IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9343.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Giuseppe Fioccola , Tianran Zhou , Mauro Cociglio , Fengwei Qin , Ran Pang | ||
| Last updated | 2021-08-12 (Latest revision 2021-07-26) | ||
| Replaces | draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
by Stewart Bryant
Not ready
TSVART Last Call review
(of
-06)
by Yoshifumi Nishida
On the Right Track
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Ole Trøan | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2021-06-01 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9343 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Needs 4 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Erik Kline | ||
| Send notices to | bob.hinden@gmail.com, otroan@employees.org | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed |
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08
6MAN Working Group G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: January 27, 2022 M. Cociglio
Telecom Italia
F. Qin
China Mobile
R. Pang
China Unicom
July 26, 2021
IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08
Abstract
This document describes how the Alternate Marking Method can be used
as a passive performance measurement tool in an IPv6 domain. It
defines a new Extension Header Option to encode Alternate Marking
information in both the Hop-by-Hop Options Header and Destination
Options Header.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 27, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Alternate Marking application to IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Controlled Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Definition of the AltMark Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Data Fields Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Use of the AltMark Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Alternate Marking Method Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Packet Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Packet Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Flow Monitoring Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3.1. Uniqueness of FlowMonID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Multipoint and Clustered Alternate Marking . . . . . . . 14
5.5. Data Collection and Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
[RFC8321] and [RFC8889] describe a passive performance measurement
method, which can be used to measure packet loss, latency and jitter
on live traffic. Since this method is based on marking consecutive
batches of packets, the method is often referred to as the Alternate
Marking Method.
This document defines how the Alternate Marking Method can be used to
measure performance metrics in IPv6. The rationale is to apply the
Alternate Marking methodology to IPv6 and therefore allow detailed
packet loss, delay and delay variation measurements both hop-by-hop
and end-to-end to exactly locate the issues in an IPv6 network.
The Alternate Marking is an on-path telemetry technique and consists
in synchronizing the measurements in different points of a network by
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
switching the value of a marking bit and therefore divide the packet
flow into batches. Each batch represents a measurable entity
unambiguously recognizable by all network nodes along the path. By
counting the number of packets in each batch and comparing the values
measured by different nodes, it is possible to precisely measure the
packet loss. In a similar way the alternation of the values of the
marking bits can be used as a time reference to calculate the delay
and delay variation. The Alternate Marking operation is further
described in Section 5.
The format of IPv6 addresses is defined in [RFC4291] while [RFC8200]
defines the IPv6 Header, including a 20-bit Flow Label and the IPv6
Extension Headers.
[I-D.fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark] summarizes the possible
implementation options for the application of the Alternate Marking
Method in an IPv6 domain. This document, starting from the outcome
of [I-D.fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark], introduces a new TLV (type-
length-value) that can be encoded in the Options Headers (Hop-by-Hop
or Destination) for the purpose of the Alternate Marking Method
application in an IPv6 domain. While the case of Segment Routing
Header (SRH), defined in [RFC8754], is also discussed, it is valid
for all the types of Routing Header (RH).
The threat model for the application of the Alternate Marking Method
in an IPv6 domain is reported in Section 6. As for all the on-path
telemetry technique, the only definitive solution is that this
methodology MUST be applied in a controlled domain and therefore the
application to untrusted domain is NOT RECOMMENDED.
1.1. Terminology
This document uses the terms related to the Alternate Marking Method
as defined in [RFC8321] and [RFC8889].
1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Alternate Marking application to IPv6
The Alternate Marking Method requires a marking field. As mentioned,
several alternatives have been analysed in
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
[I-D.fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark] such as IPv6 Extension Headers,
IPv6 Address and Flow Label.
[I-D.fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark] analyzed and discussed all the
available possibilities and the drawbacks:
Reusing existing Extension Header for Alternate Marking leads to a
non-optimized implementation;
Using the IPv6 destination address to encode the Alternate Marking
processing is very expensive;
Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Alternate Marking conflicts with the
utilization of the Flow Label for load distribution purpose
([RFC6438]).
In the end, [I-D.fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark] demonstrated that a
new Hop-by-Hop or a new Destination Option was the best approach.
The approach for the Alternate Marking application to IPv6 specified
in this memo is compliant with [RFC8200]. It involves the following
operations:
o The source node is the only one that writes the Option Header to
mark alternately the flow (for both Hop-by-Hop and Destination
Option). The intermediate nodes and destination node MUST only
read the marking values of the option without modifying the Option
Header.
o In case of Hop-by-Hop Option Header carrying Alternate Marking
bits, it is not inserted or deleted, but can be read by any node
along the path. The intermediate nodes may be configured to
support this Option or not and the measurement can be done only
for the nodes configured to read the Option. As further discussed
in Section 4, the presence of the hop-by-hop option should not
affect the traffic throughput both on nodes that do not recognize
this option and on the nodes that support it. However it is
important to mention that there is a difference between the theory
and the implementation and it can happen that packets with hop-by-
hop option could also be skipped or processed in the slow path.
While some proposals are trying to address this problem
([I-D.peng-v6ops-hbh], [I-D.hinden-6man-hbh-processing]), these
aspects are out of the scope for this document.
o In case of Destination Option Header carrying Alternate Marking
bits, it is not processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along
the path until the packet reaches the destination node. Note
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
that, if there is also a Routing Header (RH), any visited
destination in the route list can process the Option Header.
Hop-by-Hop Option Header is also useful to signal to routers on the
path to process the Alternate Marking. However, as said, routers
will examine this option if properly configured.
The optimization of both implementation and scaling of the Alternate
Marking Method is also considered and a way to identify flows is
required. The Flow Monitoring Identification field (FlowMonID), as
introduced in Section 5.3, goes in this direction and it is used to
identify a monitored flow.
The FlowMonID is different from the Flow Label field of the IPv6
Header ([RFC6437]). The Flow Label field in the IPv6 header is used
by a source to label sequences of packets to be treated in the
network as a single flow and, as reported in [RFC6438], it can be
used for load-balancing/equal cost multi-path (LB/ECMP). The reuse
of Flow Label field for identifying monitored flows is not considered
since it may change the application intent and forwarding behaviour.
Furthermore the Flow Label may be changed en route and this may also
violate the measurement task. Also, since the Flow Label is pseudo-
random, there is always a finite probability of collision. Those
reasons make the definition of the FlowMonID necessary for IPv6.
Indeed, the FlowMonID is designed and only used to identify the
monitored flow. Flow Label and FlowMonID within the same packet are
totally disjoint, have different scope, identify different flows, and
are intended for different use cases.
The rationale for the FlowMonID is further discussed in Section 5.3.
This 20 bit field allows easy and flexible identification of the
monitored flow and enables a finer granularity and improved
measurement correlation. An important point that will be discussed
in Section 5.3.1 is the uniqueness of the FlowMonID and how to allow
disambiguation of the FlowMonID in case of collision.
The following section highlights an important requirement for the
application of the Alternate Marking to IPv6. The concept of the
controlled domain is explained and it is considered an essential
precondition, as also highlighted in Section 6.
2.1. Controlled Domain
[RFC8799] introduces the concept of specific limited domain solutions
and, in this regard, it is reported the IPv6 Application of the
Alternate Marking Method as an example.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
IPv6 has much more flexibility than IPv4 and innovative applications
have been proposed, but for a number of reasons, such as the
policies, options supported, the style of network management and
security requirements, it is suggested to limit some of these
applications to a controlled domain. This is also the case of the
Alternate Marking application to IPv6 as assumed hereinafter.
Therefore, the IPv6 application of the Alternate Marking Method MUST
NOT be deployed outside a controlled domain. It is RECOMMENDED that
an implementation can be able to reject packets that carry Alternate
Marking data and are entering or leaving the controlled domains.
Some scenarios may imply that the Alternate Marking Method is applied
outside a controlled domain, either intentionally or unintentionally,
but in these cases, IPsec authentication and encryption MUST be used.
The security considerations reported in Section 6 also highlight this
requirement.
3. Definition of the AltMark Option
The definition of a new TLV for the Options Extension Headers,
carrying the data fields dedicated to the Alternate Marking method,
is reported below.
3.1. Data Fields Format
The following figure shows the data fields format for enhanced
Alternate Marking TLV. This AltMark data can be encapsulated in the
IPv6 Options Headers (Hop-by-Hop or Destination Option).
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FlowMonID |L|D| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Option Type: 8 bit identifier of the type of Option that needs to
be allocated. Unrecognized Types MUST be ignored on receipt. For
Hop-by-Hop Options Header or Destination Options Header, [RFC8200]
defines how to encode the three high-order bits of the Option Type
field. The two high-order bits specify the action that must be
taken if the processing IPv6 node does not recognize the Option
Type; for AltMark these two bits MUST be set to 00 (skip over this
Option and continue processing the header). The third-highest-
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
order bit specifies whether or not the Option Data can change en
route to the packet's final destination; for AltMark the value of
this bit MUST be set to 0 (Option Data does not change en route).
In this way, since the three high-order bits of the AltMark Option
are set to 000, it means that nodes can simply skip this Option if
they do not recognize and that the data of this Option do not
change en route, indeed the source is the only one that can write
it.
o Opt Data Len: 4. It is the length of the Option Data Fields of
this Option in bytes.
o FlowMonID: 20 bits unsigned integer. The FlowMon identifier is
described in Section 5.3. As further discussed below, it has been
picked 20 bit since it is a reasonable value and a good compromise
in relation to the chance of collision if it is set pseudo
randomly by the source node or set by a centralized controller.
o L: Loss flag for Packet Loss Measurement as described in
Section 5.1;
o D: Delay flag for Single Packet Delay Measurement as described in
Section 5.2;
o Reserved: is reserved for future use. These bits MUST be set to
zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.
4. Use of the AltMark Option
The AltMark Option is the best way to implement the Alternate Marking
method and it is carried by the Hop-by-Hop Options header and the
Destination Options header. In case of Destination Option, it is
processed only by the source and destination nodes: the source node
inserts and the destination node removes it. While, in case of Hop-
by-Hop Option, it may be examined by any node along the path, if
explicitly configured to do so.
It is important to highlight that the Option Layout can be used both
as Destination Option and as Hop-by-Hop Option depending on the Use
Cases and it is based on the chosen type of performance measurement.
In general, it is needed to perform both end to end and hop by hop
measurements, and the Alternate Marking methodology allows, by
definition, both performance measurements. But, in many cases the
end-to-end measurement is not enough and it is required also the hop-
by-hop measurement, so the most complete choice is the Hop-by-Hop
Options Header.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
IPv6, as specified in [RFC8200], allows nodes to optionally process
Hop-by-Hop headers. Specifically the Hop-by-Hop Options header is
not inserted or deleted, but may be examined or processed by any node
along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or
each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the
Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. Also, it is expected
that nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and process
the Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so.
The Hop-by-Hop Option defined in this document is designed to take
advantage of the property of how Hop-by-Hop options are processed.
Nodes that do not support this Option SHOULD ignore them. This can
mean that, in this case, the performance measurement does not account
for all links and nodes along a path.
Another application that can be mentioned is the presence of a
Routing Header, in particular it is possible to consider SRv6. A new
type of Routing Header, referred as SRH, has been defined for SRv6.
Like any other use case of IPv6, Hop-by-Hop and Destination Options
are useable when SRv6 header is present. Because SRv6 is implemented
through a Segment Routing Header (SRH), Destination Options before
the Routing Header are processed by each destination in the route
list, that means, in case of SRH, by every SR node that is identified
by the SR path. More details about the SRv6 application are
described in [I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark].
In summary, it is possible to list the alternative possibilities:
o Destination Option not preceding a Routing Header => measurement
only by node in Destination Address.
o Hop-by-Hop Option => every router on the path with feature
enabled.
o Destination Option preceding a Routing Header => every destination
node in the route list.
In general, Hop-by-Hop and Destination Options are the most suitable
ways to implement Alternate Marking.
It is worth mentioning that new Hop-by-Hop Options are not strongly
recommended in [RFC7045] and [RFC8200], unless there is a clear
justification to standardize it, because nodes may be configured to
ignore the Options Header, drop or assign packets containing an
Options Header to a slow processing path. In case of the AltMark
data fields described in this document, the motivation to standardize
a new Hop-by-Hop Option is that it is needed for OAM (Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance). An intermediate node can read it
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
or not but this does not affect the packet behavior. The source node
is the only one that writes the Hop-by-Hop Option to mark alternately
the flow, so, the performance measurement can be done for those nodes
configured to read this Option, while the others are simply not
considered for the metrics.
It is important to highlight that the definition of the Hop-by-Hop
Options in this document is designed to minimize throughput impact
both on nodes that do not recognize the Option and on node that
support it. Indeed, the three high-order bits of the Options Header
defined in this draft are 000 and, in theory, as per [RFC8200] and
[I-D.hinden-6man-hbh-processing], this means "skip if do not
recognize and data do not change en route". [RFC8200] also mentions
that the nodes only examine and process the Hop-by-Hop Options header
if explicitly configured to do so. For these reasons, this HbH
Option should not affect the throughput. However, in practice, it is
important to be aware for the implementation that the things may be
different and it can happen that packets with Hop-by-Hop are forced
onto the slow path, but this is a general issue, as also explained in
[I-D.hinden-6man-hbh-processing].
5. Alternate Marking Method Operation
This section describes how the method operates. [RFC8321] introduces
several alternatives but in this section the most applicable methods
are reported and a new field is introduced to facilitate the
deployment and improve the scalability.
5.1. Packet Loss Measurement
The measurement of the packet loss is really straightforward. The
packets of the flow are grouped into batches, and all the packets
within a batch are marked by setting the L bit (Loss flag) to a same
value. The source node can switch the value of the L bit between 0
and 1 after a fixed number of packets or according to a fixed timer,
and this depends on the implementation. The source node is the only
one that marks the packets to create the batches, while the
intermediate nodes only read the marking values and identify the
packet batches. By counting the number of packets in each batch and
comparing the values measured by different network nodes along the
path, it is possible to measure the packet loss occurred in any
single batch between any two nodes. Each batch represents a
measurable entity unambiguously recognizable by all network nodes
along the path.
Both fixed number of packets and fixed timer can be used by the
source node to create packet batches. But, as also explained in
[RFC8321], using a fixed timer for the switching offers better
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
control over the method, indeed the length of the batches can be
chosen large enough to simplify the collection and the comparison of
the measures taken by different network nodes. In the implementation
the counters can be sent out by each node to the controller that is
responsible for the calculation. It is also possible to exchange
this information by using other on-path techniques. But this is out
of scope for this document.
Packets with different L values may get swapped at batch boundaries,
and in this case, it is required that each marked packet can be
assigned to the right batch by each router. It is important to
mention that for the application of this method there are two
elements to consider: the clock error between network nodes and the
network delay. These can create offsets between the batches and out-
of-order of the packets. The mathematical formula on timing aspects,
explained in section 3.2 of [RFC8321], must be satisfied and it takes
into considerations the different causes of reordering such as clock
error and network delay. The assumption is to define the available
counting interval where to get stable counters and to avoid these
issues. Specifically, if the effects of network delay are ignored,
the condition to implement the methodology is that the clocks in
different nodes MUST be synchronized to the same clock reference with
an accuracy of +/- B/2 time units, where B is the fixed time duration
of the block. In this way each marked packet can be assigned to the
right batch by each node. Usually the counters can be taken in the
middle of the batch period to be sure to take still counters. In a
few words this implies that the length of the batches MUST be chosen
large enough so that the method is not affected by those factors.
The length of the batches can be determined based on the specific
deployment scenario.
L bit=1 ----------+ +-----------+ +----------
| | | |
L bit=0 +-----------+ +-----------+
Batch n ... Batch 3 Batch 2 Batch 1
<---------> <---------> <---------> <---------> <--------->
Traffic Flow
===========================================================>
L bit ...1111111111 0000000000 11111111111 00000000000 111111111...
===========================================================>
Figure 1: Packet Loss Measurement and Single-Marking Methodology
using L bit
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
It is worth mentioning that the length of the batches is considered
stable over time in the previous figure. In theory, it is possible
to change the length of batches over time and and among different
flows for more flexibility. But, in practice, it could complicate
the correlation of the information.
5.2. Packet Delay Measurement
The same principle used to measure packet loss can be applied also to
one-way delay measurement. Delay metrics MAY be calculated using the
two possibilities:
1. Single-Marking Methodology: This approach uses only the L bit to
calculate both packet loss and delay. In this case, the D flag
MUST be set to zero on transmit and ignored by the monitoring
points. The alternation of the values of the L bit can be used
as a time reference to calculate the delay. Whenever the L bit
changes and a new batch starts, a network node can store the
timestamp of the first packet of the new batch, that timestamp
can be compared with the timestamp of the first packet of the
same batch on a second node to compute packet delay. But this
measurement is accurate only if no packet loss occurs and if
there is no packet reordering at the edges of the batches. A
different approach can also be considered and it is based on the
concept of the mean delay. The mean delay for each batch is
calculated by considering the average arrival time of the packets
for the relative batch. There are limitations also in this case
indeed, each node needs to collect all the timestamps and
calculate the average timestamp for each batch. In addition the
information is limited to a mean value.
2. Double-Marking Methodology: This approach is more complete and
uses the L bit only to calculate packet loss and the D bit (Delay
flag) is fully dedicated to delay measurements. The idea is to
use the first marking with the L bit to create the alternate flow
and, within the batches identified by the L bit, a second marking
is used to select the packets for measuring delay. The D bit
creates a new set of marked packets that are fully identified
over the network, so that a network node can store the timestamps
of these packets; these timestamps can be compared with the
timestamps of the same packets on a second node to compute packet
delay values for each packet. The most efficient and robust mode
is to select a single double-marked packet for each batch, in
this way there is no time gap to consider between the double-
marked packets to avoid their reorder. Regarding the rule for
the selection of the packet to be double-marked, the same
considerations in Section 5.1 apply also here and the double-
marked packet can be chosen within the available counting
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
interval that is not affected by factors such as clock errors.
If a double-marked packet is lost, the delay measurement for the
considered batch is simply discarded, but this is not a big
problem because it is easy to recognize the problematic batch and
skip the measurement just for that one. So in order to have more
information about the delay and to overcome out-of-order issues
this method is preferred.
In summary the approach with double marking is better than the
approach with single marking. Moreover the two approaches can also
be combined to have even more information and statistics on delay.
Similar to what said in Section 5.1 for the packet counters, in the
implementation the timestamps can be sent out to the controller that
is responsible for the calculation or could also be exchanged using
other on-path techniques. But this is out of scope for this
document.
L bit=1 ----------+ +-----------+ +----------
| | | |
L bit=0 +-----------+ +-----------+
D bit=1 + + + + +
| | | | |
D bit=0 ------+----------+----------+----------+------------+-----
Traffic Flow
===========================================================>
L bit ...1111111111 0000000000 11111111111 00000000000 111111111...
D bit ...0000010000 0000010000 00000100000 00001000000 000001000...
===========================================================>
Figure 2: Double-Marking Methodology using L bit and D bit
Likewise to packet delay measurement (both for Single Marking and
Double Marking), the method can also be used to measure the inter-
arrival jitter.
5.3. Flow Monitoring Identification
The Flow Monitoring Identification (FlowMonID) is required for some
general reasons:
o First, it helps to reduce the per node configuration. Otherwise,
each node needs to configure an access-control list (ACL) for each
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
of the monitored flows. Moreover, using a flow identifier allows
a flexible granularity for the flow definition.
o Second, it simplifies the counters handling. Hardware processing
of flow tuples (and ACL matching) is challenging and often incurs
into performance issues, especially in tunnel interfaces.
o Third, it eases the data export encapsulation and correlation for
the collectors.
The FlowMon identifier field is to uniquely identify a monitored flow
within the measurement domain. The field is set at the source node.
The FlowMonID can be set in two ways:
* It can be uniformly assigned by the central controller. Since
the controller knows the network topology, it can set the value
properly to avoid or minimize ambiguity and guarantee the
uniqueness.
* It can be algorithmically generated by the source node, that can
set it pseudo-randomly with some chance of collision. This
approach cannot guarantee the uniqueness of FlowMonID but it may
be preferred for local or private networks, where the conflict
probability is small due to the large FlowMonID space.
The value of 20 bits has been selected for the FlowMonID since it is
a good compromise and implies a low rate of ambiguous FlowMonIDs that
can be considered acceptable in most of the applications. Indeed
with 20 bits the number of combinations is 1048576.
if the FlowMonID is set by the source node, the intermediate nodes
can read the FlowMonIDs from the packets in flight and act
accordingly. While, if the FlowMonID is set by the controller, both
possibilities are feasible for the intermediate nodes which can learn
by reading the packets or can be instructed by the controller.
When all values in the FlowMonID space are consumed, the centralized
controller can keep track and reassign the values that are not used
any more by old flows, while if the FlowMonID is pseudo randomly
generated by the source, conflicts and collisions are possible.
5.3.1. Uniqueness of FlowMonID
It is important to note that if the 20 bit FlowMonID is set
independently and pseudo randomly there is a chance of collision.
Indeed, by using the well-known birthday problem in probability
theory, if the 20 bit FlowMonID is set independently and pseudo
randomly without any additional input entropy, there is a 50% chance
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
of collision for 1206 flows. So, for more entropy, FlowMonID can
either be combined with other identifying flow information in a
packet (e.g. it is possible to consider the hashed 3-tuple Flow
Label, Source and Destination addresses) or the FlowMonID size could
be increased.
This issue is more visible when the FlowMonID is pseudo randomly
generated by the source node and there needs to tag it with
additional flow information to allow disambiguation. While, in case
of a centralized controller, the controller should set FlowMonID by
considering these aspects and instruct the nodes properly in order to
guarantee its uniqueness.
It is worth highlighting that in most of the applications a low rate
of ambiguous FlowMonIDs can be acceptable, since this only affects
the measurement. For large scale measurements, where it is possible
to monitor a big number of flows, the disambiguation of the FlowMonID
field is something to take into account.
5.4. Multipoint and Clustered Alternate Marking
The Alternate Marking method can also be extended to any kind of
multipoint to multipoint paths, and the network clustering approach
allows a flexible and optimized performance measurement, as described
in [RFC8889].
The Cluster is the smallest identifiable subnetwork of the entire
Network graph that still satisfies the condition that the number of
packets that goes in is the same that goes out. With network
clustering, it is possible to use the partition of the network into
clusters at different levels in order to perform the needed degree of
detail. So, for Multipoint Alternate Marking, FlowMonID can identify
in general a multipoint-to-multipoint flow and not only a point-to-
point flow.
5.5. Data Collection and Calculation
The nodes enabled to perform performance monitoring collect the value
of the packet counters and timestamps. There are several
alternatives to implement Data Collection and Calculation, but this
is not specified in this document.
There are documents on the control plane mechanisms of Alternate
Marking, e.g. [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit],
[I-D.chen-pce-pcep-ifit].
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
6. Security Considerations
This document aims to apply a method to perform measurements that
does not directly affect Internet security nor applications that run
on the Internet. However, implementation of this method must be
mindful of security and privacy concerns.
There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by
the measurements and potential harm to the measurements.
Harm caused by the measurement: Alternate Marking implies
modifications on the fly to an Option Header of IPv6 packets by the
source node but this must be performed in a way that does not alter
the quality of service experienced by the packets and that preserves
stability and performance of routers doing the measurements. As
already discussed in Section 4, it is RECOMMENDED that the AltMark
Option does not affect the throughput and therefore the user
experience.
Harm to the measurement: Alternate Marking measurements could be
harmed by routers altering the fields of the AltMark Option (e.g.
marking of the packets, FlowMonID) or by a malicious attacker adding
AltMark Option to the packets in order to consume the resources of
network devices and entities involved. As described above, the
source node is the only one that writes the Option Header while the
intermediate nodes and destination node only read it without
modifying the Option Header. But, for example, an on-path attacker
can modify the flags, whether intentionally or accidentally, or
insert deliberately a new option to the packet flow or delete the
option from the packet flow. The consequent effect could be to give
the appearance of loss or delay or invalidate the measurement by
modifying option identifiers, such as FlowMonID. The malicious
implication can be to cause actions from the network administrator
where an intervention is not necessary or to hide real issues in the
network. Since the measurement itself may be affected by network
nodes intentionally altering the bits of the AltMark Option or
injecting Options headers as a means for Denial of Service (DoS), the
Alternate Marking MUST be applied in the context of a controlled
domain, where the network nodes are locally administered and this
type of attack can be avoided.
The flow identifier (FlowMonID) composes the AltMark Option together
with the two marking bits (L and D). As explained in Section 5.3.1,
there is a chance of collision if the FlowMonID is set pseudo
randomly and a solution exist. In general this may not be a problem
and a low rate of ambiguous FlowMonIDs can be acceptable, since this
does not cause significant harm to the operators or their clients and
this harm may not justify the complications of avoiding it. But, for
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
large scale measurements, a big number of flows could be monitored
and the probability of a collision is higher, thus the disambiguation
of the FlowMonID field can be considered.
The privacy concerns also need to be analyzed even if the method only
relies on information contained in the Option Header without any
release of user data. Indeed, from a confidentiality perspective,
although AltMark Option does not contain user data, the metadata can
be used for network reconnaissance to compromise the privacy of users
by allowing attackers to collect information about network
performance and network paths. AltMark Option contains two kind of
metadata: the marking bits (L and D bits) and the flow identifier
(FlowMonID).
The marking bits are the small information that is exchanged
between the network nodes. Therefore, due to this intrinsic
characteristic, network reconnaissance through passive
eavesdropping on data-plane traffic is difficult. Indeed an
attacker cannot gain information about network performance from a
single monitoring point. The only way for an attacker can be to
eavesdrop on multiple monitoring points at the same time, because
they have to do the same kind of calculation and aggregation as
Alternate Marking requires, and, after that, it can finally gain
information about the network performance, but this is not
immediate.
The FlowMonID field is used in the AltMark Option as identifier of
the monitored flow. It represents a more sensitive information
for network reconnaissance and may allow a flow tracking type of
attack because an attacker could collect information about network
paths.
Furthermore, in a pervasive surveillance attack, the information that
can be derived over time is more. But the application of the
Alternate Marking to a controlled domain helps to mitigate all the
above aspects of privacy concerns.
At the management plane, attacks can be set up by misconfiguring or
by maliciously configuring AltMark Option. Thus, AltMark Option
configuration MUST be secured in a way that authenticates authorized
users and verifies the integrity of configuration procedures.
Solutions to ensure the integrity of AltMark Option are outside the
scope of this document.
As stated above, the precondition for the application of the
Alternate Marking is that it MUST be applied in specific controlled
domains, thus confining the potential attack vectors within the
network domain. [RFC8799] analyzes and discusses the trend towards
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
network behaviors that can be applied only within a limited domain.
This is due to the specific set of requirements especially related to
security, network management, policies and options supported which
may vary between such limited domains. A limited administrative
domain provides the network administrator with the means to select,
monitor and control the access to the network, making it a trusted
domain. In this regard it is expected to enforce policies at the
domain boundaries to filter both external packets with AltMark Option
entering the domain and internal packets with AltMark Option leaving
the domain. Therefore the trusted domain is unlikely subject to
hijacking of packets since packets with AltMark Option are processed
and used only within the controlled domain.
Additionally, it is to be noted that the AltMark Option is carried by
the Options Header and it may have some impact on the packet sizes
for the monitored flow and on the path MTU, since some packets might
exceed the MTU. However the relative small size (48 bit in total) of
these Option Headers and its application to a controlled domain help
to mitigate the problem.
It is worth mentioning that the security concerns may change based on
the specific deployment scenario and related threat analysis, which
can lead to specific security solutions that are beyond the scope of
this document. As an example, the AltMark Option can be used as Hop-
by-Hop or Destination Option and, in case of Destination Option,
multiple domains may be traversed by the AltMark Option that is not
confined to a single domain. In this case, the user, aware of the
kind of risks, may still want to use Alternate Marking for telemetry
and test purposes but the inter-domain links need to be secured
(e.g., by IPsec) in order to avoid external threats. For these
specific scenarios the application of the Alternate Marking Method
outside a controlled domain is possible but IPsec through AH
(Authentication Header) or ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload) MUST
be used.
The Alternate Marking application described in this document relies
on an time synchronization protocol. Thus, by attacking the time
protocol, an attacker can potentially compromise the integrity of the
measurement. A detailed discussion about the threats against time
protocols and how to mitigate them is presented in [RFC7384]. Also,
the time, which is distributed to the network nodes through the time
protocol, is centrally taken from an external accurate time source,
such as an atomic clock or a GPS clock, and by attacking the time
source it can be possible to compromise the integrity of the
measurement as well. There are security measures that can be taken
to mitigate the GPS spoofing attacks and a network administrator
should certainly employ solutions to secure the network domain.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
7. IANA Considerations
The Option Type should be assigned in IANA's "Destination Options and
Hop-by-Hop Options" registry.
This draft requests the following IPv6 Option Type assignment from
the Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options sub-registry of
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/).
Hex Value Binary Value Description Reference
act chg rest
----------------------------------------------------------------
TBD 00 0 tbd AltMark [This draft]
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Bob Hinden, Ole Troan, Stewart
Bryant, Christopher Wood, Yoshifumi Nishida, Tom Herbert, Stefano
Previdi, Brian Carpenter, Eric Vyncke, Greg Mirsky, Ron Bonica for
the precious comments and suggestions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.chen-pce-pcep-ifit]
Yuan, H., Zhou, T., Li, W., Fioccola, G., and Y. Wang,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions to Enable IFIT", draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-04
(work in progress), July 2021.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
[I-D.fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Velde, G. V. D., Cociglio, M., and P. Muley,
"IPv6 Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking
Method", draft-fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark-01 (work in
progress), June 2018.
[I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., and M. Cociglio, "Segment Routing
Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method", draft-
fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-01 (work in progress), July 2021.
[I-D.hinden-6man-hbh-processing]
Hinden, R. M. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
Processing Procedures", draft-hinden-6man-hbh-
processing-01 (work in progress), June 2021.
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit]
Qin, F., Yuan, H., Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., and Y. Wang,
"BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT", draft-ietf-idr-
sr-policy-ifit-02 (work in progress), July 2021.
[I-D.peng-v6ops-hbh]
Peng, S., Li, Z., Xie, C., Qin, Z., and G. Mishra,
"Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header", draft-peng-
v6ops-hbh-04 (work in progress), June 2021.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
[RFC7384] Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384,
October 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
[RFC8889] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto,
"Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and
Hybrid Performance Monitoring", RFC 8889,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8889, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8889>.
Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei
Riesstrasse, 25
Munich 80992
Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6 AMM July 2021
Fengwei Qin
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumenxi Ave.
Beijing 100032
China
Email: qinfengwei@chinamobile.com
Ran Pang
China Unicom
9 Shouti South Rd.
Beijing 100089
China
Email: pangran@chinaunicom.cn
Fioccola, et al. Expires January 27, 2022 [Page 21]