RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels
draft-bryant-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-10-28
Replaced by draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html 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)
MPLS Working Group                                             S. Bryant
Internet-Draft                                                   M. Chen
Intended status: Informational                                     Z. Li
Expires: April 29, 2017                                           Huawei
                                                              G. Swallow
                                                            S. Sivabalan
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                                Ericsson
                                                        October 26, 2016

                     RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels
                    draft-bryant-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-02

Abstract

   This document describes a method of providing flow identification
   information when making RFC6374 performance measurements.  This
   allows RFC6374 measurements to be made on multi-point to point LSPs
   and allows the measurement of flows within an MPLS construct using
   RFC6374.

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 http://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 April 29, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 29, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                 RFC6374-SFL                  October 2016

   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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  RFC6374 Packet Loss Measurement with SFL  . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  RFC6374 SFL TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  The Application of SFL to other PM Types  . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-flow-ident] describes the requirement for introducing
   flow identities when using RFC6374 [RFC6374] packet Loss Measurements
   (LM).  In summary RFC6374 uses the LM packet as the packet accounting
   demarcation point.  Unfortunately this gives rise to a number of
   problems that may lead to significant packet accounting errors in
   certain situations.  For example:

   1.  Where a flow is subjected to Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP)
       treatment packets can arrive out of order with respect to the LM
       packet.

   2.  Where a flow is subjected to ECMP treatment, packets can arrive
       at different hardware interfaces, thus requiring reception of an
       LM packet on one interface to trigger a packet accounting action
       on a different interface which may not be co-located with it.
       This is a difficult technical problem to address with the
       required degree of accuracy.

   3.  Even where there is no ECMP (for example on RSVP-TE, MPLS-TP LSPs
       and PWs) local processing may be distributed over a number of
       processor cores, leading to synchronization problems.

   4.  Link aggregation techniques may also lead to synchronization
       issues.

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 29, 2017                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                 RFC6374-SFL                  October 2016

   5.  Some forwarder implementations have a long pipeline between
Show full document text