IPPM T. Zhou, Ed.
Internet-Draft H. Song
Intended status: Standards Track ZB. Li
Expires: October 22, 2019 Huawei
ZQ. Li
China Mobile
April 20, 2019
Enhanced Alternate Marking Method
draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-01
Abstract
This document proposes several ways to encapsulate the alternate
marking field with enough space. More information can be considered
within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and
ease the deployment.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 22, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking April 2019
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. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Use the IOAM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Use the PostCard based Telemetry Header . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly . . . . . . . . 3
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] technique is an hybrid performance
measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement
methods. It can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter
on live traffic. Because this method is based on marking consecutive
batches of packets.
For the basic Alternate Marking method, bits are needed to record the
mark. However, in some protocols, no additional bit can be used,
which blocks the wide deployment of the alternate marking technique.
And the basic Alternate Marking method is limited with the
scalability for further extension.
This document proposes several ways to encapsulate the alternate
marking field with enough space. More information can be considered
within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and
ease the deployment. Specifically, the flow identifier is applied as
an enhancement for the basic Alternate Marking when determining
packet loss and packet delay measurement. The flow identifier helps
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking April 2019
the data plane to identify the specific flow, hence to do the
processing with respect to the Alternate Marking. It also simplifies
the export by directly being encapsulated as the index for the
associated metrics.
2. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field
2.1. Use the IOAM Data
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) defines a generic meta data structure to
records OAM information within user packets while the packets
traverse a network. The data types and data formats for IOAM data
records have been defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The IOAM
data can be embedded in many protocol encapsulations such as Network
Services Header, Segment Routing, and IPv6
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport].
The IOAM edge-to-edge option is to carry data that is added by the
IOAM encapsulating node and interpreted by IOAM decapsulating node.
It provide a bit map to indicate what is present in the data, so that
alternate marking filed can be included in the IOAM edge-to-edge
option. This provides a way for an end to end deployment for the
alternate marking method.
Since the IOAM edge-to-edge option data is not able to be interpreted
by the intermediate node, alternate marking method cannot be applied
within the path hop by hop with this encapsulation way.
2.2. Use the PostCard based Telemetry Header
The PostCard Base Telemetry (PBT)
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] is proposed to directly
exports the telemetry data to a collector through separated OAM
packets called postcards, while not require inserting telemetry data
into user packets. The alternate making data can also be
encapsulated in this option header. Different from the IOAM edge-to-
edge option, the PostCard based Telemetry facilitates the hop by hop
deployment of alternate marking method.
2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly
In addition to the previous ways which carry the alternate marking
filed within the existing generic OAM header. The alternate marking
field can also be encapsulate within the transport protocol directly
as an extension header or so. This may vary according to the
transport protocol.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking April 2019
3. Examples
3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM
The IOAM-E2E-Type filed within the IOAM edge-to-edge option header is
a 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types are used in the
E2E option data. The IOAM-E2E-Type value is a bit field, in which
bit 0-3 are currently defined by [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. So one
bit from bit 4-15 can be used to indicate the presence of data used
for alternate marking.
The alternate marking data is a 8-octet field defined as follows:
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
+-+-+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
|L|D| Reserved | FlowID |
+-+-+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
| FlowID(contd) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
where:
o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321];
o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321];
o FlowID - 6-octet unsigned integer. Flow identifier field is to
uniquely identify a monitored flow within the in-situ OAM domain.
The field is set at the engress node. The FlowID can be uniformly
assigned by the central controller or algorithmically generated by
the engress node. The latter approach cannot guarantee the
uniqueness of FlowID, yet the conflict probability is small due to
the large FlowID space.
3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry
The following figures shows a proposed change to the Telemetry
Information Header (TIH) [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry].
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
+---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+
| Next Header | TIH Length | Reserved |L|D| Hop Count |
+---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+
This proposes to use the two bits from the Reserved field from the
Telemetry Information Header.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking April 2019
Where:
o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321];
o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321].
The Data Element Bitmap defined in the TIH is an 31-bit bitmap
indicating the list of required data elements. One not used bit from
the Data Element Bitmap can be used to indicate the presence of the
marking bits, and trigger the statistic process.
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. IANA Considerations
TBD
6. Acknowledgements
TBD
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>.
[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>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking April 2019
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes,
D., Lapukhov, P., and R. Chang, "Encapsulations for In-
situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-05
(work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
"Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-05 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., and J. Shin, "Postcard-based
In-band Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song-ippm-postcard-
based-telemetry-02 (work in progress), March 2019.
Authors' Addresses
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Haoyu Song
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara
United States of America
Email: haoyu.song@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking April 2019
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 7]