsTopLabelType(46) describes 76 which MPLS control plane protocol allocated the top-of-stack label in 77 the MPLS label stack. RFC 7012 section 7.2 [RFC7012] describes the 78 "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" sub-registry [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] 79 where new code points should be added. 81 2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type 83 By introducing four new code points to information element 84 mplsTopLabelType(46) for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-SID, 85 when Segment Routing with one of these four routing protocols is 86 deployed, we get insight into which traffic is being forwarded based 87 on which MPLS control plane protocol. 89 A typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane 90 migrations from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF Segment Routing. Such a 91 migration can be done node by node as described in RFC8661 [RFC8661] 93 Another use case is the monitoring of a migration to a Seamless MPLS 94 SR [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr] architecture. Where prefixes 95 are propagated with dynamic BGP labels according to RFC8277 97 [RFC8277], BGP Prefix-SID according to RFC8669 [RFC8669] and used for 98 the forwarding between IGP domains. Adding an additional layer into 99 the MPLS data plane to above discribed use case. 101 Both use cases can be verified by looking at mplsTopLabelType(46), 102 mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(47), mplsTopLabelStackSection(70) and 103 forwardingStatus(89) dimensions. Giving insights into the MPLS data 104 plane for which MPLS provider edge loopback address, which label 105 protocol has been used and how many packets are forwarded or dropped 106 and when dropped why they have been dropped. 108 By looking at the MPLS label value itself, it is not always clear as 109 to which label protocol it belongs, since they could potentially 110 share the same label allocation range. This is the case for IGP- 111 Adjacency SID's, LDP and dynamic BGP labels as an example. 113 3. IANA Considerations 115 This document specifies four additional code points for IS-IS, 116 OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-SID Segment Routing extension in the 117 existing sub-registry "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" of the 118 "IPFIX Information Elements" and one new "IPFIX Information Element" 119 with a new sub-registry in the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 120 Entities" name space. 122 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 123 | Value| Description | Reference | Requester | 124 |---------------------------------------------------|------------ 125 | TBD2 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing | RFC8665 | TBD1 | 126 |---------------------------------------------------|------------ 127 | TBD3 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing | RFC8666 | TBD1 | 128 |---------------------------------------------------|------------ 129 | TBD4 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | TBD1 | 130 |---------------------------------------------------|------------ 131 | TBD5 | BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID | RFC8669 | TBD1 | 132 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 134 Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" SubRegistry 136 4. Security Considerations 138 The same security considerations apply as for the IPFIX Protocol 139 RFC7012 [RFC7012]. 141 5. Acknowledgements 143 I would like to thank Paul Aitken, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, 144 Pierre Francois, Bruno Decreane, Paolo Lucente, Hannes Gredler, Ketan 145 Talaulikar, Sabrina Tanamal, Erik Auerswald and Sergey Fomin for 146 their review and valuable comments. 148 6. References 150 6.1. Normative References 152 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 153 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 154 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 155 . 157 6.2. Informative References 159 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] 160 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer, 161 M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton, 162 "Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", draft- 163 ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 (work in progress), 164 February 2020. 166 [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr] 167 Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Xu, X., Gulko, A., Bogdanov, A., 168 Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Khaddam, M., and A. Alston, 169 "Seamless Segment Routing", draft-hegde-spring-mpls- 170 seamless-sr-04 (work in progress), January 2021. 172 [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] 173 "IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information 174 Element #46 SubRegistry", 175 . 178 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 179 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 180 2006, . 182 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., 183 "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, 184 October 2007, . 186 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 187 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 188 . 190 [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 191 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 192 Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, 193 DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, 194 . 196 [RFC8661] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 197 Decraene, B., and S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing MPLS 198 Interworking with LDP", RFC 8661, DOI 10.17487/RFC8661, 199 December 2019, . 201 [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, 202 H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 203 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, 204 DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, 205 . 207 [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions 208 for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, 209 December 2019, . 211 [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., 212 Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS 213 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, 214 DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, 215 . 217 [RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah, 218 A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment 219 Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669, 220 DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019, 221 . 223 Author's Address 225 Thomas Graf 226 Swisscom 227 Binzring 17 228 Zurich 8045 229 Switzerland 231 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com