idnits 2.17.1 draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-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 seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (June 20, 2019) is 1771 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) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7799 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 8321 (Obsoleted by RFC 9341) == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-04 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IPPM T. Zhou, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft G. Fioccola 4 Intended status: Standards Track ZB. Li 5 Expires: December 22, 2019 Huawei 6 S. Lee 7 LG U+ 8 M. Cociglio 9 Telecom Italia 10 ZQ. Li 11 China Mobile 12 June 20, 2019 14 Enhanced Alternate Marking Method 15 draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-02 17 Abstract 19 This document proposes several ways to encapsulate the alternate 20 marking field with enough space. More information can be considered 21 within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and 22 ease the deployment. 24 Requirements Language 26 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 27 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 28 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 30 Status of This Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2019. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 65 2. Encapsulation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2.1. Use the IOAM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 2.2. Use the PostCard based Telemetry Header . . . . . . . . . 3 68 2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly . . . . . . . . 4 69 3. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry . . . . . . 4 72 4. Implementing Multipoint Alternate Marking . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 4.1. IOAM vs PBT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 1. Introduction 84 The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] technique is an hybrid performance 85 measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement 86 methods. It can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter 87 on live traffic. Because this method is based on marking consecutive 88 batches of packets. 90 For the basic Alternate Marking method, bits are needed to record the 91 mark. However, in some protocols, no additional bit can be used, 92 which blocks the wide deployment of the alternate marking technique. 93 And the basic Alternate Marking method is limited with the 94 scalability for further extension. 96 This document proposes several ways to encapsulate the alternate 97 marking field with enough space. More information can be considered 98 within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and 99 ease the deployment. Specifically, the flow identifier is applied as 100 an enhancement for the basic Alternate Marking when determining 101 packet loss and packet delay measurement. The flow identifier helps 102 the data plane to identify the specific flow, hence to do the 103 processing with respect to the Alternate Marking. It also simplifies 104 the export by directly being encapsulated as the index for the 105 associated metrics. 107 2. Encapsulation Considerations 109 2.1. Use the IOAM Data 111 In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM 112 [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) defines a generic meta data structure to 113 records OAM information within user packets while the packets 114 traverse a network. The data types and data formats for IOAM data 115 records have been defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The IOAM 116 data can be embedded in many protocol encapsulations such as Network 117 Services Header, Segment Routing, and IPv6 118 [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport]. 120 The IOAM edge-to-edge option is to carry data that is added by the 121 IOAM encapsulating node and interpreted by IOAM decapsulating node. 122 It provide a bit map to indicate what is present in the data, so that 123 alternate marking filed can be included in the IOAM edge-to-edge 124 option. This provides a way for an end to end deployment for the 125 alternate marking method. 127 Since the IOAM edge-to-edge option data is not able to be interpreted 128 by the intermediate node, alternate marking method cannot be applied 129 within the path hop by hop with this encapsulation way. 131 2.2. Use the PostCard based Telemetry Header 133 The PostCard Base Telemetry (PBT) 134 [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] is proposed to directly 135 exports the telemetry data to a collector through separated OAM 136 packets called postcards, while not require inserting telemetry data 137 into user packets. The alternate making data can also be 138 encapsulated in this option header. Different from the IOAM edge-to- 139 edge option, the PostCard based Telemetry facilitates the hop by hop 140 deployment of alternate marking method. 142 2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly 144 In addition to the previous ways which carry the alternate marking 145 filed within the existing generic OAM header. The alternate marking 146 field can also be encapsulate within the transport protocol directly 147 as an extension header or so. This may vary according to the 148 transport protocol. 150 3. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field 152 3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM 154 The IOAM-E2E-Type filed within the IOAM edge-to-edge option header is 155 a 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types are used in the 156 E2E option data. The IOAM-E2E-Type value is a bit field, in which 157 bit 0-3 are currently defined by [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. So one 158 bit from bit 4-15 can be used to indicate the presence of data used 159 for alternate marking. 161 The alternate marking data is a 8-octet field defined as follows: 163 0 1 2 3 164 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 165 +-+-+---------------------------+-------------------------------+ 166 |L|D| Reserved | FlowID | 167 +-+-+---------------------------+-------------------------------+ 168 | FlowID(contd) | 169 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 171 where: 173 o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321]; 175 o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321]; 177 o FlowID - 6-octet unsigned integer. Flow identifier field is to 178 uniquely identify a monitored flow within the in-situ OAM domain. 179 The field is set at the engress node. The FlowID can be uniformly 180 assigned by the central controller or algorithmically generated by 181 the engress node. The latter approach cannot guarantee the 182 uniqueness of FlowID, yet the conflict probability is small due to 183 the large FlowID space. 185 3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry 187 The following figures sho ws a proposed change to the Telemetry 188 Information Header (TIH) [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]. 190 0 1 2 3 191 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 192 +---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+ 193 | Next Header | TIH Length | Reserved |L|D| Hop Count | 194 +---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+ 196 This proposes to use the two bits from the Reserved field from the 197 Telemetry Information Header. 199 Where: 201 o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321]; 203 o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321]. 205 The Data Element Bitmap defined in the TIH is an 31-bit bitmap 206 indicating the list of required data elements. One not used bit from 207 the Data Element Bitmap can be used to indicate the presence of the 208 marking bits, and trigger the statistic process. 210 4. Implementing Multipoint Alternate Marking 212 There are some considerations to do on how to manage the general 213 Multipoint Alternate Marking application in order to get more 214 adaptable performance measurement. 216 [I-D.ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark] introduces the network clustering 217 approach for Alternate Marking: the network clusters partition can be 218 done at different levels to perform the needed degree of detail. The 219 Network Management can use an intelligent strategy: it can start 220 without examining in depth, and, in case of problems (i.e. measured 221 packet loss or too high delay), various filtering criteria can be 222 specified in order to perform a detailed analysis by using different 223 combination of clusters or, at the limit, a per-flow measurement. 225 4.1. IOAM vs PBT 227 Both IOAM and PBT can easily include the base Alternate Marking 228 method. But the more general implementation of Multipoint Alternate 229 Marking, described in [I-D.ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark], needs a 230 centralized Data Collector and Network Management to allow the 231 intelligent and flexible Alternate Marking algorithm. For this 232 purpose, the PostCard based Telemetry Header can really be useful. 234 [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] introduces the architecture 235 to directly export the telemetry data from network nodes to a 236 collector through separated OAM packets called postcards. 238 The overall architecture of PBT and the closed loop between Nodes, 239 Telemetry Data Collector and Network Management enables exactly the 240 application of the network clustering approach for Alternate Marking. 242 5. Security Considerations 244 TBD 246 6. IANA Considerations 248 TBD 250 7. Acknowledgements 252 TBD 254 8. References 256 8.1. Normative References 258 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 259 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 260 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 261 . 263 [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with 264 Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, 265 May 2016, . 267 [RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, 268 L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, 269 "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid 270 Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, 271 January 2018, . 273 8.2. Informative References 275 [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport] 276 Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C., 277 Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, 278 D., Lapukhov, P., and R. Chang, "Encapsulations for In- 279 situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-05 280 (work in progress), July 2017. 282 [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] 283 Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., 284 Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov, 285 P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon, 286 "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam- 287 data-05 (work in progress), March 2019. 289 [I-D.ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark] 290 Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto, 291 "Multipoint Alternate Marking method for passive and 292 hybrid performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm- 293 multipoint-alt-mark-01 (work in progress), March 2019. 295 [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] 296 Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Shin, J., and K. Lee, 297 "Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song- 298 ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-04 (work in progress), June 299 2019. 301 Authors' Addresses 303 Tianran Zhou 304 Huawei 305 156 Beiqing Rd. 306 Beijing 100095 307 China 309 Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com 311 Giuseppe Fioccola 312 Huawei 313 Riesstrasse, 25 314 Munich 80992 315 Germany 317 Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com 319 Zhenbin Li 320 Huawei 321 156 Beiqing Rd. 322 Beijing 100095 323 China 325 Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com 326 Shinyoung Lee 327 LG U+ 328 71, Magokjungang 8-ro, Gangseo-gu 329 Seoul 330 Republic of Korea 332 Email: leesy@lguplus.co.kr 334 Mauro Cociglio 335 Telecom Italia 336 Via Reiss Romoli, 274 337 Torino 10148 338 Italy 340 Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it 342 Zhenqiang Li 343 China Mobile 344 Beijing 345 China 347 Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com