idnits 2.17.1 draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-07.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 10 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 24, 2021) is 1129 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to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC-to-be' is mentioned on line 145, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-04 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 March 24, 2021 5 Expires: September 25, 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-07 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 September 25, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 described use case. 101 Both use cases can be verified by using mplsTopLabelType(46), 102 mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(47), mplsTopLabelStackSection(70) and 103 forwardingStatus(89) dimensions to get insights into 105 o how many packets are forwarded or dropped 107 o if dropped, for which reasons 109 o the MPLS provider edge loopback address and label protocol 111 By looking at the MPLS label value itself, it is not always clear as 112 to which label protocol it belongs, since they could potentially 113 share the same label allocation range. This is the case for IGP- 114 Adjacency SID's, LDP and dynamic BGP labels as an example. 116 3. IANA Considerations 118 This document specifies four additional code points for IS-IS, 119 OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-SID Segment Routing extension in the 120 existing sub-registry "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" of the 121 "IPFIX Information Elements" and one new "IPFIX Information Element" 122 with a new sub-registry in the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 123 Entities" name space. 125 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 126 | Value| Description | Reference | Requester | 127 |---------------------------------------------------|-------------- 128 | TBD1 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing | RFC8665 | [RFC-to-be] | 129 |---------------------------------------------------|-------------- 130 | TBD2 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing | RFC8666 | [RFC-to-be] | 131 |---------------------------------------------------|-------------- 132 | TBD3 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | [RFC-to-be] | 133 |---------------------------------------------------|------------ 134 | TBD4 | BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID | RFC8669 | [RFC-to-be] | 135 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 137 Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" SubRegistry 139 Note to IANA: 141 o Please assign TBD1 to 4 to the next available numbers according to 142 the "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" sub-registry 143 [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] procedure. 145 o Please replace the [RFC-to-be] with the RFC number assigned to 146 this document. 148 Note to RFC-editor: 150 o Please remove above two IANA notes. 152 4. Security Considerations 154 There exists no extra security considerations regarding the 155 allocation of these new IPFIX information elements compared to 156 RFC7012 [RFC7012]. 158 5. Acknowledgements 160 I would like to thank to the IE doctors, Paul Aitken and Andrew 161 Feren, as well Benoit Claise, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, Pierre 162 Francois, Bruno Decreane, Paolo Lucente, Hannes Gredler, Ketan 163 Talaulikar, Sabrina Tanamal, Erik Auerswald and Sergey Fomin for 164 their review and valuable comments. 166 6. References 168 6.1. Normative References 170 [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model 171 for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, 172 DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, 173 . 175 6.2. Informative References 177 [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] 178 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer, 179 M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton, 180 "Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", draft- 181 ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 (work in progress), 182 February 2020. 184 [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr] 185 Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Xu, X., Gulko, A., Bogdanov, A., 186 Uttaro, J., Jalil, L., Khaddam, M., and A. Alston, 187 "Seamless Segment Routing", draft-hegde-spring-mpls- 188 seamless-sr-04 (work in progress), January 2021. 190 [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] 191 "IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information 192 Element #46 SubRegistry", 193 . 196 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 197 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 198 2006, . 200 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., 201 "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036, 202 October 2007, . 204 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 205 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 206 . 208 [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 209 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 210 Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, 211 DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, 212 . 214 [RFC8661] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., 215 Decraene, B., and S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing MPLS 216 Interworking with LDP", RFC 8661, DOI 10.17487/RFC8661, 217 December 2019, . 219 [RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, 220 H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 221 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, 222 DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019, 223 . 225 [RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions 226 for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, 227 December 2019, . 229 [RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., 230 Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS 231 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, 232 DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019, 233 . 235 [RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah, 236 A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment 237 Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669, 238 DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019, 239 . 241 Author's Address 243 Thomas Graf 244 Swisscom 245 Binzring 17 246 Zurich 8045 247 Switzerland 249 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com