IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements Extension for Forwarding Exceptions
draft-mvmd-opsawg-ipfix-fwd-exceptions-00

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00

IP Flow Information Export                                  C. Munukutla
Internet-Draft                                                   S. Vaid
Intended status: Standards Track                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
Expires: January 28, 2021                                      A. Mahale
                                                                D. Patel
                                                            Google, Inc.
                                                           July 27, 2020

 IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements Extension for
                         Forwarding Exceptions
               draft-mvmd-opsawg-ipfix-fwd-exceptions-00

Abstract

   This draft proposes couple of new Forwarding exceptions related
   Information Elements (IEs) and Templates for the IP Flow Information
   Export (IPFIX) protocol.  These new Information Elements and
   Exception Template can be used to export information about any
   forwarding errors in a network.  This essential information is
   adequate to correlate packet drops to any control plane entity and
   map it to an impacted service.  Once exceptions are correlated to a
   particular entity, an action can be assigned to mitigate such
   problems essentially enabling self-driving networks.

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 28, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Munukutla, et al.       Expires January 28, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          IPFIX for FWD Exceptions               July 2020

   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
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Information Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  New Information Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Proposed New Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Definition of Exceptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Exception Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  IPFIX Exception Template 1 for Forwarding Exceptions  . .   7
     5.2.  IPFIX Exception Template 2 for Forwarding Exceptions  . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Information Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  Forwarding Exception Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   All networks are susceptible to traffic drops due to a number of
   factors.  Traffic drops can go unnoticed unless they are service
   impacting.  In a multi-layered network architecture, it is tedious
   manual work to localize and root cause traffic blackholing issues.
   Transient drops are even harder to detect.  Existing methodologies
   that rely on periodically monitoring interfaces on several hosts in a
   network does not guarantee timely detection, and are not scalable for
   large networks.

   In order to eliminate this tedious monitoring work-flow, objective is
   to simplify localization and build correlation of dropped packets to