Preferred Path Routing (PPR) OAM and Accounting
draft-cpc-rtgwg-ppr-oam-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-07-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Yang Validation 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Additional URLs
- Yang catalog entry for ietf-ppr-statistics@2019-07-08.yang
- Yang impact analysis for draft-cpc-rtgwg-ppr-oam
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)
RTG Working Group                                               A. Clemm
Internet-Draft                                         P. Pillay-Esnault
Intended status: Standards Track                             U. Chunduri
Expires: January 9, 2020                                       Futurewei
                                                            July 8, 2019

            Preferred Path Routing (PPR) OAM and Accounting
                       draft-cpc-rtgwg-ppr-oam-00

Abstract

   This document defines OAM and traffic accounting capabilities for
   Preferred Path Routing (PPR) for IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
   Specifically, this document specifies OAM capabilities that allow to
   assert proper PPR connectivity and to trace PPR path information.  In
   addition, a set of statistics and operational data to facilitate PPR
   traffic accounting on a per-PPR path basis are defined.  This
   includes a number of Information Elements that extend IPFIX to export
   path information, as well as a YANG Data Model to be used in
   conjunction with management and control protocols.  Collectively the
   capabilities defined in this document provide network operators with
   the necessary means to ensure proper working of their PPR
   deployments.

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 RFC2119 [RFC2119],
   RFC8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when they appear in all capitals, as
   shown here.

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."

Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-DrafPreferred Path Routing (PPR) OAM and Accounting   July 2019

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.

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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Definition and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  PPR Ping and Trace Functionality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  PPR Trace Functionality in Strict Mode  . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  PPR Trace Functionality in Loose Mode . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Traffic Accounting through IGP PPR-Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . .   8
   6.  Path Statistics and IP[F/P]IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  A YANG Data Model for PPR Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Motivation and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.1.  IGP Path Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.2.  IPFIX Information Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.3.  YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.1.  Path Trace and Ping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.2.  IGPs and IPFIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.3.  YANG Data Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21

Clemm, et al.            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 2]
Show full document text