Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Zhenqiang Li  , Mach Chen  , Greg Mirsky 
Last updated 2021-02-19
Replaces draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                              Z. Li
Internet-Draft                                              China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track                                 M. Chen
Expires: August 23, 2021                                          Huawei
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                               ZTE Corp.
                                                       February 19, 2021

 Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
                           Measurement on LAG
                     draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag-00

Abstract

   This document defines extensions to Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
   Protocol (STAMP) to implement performance measurement on every member
   link of a Link Aggregation Group (LAG).  Knowing the measured metrics
   of each member link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a
   performance metric-based traffic steering policy across the member
   links.

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
   [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
   as shown here.

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 August 23, 2021.

Li, et al.               Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG               February 2021

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
   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
   2.  Micro-Session on LAG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Micro-STAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Micro-STAMP-Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  LAG Member Link ID TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.2.  Micro-STAMP-Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides
   mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical
   link.  This logical link offers higher bandwidth and better
   resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the
   aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the
   remaining operational physical member links.

   Usually, when forwarding traffic over a LAG, a hash-based or similar
   mechanism is used to load-balance the traffic across the LAG member
   links.  In some cases, the link delays of the member links are
   different because they are over different transport paths.  To
   provide low delay service to time-sensitive traffic, we have to know
   the link delay of each member link of a LAG and then steer traffic
   accordingly.  That requires a solution that could measure the
   performance metrics of each member link of a LAG.

Li, et al.               Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG               February 2021

   However, when using Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
   (STAMP) [RFC8762] to measure a LAG's performance, the LAG is treated
   as a single logical link/path.  The measured metrics reflect the
   performance of one member link or an average of some/all member links
   of the LAG.

   In addition, for LAG, using passive or hybrid methods (like
   alternative marking[RFC8321] or iOAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) can
   only monitor the link crossed by traffic.  It means that the measured
   metrics reflect the performance of some member links or an average of
   some/all member links of the LAG.  Therefore, in order to measure
   every link of a LAG, using active methods would be more appropriate.

   This document defines extensions to STAMP [RFC8762] to implement
   performance measurement on every member link of a LAG.

2.  Micro-Session on LAG

   This document intends to address the scenario (e.g., Figure 1) where
   a LAG (e.g., the LAG includes three member links) directly connects
   two nodes (A and B) . The goal is to measure the performance of each
   link of the LAG.

                     +---+                       +---+
                     |   |-----------------------|   |
                     | A |-----------------------| B |
                     |   |-----------------------|   |
                     +---+                       +---+

                           Figure 1: PM for LAG

   To measure performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
   multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
   established between the two hosts that are connected by the LAG.
   These sessions are called micro-sessions for the remainder of this
   document.

   All micro-sessions of a LAG share the same Sender Address, Receiver
   Address.  As for the Sender Port and Receiver Port, the micro-
   sessions may share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or
   each micro session is configured with a different Sender Port and
   Receiver Port pair.  But from simplifying operation point of view,
   the former is recommended.

   In addition, with micro-sessions, there needs a way to correlate a
   session with a member link.  For example, when the Reflector receives
   a Test packet, it needs to know from which member link the packet is

Li, et al.               Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG               February 2021

   received, and correlate it with a micro-session.  That is a new
   functionality for STAMP as defined in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972].

   Upon receiving a Test packet for a micro-session, the receiver uses
   the receiving link's identifier to correlate the packet to a
   particular session.  In addition, Test packets may need to carry the
   member link information for validation checking.  For example, when a
   Session-Sender/Session-Reflector receives a Test packet, it may need
   to check whether the Test packet is from the expected member link.

3.  Micro-STAMP Session

3.1.  Micro-STAMP-Test

   The micro-STAMP-Test protocol is based on the STAMP-Test protocol
   [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] with the following extensions.

3.1.1.  LAG Member Link ID TLV

   The LAG Member Link ID TLV is defined to carry the LAG member link
   identifiers associated with a micro-STAMP session.  The member link
   identifiers are used for the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector to
   check whether a Test packet is received from the expected member
   link.  The detailed procedures are defined in Section 3.1.2.

   The format is as below:

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |STAMP TLV Flags|      Type     |           Length              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Sender Member Link ID      |   Reflector Member Link ID    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 2: LAG Member Link ID TLV

   Sender Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
   the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side.  The value of the
   Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender.

   Reflector Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
   the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector side.  The value of
   the Reflector Member ID MUST be unique at the Session-Reflector.

Li, et al.               Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG               February 2021

3.1.2.  Micro-STAMP-Test Procedures

   The micro-STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of
   STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions:

   The micro-STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro-STAMP-Test packets
   over the member link associated with the session.  The micro STAMP
   Session-Reflector MUST send the reflected Test packets over the
   receiving member link.

   The configuration and management of the association between a micro-
   STAMP session and the Sender/Reflector member link identifiers are
   outside the scope of this document.

   When the Session-Sender sends a Test packet, the LAG Member Link ID
   TLV MUST be carried, and the Sender member link identifier associated
   with the micro-STAMP session MUST be put in the Sender Member Link ID
   field.  If the Session-Sender knows the Reflector member link
   identifier, it MUST set it as the Reflector Member Link ID field's
   value.  Otherwise, the Reflector Member Link ID field MUST be set to
   zero.

   The Session-Sender uses the Sender Member Link ID field's value to
   check whether the reflected Test packet is received from the member
   link associated with the correct micro-STAMP session.  Therefore, the
   Session-Reflector MUST copy the Sender Member Link ID value to the
   reflected Test packet.

   The Session-Reflector uses the Reflector Member Link ID value to
   check whether a Test packet is received from the member link
   associated with the correct micro-STAMP session.

   The Reflector member link identifier can be obtained from pre-
   configuration or learned through the data plane (e.g., learned from a
   reflected Test packet).  How to obtain/learn the Reflector member
   link identifier is outside of this document's scope.

   When the micro-STAMP Session-Reflector receives a Test packet, it
   MUST use the receiving member link to correlate the Test packet to a
   micro-STAMP session.  If there is no such a micro-STAMP session, the
   Test packet MUST be discarded.  Suppose the Reflector Member Link ID
   is not zero.  In that case, the micro-STAMP Session-Reflector MUST
   use the Reflector member link identifier to check whether it is
   associated with the micro-STAMP session.  If it is not, the Test
   packet MUST be discarded and no reflected Test packet will be sent
   back to the Session-Sender.  If all validation passed, the Session-
   Reflector sends a reflected Test packet to the Session-Sender over
   the receiving member link.  The micro-STAMP Session-Reflector MUST

Li, et al.               Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG               February 2021

   put the Sender and Reflector member link identifiers associated with
   the micro-STAMP session in the Sender Member Link ID and Reflector
   Member Link ID fields, respectively.  The Sender member link
   identifier is copied from the received Test packet.

   When the micro-STAMP Session-Sender receives a reflected Test packet,
   it MUST use the receiving member link to correlate the reflected Test
   packet to a micro-STAMP session.  If there is no such a session, the
   reflected Test packet MUST be discarded.  If a matched micro-STAMP
   session exists, the Session-Sender MUST use the identifier carried in
   the Sender Member Link ID field to check whether it associates with
   the session.  If the checking failed, the Test packet MUST be
   discarded.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires the IANA to allocate the following the TLV
   type from the "STAMP TLV Types" sub-registry.

              Value   |Description           | Reference
             ---------+----------------------+----------------------
              TBD1    |LAG Member Link ID    | This document

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce additional security requirements and
   mechanisms other than the ones described in [RFC8762] apply to this
   document.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Min Xiao, Fang Xin for the valuable
   comments to this work.

7.  References

7.1.  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>.

Li, et al.               Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG               February 2021

   [RFC8762]  Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
              Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.

   [RFC8972]  Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
              and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
              Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
              for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11 (work in
              progress), November 2020.

   [IEEE802.1AX]
              IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
              2008.

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhenqiang Li
   China Mobile

   Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

   Greg Mirsky
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

Li, et al.               Expires August 23, 2021                [Page 7]