Skip to main content

Compact Alternate Marking Methods for Passive Performance Monitoring
draft-mizrahi-ippm-compact-alternate-marking-00

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Authors Tal Mizrahi , Carmi Arad , Giuseppe Fioccola , Mauro Cociglio , Mach Chen , Lianshu Zheng , Greg Mirsky
Last updated 2017-10-29
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Additional resources
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-mizrahi-ippm-compact-alternate-marking-00
gt;|  |
      +--+           +--+              +--+      +--+      +--+
                                                   |
                                                   |        MP5
                                                   |       +--+
                                                   +------>|  |
                                                           +--+

   Point-to-point measurement        Point-to-multipoint measurement

      Figure 11: Point-to-point and point-to-multipoint measurements.

8.  Alternate Marking using Reserved Values

   As mentioned in Section 1, a marking bit is not necessarily a single
   bit, but may be implemented by using two well-known values in one of
   the header fields.  Similarly, two-bit marking can be implemented
   using four reserved values.

   A notable example is MPLS Synonymous Flow Labels (SFL), as defined in
   [I-D.bryant-mpls-rfc6374-sfl].  Two MPLS Label values can be used to
   indicate the two colors of a given LSP: the original Label value, and
   an SFL value.  A similar approach can be applied to IPv6 using the
   Flow Label field.

   The following example illustrates how alternate marking can be
   implemented using reserved values.  The bit multiplexing approach of
   Section 5.3 is applicable not only to single-bit color indicators,
   but also to two-value indicators; instead of using a single bit that
   is toggled between '0' and '1', two values of the indicator field, U
   and W, can be used in the same manner, allowing both loss and delay
   measurement to be performed using only two reserved values.  Thus,
   the multiplexing approach of Figure 6 can be illustrated more
   generally with two values, U and W, as depicted in Figure 12.

Mizrahi, et al.            Expires May 2, 2018                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft          Compact Alternate Marking           October 2017

   A: packet with color 0
   B: packet with color 1

   Packets      AAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAA
      Time   ---------------------------------------------------------->
               |          |          |          |          |
               | Block 1  | Block 2  | Block 3  | Block 4  | Block 5 ...
               |          |          |          |          |
   Color        0000000000 1111111111 0000000000 1111111111 0000000000
                    ^          ^          ^           ^        ^
     Packets        |          |          |           |        |
     marked for     |          |          |           |        |
     timestamping   |          |          |           |        |
                    v          v          v           v        v
   Muxed        UUUUWUUUUU WWWWUWWWWW UUUUWUUUUU WWWWWUWWWW UUUWUUUUUU
   marking
   values

    Figure 12: Alternate marking with two multiplexed marking values, U
                                  and W.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no requests from IANA.

10.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of the alternate marking method are
   discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark].  The analysis of Section 7
   emphasizes the sensitivity of some of the alternate marking methods
   to packet drops and to packet reordering.  Thus, a malicious attacker
   may attempt to tamper with the measurements by either selectively
   dropping packets, or by selectively reordering specific packets.  The
   multiplexed marking method Section 5.3 that is defined in this
   document requires slightly more stringent synchronization than the
   conventional marking method, potentially making the method more
   vulnerable to attacks on the time synchronization protocol.  A
   detailed discussion about the threats against time protocols and how
   to mitigate them is presented in [RFC7384].

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

Mizrahi, et al.            Expires May 2, 2018                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft          Compact Alternate Marking           October 2017

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark]
              Fioccola, G., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L.,
              Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
              "Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid
              performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-13 (work
              in progress), October 2017.

   [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>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.bryant-mpls-rfc6374-sfl]
              Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S.,
              Mirsky, G., and G. Fioccola, "RFC6374 Synonymous Flow
              Labels", draft-bryant-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-04 (work in
              progress), April 2017.

   [I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-framework]
              Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S.,
              and G. Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", draft-
              bryant-mpls-sfl-framework-05 (work in progress), June
              2017.

   [I-D.fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark]
              Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto,
              "Multipoint Alternate Marking method for passive and
              hybrid performance monitoring", draft-fioccola-ippm-
              multipoint-alt-mark-00 (work in progress), June 2017.

   [IEEE1588]
              IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock
              Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
              Control Systems Version 2", 2008.

   [RFC5474]  Duffield, N., Ed., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A.,
              Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for Packet
              Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, DOI 10.17487/RFC5474,
              March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5474>.

   [RFC5475]  Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
              Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
              Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.

Mizrahi, et al.            Expires May 2, 2018                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft          Compact Alternate Marking           October 2017

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Tal Mizrahi
   Marvell
   6 Hamada st.
   Yokneam
   Israel

   Email: talmi@marvell.com

   Carmi Arad
   Marvell
   6 Hamada st.
   Yokneam
   Israel

   Email: carmi@marvell.com

   Giuseppe Fioccola
   Telecom Italia
   Via Reiss Romoli, 274
   Torino 10148
   Italy

   Email: giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it

   Mauro Cociglio
   Telecom Italia
   Via Reiss Romoli, 274
   Torino 10148
   Italy

   Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it

Mizrahi, et al.            Expires May 2, 2018                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft          Compact Alternate Marking           October 2017

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

   Lianshu Zheng
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com

   Greg Mirsky
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

Mizrahi, et al.            Expires May 2, 2018                 [Page 21]