Skip to main content

Enhanced Alternate Marking Method
draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-14

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Tianran Zhou , Giuseppe Fioccola , Yisong Liu , Mauro Cociglio , Ran Pang , Lixia Xiong , Shinyoung Lee , Weidong Li
Last updated 2023-11-23
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
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-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-14
IPPM                                                        T. Zhou, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               G. Fioccola
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: 27 May 2024                                              Y. Liu
                                                            China Mobile
                                                             M. Cociglio
                                                          Telecom Italia
                                                                 R. Pang
                                                            China Unicom
                                                                L. Xiong
                                                                    CITC
                                                                  S. Lee
                                                                   LG U+
                                                                   W. Li
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        24 November 2023

                   Enhanced Alternate Marking Method
             draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-14

Abstract

   This document extends the IPv6 Alternate Marking Option to provide
   enhanced capabilities and allow advanced functionalities.  With this
   extension, it can be possible to perform thicker packet loss
   measurements and more dense delay measurements with no limitation for
   the number of concurrent flows under monitoring.

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 27 May 2024.

Zhou, et al.               Expires 27 May 2024                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking          November 2023

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Data Fields Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   The Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Multipoint Alternate Marking
   [RFC9342] define the Alternate Marking technique that is a hybrid
   performance measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of
   measurement methods.  This method is based on marking consecutive
   batches of packets and it can be used to measure packet loss,
   latency, and jitter on live traffic.

   The IPv6 AltMark Option [RFC9343] applies the Alternate Marking
   Method to IPv6, and defines an Extension Header Option to encode the
   Alternate Marking Method for both the Hop-by-Hop Options Header and
   the Destination Options Header.

   While the IPv6 AltMark Option implements the basic alternate marking
   methodology, this document defines extended data fields for the
   AltMark Option and provides enhanced capabilities to overcome some
   challenges and enable future proof applications.

   It is worth mentioning that the enhanced capabilities are intended
   for further use and are optional.

Zhou, et al.               Expires 27 May 2024                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking          November 2023

   Some possible enhanced applications MAY be:

   1.  thicker packet loss measurements: the single marking method of
       the base AltMark Option can be extended with additional marking
       bits in order to get shortest marking periods under the same
       timing conditions.

   2.  more dense delay measurements: than double marking method of the
       base AltMark Option can be extended with additional marking bits
       in order to identify down to each packet as delay sample.

   3.  increase the number of concurrent flows under monitoring: if the
       20-bit FlowMonID is set independently and pseudo randomly, there
       is a 50% chance of collision for 1206 flows.  The size of
       FlowMonIDcan can be extended to raise the entropy and therefore
       to increase the number of concurrent flows that can be monitored.

1.1.  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.  Data Fields Format

   The Data Fields format is represented in Figure 1.  A 5-bit
   NH(NextHeader) field is allocated from the Reserved field of IPv6
   AltMark Option [RFC9343].  It is worth highlighting that remaining
   bits of the former Reserved field continue to be reserved.

    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
   +---------------------------------------+-+-+---------+---------+
   |           FlowMonID                   |L|D| Reserved|    NH   |
   +---------------------------------------+-+-+---------+---------+

         Figure 1: Data fields indicator for enhanced capabilities

   The NH (NextHeader) field is used to indicate the extended data
   fields which are used for enhanced capabilities:

   *  NextHeader value of 0 is reserved for backward compatibility.  It
      means that there is no extended data field attached.

   *  NextHeader values of 1-15 are reserved for private use or for
      experimentation.

Zhou, et al.               Expires 27 May 2024                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking          November 2023

   *  NextHeader value of 16-31 indicates the extended data fields that
      should be defined in IETF.  This document specifies the extended
      data fields when the NextHeader is 16.  The format is shown in
      Figure 2.

    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
   +---------------------------------------+-+-----+---+-----------+
   |           FlowMonID Ext               |F|  P  | M |  Reserved |
   +-------------------------------+-------+-+-----+---+-----------+
   |           MetaInfo            |            Padding            |
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+

       Figure 2: Data fields extension for enhanced alternate marking

   where:

   *  FlowMonID Ext - 20 bits unsigned integer.  This is used to extend
      the FlowMonID in order to reduce the conflict when random
      allocation is applied.  The disambiguation of the FlowMonID field
      is discussed in IPv6 AltMark Option [RFC9343].

   *  F - The flag to enable the automatic backward flow monitoring.  If
      F=1, it indicates the egress node to setup the backward flow
      monitoring automatically based on 5 tuple of the forward flow.

   *  P - It indicates period of the alternate marking.

      -  000: 1s

      -  001: 10s

      -  010: 30s

      -  011: 60s

      -  100: 300s

      M - It indicates the measurement mode.

      -  00: Reserved;

      -  01: Edge to edge mode;

      -  10: Hop by hop mode;

      -  11: Reserved.

Zhou, et al.               Expires 27 May 2024                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking          November 2023

   *  MetaInfo - A 16-bit Bitmap to indicate more meta data attached for
      the enhanced function (see below).

   *  Padding - These bits MUST be set to zero when not being used.

   The MetaInfo is defined in the following Figure 4 as a bit map:

      bit 0: If set to 1, it indicates a 6 bytes Timestamp that is
      attached after the MetaInfo.  Timestamp(s) stands for the number
      of seconds in the timestamp.  It will overwrite the Padding after
      MetaInfo.  Timestamp(ns) stands for the number of sub-seconds in
      the timestamp with the unit of nano second.  This Timestamp is
      filled by the encapsulation node, and is taken all the way to the
      decapsulation node.  So that all the intermediate nodes could
      compare it with its local time, and measure the one way delay.

       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
                                      +-------------------------------+
                                      |    Timestamp(s)               |
      +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
      |                 Timestamp(ns)                                 |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+

                        Figure 3: Timestamp data field

      bit 1: If set to 1, it indicates more detailed control information
      with the following data format that is attached after the
      MetaInfo:

       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
      +---------------+---------------+-----------+-------------------+
      |  DIP Mask     |  SIP Mask     |P|I|O|V|S|T|    Period         |
      +---------------+---------------+-----------+-------------------+

                   Figure 4: Control information data field

      This is used to set up the backward direction flow monitoring.
      Where:

      *  DIP Mask: The length of the destination IP prefix used to match
         the flow.

      *  SIP Mask: The length of the source IP prefix used to match the
         flow.

Zhou, et al.               Expires 27 May 2024                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking          November 2023

      *  P bit: If set to 1, it indicates to match the flow using the
         protocol identifier in the trigger packet.

      *  I bit: If set to 1, it indicates to match the source port.

      *  O bit: If set to 1, it indicates to match the destination port.

      *  V bit: If set to 1, the egress node will automatically set up
         reverse direction monitoring, and allocate a FlowMonID.

      *  S bit: If set to 1, it indicates to match the DSCP.

      *  T bit: Used to control the scope of tunnel measurement.  T=1
         means meausre between Network-to-Network Interfaces (i.e., NNI
         to NNI).  T=0 means measure between User-to-Network Interfaces
         (i.e., UNI to UNI).

      *  Period: it indicates the alternate marking period with the unit
         of second.

      bit 2: If set to 1, it indicates a 4 bytes Sequence number with
      the following data format that is attached after the MetaInfo.
      The unique Sequence could be used to detect the out-of-order
      packets, in addition to the normal loss measurement.  More over,
      the Sequence can be used together with the latency measurement, so
      as to get the per packet timestamp.

       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
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+
      |                          Sequence                             |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+

                     Figure 5: Sequence number data field

   It is worth noting that the meta data information forming the Padding
   and specified above in Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 must be
   ordered according to the order of the MetaInfo bits.

3.  Security Considerations

   IPv6 AltMark Option [RFC9343] analyzes different security concerns
   and related solutions.  These aspects are valid and applicable also
   to this document.  In particular the fundamental security requirement
   is that Alternate Marking MUST only be applied in a specific limited
   domain, as also mentioned in [RFC8799].

Zhou, et al.               Expires 27 May 2024                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking          November 2023

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no request to IANA.

5.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for the comments and
   review of this document.

6.  References

6.1.  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>.

   [RFC9341]  Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
              and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.

   [RFC9342]  Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and
              T. Zhou, "Clustered Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9342,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9342, December 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9342>.

   [RFC9343]  Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
              Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate-Marking Method",
              RFC 9343, DOI 10.17487/RFC9343, December 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9343>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7799]  Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
              Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
              May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.

   [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>.

Zhou, et al.               Expires 27 May 2024                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking          November 2023

Authors' Addresses

   Tianran Zhou (editor)
   Huawei
   156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing
   100095
   China
   Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com

   Giuseppe Fioccola
   Huawei
   Riesstrasse, 25
   80992 Munich
   Germany
   Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com

   Yisong Liu
   China Mobile
   Beijing
   China
   Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com

   Mauro Cociglio
   Telecom Italia
   Email: mauro.cociglio@outlook.com

   Ran Pang
   China Unicom
   9 Shouti South Rd.
   Beijing
   100089
   China
   Email: pangran@chinaunicom.cn

   Lixia Xiong
   CITC
   Beijing
   China
   Email: xionglx1@dimpt.com

Zhou, et al.               Expires 27 May 2024                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking          November 2023

   Shinyoung Lee
   LG U+
   71, Magokjungang 8-ro, Gangseo-gu
   Seoul
   Republic of Korea
   Email: leesy@lguplus.co.kr

   Weidong Li
   Huawei
   156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing
   100095
   China
   Email: poly.li@huawei.com

Zhou, et al.               Expires 27 May 2024                  [Page 9]