Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry
draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-04-13
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)
IPPM                                                        H. Song, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 Futurewei
Intended status: Informational                                   T. Zhou
Expires: October 15, 2020                                          Z. Li
                                                                  Huawei
                                                                 J. Shin
                                                              SK Telecom
                                                                  K. Lee
                                                                   LG U+
                                                          April 13, 2020

               Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry
              draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-07

Abstract

   The document describes a variation of the Postcard-Based Telemetry
   (PBT), the marking-based PBT.  Unlike the instruction-based PBT, as
   embodied in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export], the marking-based PBT
   does not require the encapsulation of a telemetry instruction header
   so it avoids some of the implementation challenges of the
   instruction-based PBT.  This documents discuss the issues and
   solutions of the marking-based PBT.

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 October 15, 2020.

Copyright Notice

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

Song, et al.            Expires October 15, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Postcard-Based Telemetry              April 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.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  PBT-M: Marking-based PBT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  New Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Considerations on PBT-M Design  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Packet Marking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Flow Path Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Packet Identity for Export Data Correlation . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Avoid Packet Marking through Node Configuration . . . . .   8
   5.  Postcard Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Motivation

   In order to gain detailed data plane visibility to support effective
   network OAM, it is important to be able to examine the trace of user
   packets along their forwarding paths.  Such on-path flow data reflect
   the state and status of each user packet's real-time experience and
   provide valuable information for network monitoring, measurement, and
   diagnosis.

   The telemetry data include but not limited to the detailed forwarding
   path, the timestamp/latency at each network node, and, in case of
   packet drop, the drop location and reason.  The emerging programmable
   data plane devices allow user-defined data collection or conditional
   data collection based on trigger events.  Such on-path flow data are
   from and about the live user traffic, which complement the data
   acquired through other passive and active OAM mechanisms such as
   IPFIX [RFC7011] and ICMP [RFC2925].

   On-path telemetry was developed to cater the need for collecting on-
   path flow data.  There are two basic modes for on-path telemetry: the
Show full document text