IPPM T. Zhou, Ed.
Internet-Draft G. Fioccola, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track ZB. Li
Expires: May 3, 2020 Huawei
S. Lee
LG U+
M. Cociglio
Telecom Italia
October 31, 2019
Enhanced Alternate Marking Method
draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-04
Abstract
This document defines data fields for the alternate marking with
enough space. The main idea is that more information can be
considered within the alternate marking field to facilitate the
efficiency and ease the deployment. The definition aims to be
general, even if for some protocols there can be dedicated solutions.
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 May 3, 2020.
Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 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. Data Fields Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Implementing Multipoint Alternate Marking . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] technique is an hybrid performance
measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement
methods. Because this method is based on marking consecutive batches
of packets. It can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and
jitter on live traffic.
For the basic Alternate Marking method, bits are needed to record the
mark. For some protocols (e.g. MPLS, BIER, SFC, NVO3) dedicated
solutions have been presented ([I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl],
[I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam], [I-D.mirsky-sfc-pmamm],
[I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark]), but there are ongoing discussions on
this matter.
However, in most of the protocols, no additional bit can be used or
proposed, and that blocks the wide deployment of the alternate
Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019
marking technique. In addition, the basic Alternate Marking method
is limited with the scalability issue for further extension, i.e,
more measurements in addition to existing use.
This document defines data fields for the alternate marking with
enough space, in particular for PBT (Postcard-based Telemetry). 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 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.
PBT-M [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] is an variation of PBT
with packet Marking. One marking bit is set in the user packet at
the path head node, if its path-associated data need to be collected.
At each PBT-aware node, if the mark is detected, a postcard (i.e.,
the dedicated telemetry packet triggered by a marked user packet) is
generated and sent to a collector. The postcard contains the data
requested by the management plane. As an example, the requested data
can be configured by the management plane through data set templates
(as in IPFIX [RFC7011]). This alternate marking bit can choose user
packet on demand, e.g., periodically or triggered by condition meet,
for telemetry.
2. Data Fields Format
The following figure shows the data fields format for enhanced
alternate marking. This data is expected to be encapsulated to
specific transports.
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|M| Reserved |
+---------------------------------------+-+-+-+-----------------+
where:
o FlowMonID - 20 bits unsigned integer. The FlowMon identifier
field is to uniquely identify a monitored flow within the
measurement domain. The field is set at the ingress node. The
FlowMonID can be uniformly assigned by the central controller or
algorithmically generated by the ingress node. The latter
approach cannot guarantee the uniqueness of FlowMonID but it may
Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019
be preferred for local or private network, where the conflict
probability is small due to the large FlowMonID space.
o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321];
o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321];
o M - Marking bit as defined in PBT-M
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry];
o Reserved - is reserved for further use. These bits MUST be set to
zero.
3. Deployment Considerations
The previous section introduces the AltMark Data Fields, based on the
deployment experience and gives a practice to apply alternate
marking.
The introduction of the flow identification is important for some
reasons:
Firstly, it helps to reduce the per node configuration.
Otherwise, each node needs to configure the ACLs for all the
monitored flows. And, with Flow ID, there may be different
granularity for flow definition.
Secondly, it simplifies the counters handling, because hardware is
hard to pull out and match the flow tuples defined by ACLs,
especially in tunnels.
Thirdly, it eases the data export encapsulation and correlation
for the collectors.
The deployment practice gives the motivation for this document. It
aims to do general deployment considerations and tries to avoid the
relation to specific protocols. Anyway it is important to mention
that, even for specific protocols where a dedicated solution exits,
the considerations of this document are always valid.
In some circumstances, the conclusion is to build a separate header
that is light-weighted but can address the existing requirement in
carrier network performance measurement.
While the AltMark Data Fields can take more information than the only
marking bits, it is important to consider how to carry it in the
encapsulation protocol. This enhanced proposal supports more
Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019
interesting and powerful use cases and address the in-band
performance measurement approach.
In IPv6 ([I-D.fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]), the way to mitigate the
compatibility with non-capable devices is considered. AltMark Data
Fields could be encapsulated in the DOH or SRH, so that the
intermediate node will not drop packets.
4. Implementing Multipoint Alternate Marking
There are some considerations to do on how to manage the general
Multipoint Alternate Marking application in order to get more
adaptable performance measurement.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark] introduces the network clustering
approach for Alternate Marking: the network clusters partition can be
done at different levels to perform the needed degree of detail. The
Network Management can use an intelligent strategy: it can start
without examining in depth, and, in case of problems (i.e. measured
packet loss or too high delay), various filtering criteria can be
specified in order to perform a detailed analysis by using different
combination of clusters or, at the limit, a per-flow measurement.
So, the more general implementation of Multipoint Alternate Marking
needs an intelligent and flexible Alternate Marking algorithm. For
this purpose, [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework] introduces a telemetry
framework and describes the closed loop between Nodes, Telemetry Data
Collector and Network Management.
5. Implementation Status
[Note: This entire section should be removed by RFC Editor before the
RFC publication.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist. According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working
groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit
of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit".
Huawei implemented the proposal described in this document based on
the NE40E router. The device can process the data fields in the
network processor in the fast path. Together with Huawei NCE
controller, the solution can provide very high precision per hop
packet loss detection and delay measurement. The product is ready
for MPLS based network and tested with LG U+, China Mobile and China
Unicom in mobile backhaul. The IPv6 and SRv6 based demonstration is
also implemented. Please contact Tianran Zhou
(zhoutianran@huawei.com) for the details.
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no request to IANA.
8. Contributors
List of Contributors:
Zhenqiang Li, China Mobile, lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
9. Acknowledgements
The authors of this document would like to thank Haoyu Song for the
PBT-M contribution.
10. References
10.1. 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>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019
[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>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Performance
Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking in Network
Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)", draft-fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-
mark-03 (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., and M. Cociglio, "IPv6 Application
of the Alternate Marking Method", draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt-
mark-00 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam]
Mirsky, G., Zheng, L., Chen, M., and G. Fioccola,
"Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit
Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer", draft-ietf-bier-
pmmm-oam-06 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto,
"Multipoint Alternate Marking method for passive and
hybrid performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-
multipoint-alt-mark-02 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl]
Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S.,
Mirsky, G., and G. Fioccola, "RFC6374 Synonymous Flow
Labels", draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-04 (work in
progress), July 2019.
Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019
[I-D.mirsky-sfc-pmamm]
Mirsky, G., Fioccola, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Performance
Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service
Function Chaining (SFC) Domain", draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-08
(work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Shin, J., and K. Lee,
"Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song-
ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-06 (work in progress),
October 2019.
[I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]
Song, H., Li, Z., Zhou, T., Qin, F., Chen, H., Jin, J.,
and J. Shin, "In-situ Flow Information Telemetry", draft-
song-opsawg-ifit-framework-06 (work in progress), October
2019.
Authors' Addresses
Tianran Zhou (editor)
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Giuseppe Fioccola (editor)
Huawei
Riesstrasse, 25
Munich 80992
Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019
Shinyoung Lee
LG U+
71, Magokjungang 8-ro, Gangseo-gu
Seoul
Republic of Korea
Email: leesy@lguplus.co.kr
Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 9]