Skip to main content

MNA for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-03

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Authors Weiqiang Cheng , Xiao Min , Rakesh Gandhi , Greg Mirsky
Last updated 2023-10-18 (Latest revision 2023-09-24)
RFC stream (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-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-03
MPLS Working Group                                              W. Cheng
Internet-Draft                                              China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track                                  X. Min
Expires: 20 April 2024                                         ZTE Corp.
                                                               R. Gandhi
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                                Ericsson
                                                         18 October 2023

     MNA for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
                     draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-03

Abstract

   MPLS Network Action (MNA) is used to indicate action for Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs) and/or MPLS packets and to transfer data needed
   for the action.

   This document defines MNA encoding for MPLS performance measurement
   with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss,
   delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS live traffic.

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 20 April 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Cheng, et al.             Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             MNA for PM with AMM              October 2023

   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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  MPLS Network Action for Flow-based PM . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   MPLS Network Action (MNA) is used to indicate action for Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs) and/or MPLS packets and to transfer data needed
   for the action.  [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] defines the MNA sub-stack
   solution for carrying Network Actions and Ancillary Data in the label
   stack.

   As specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation], Flow-ID
   Label, L bit and D bit are used for MPLS flow identification and
   flow-based performance measurement with alternate marking method
   [RFC9341], which can be an applicable MNA usecase
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases].

   This document defines MNA encoding for MPLS performance measurement
   with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss,
   delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS live traffic.  The proposed
   MNA encoding is compliant with the MNA sub-stack solution specified
   in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] and reuses the data fields specified in
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation].

1.1.  Terminology

   This document makes use of the terms defined in
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] and [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].

Cheng, et al.             Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             MNA for PM with AMM              October 2023

   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.  MPLS Network Action for Flow-based PM

   The MNA format for performance measurement with alternate marking
   method is illustrated as below:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Opcode=PMAMM |            Flow-ID            |S|FID|L|D| NAL=0 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 1: MNA for Alternate Marking

   The description of MNA for Alternate Marking is as follows:

   *  Name: Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
      (PMAMM) Action.

   *  Network Action Indication: The PMAMM Action indication is Opcode
      TBA1.

   *  Scope: The PMAMM Action is valid in all scopes.

   *  In-Stack Data: The PMAMM Action carries 20 bits of ancillary data.
      The most significant 18 bits of ancillary data is the Flow-ID
      Value, immediately followed by L bit and D bit.  The three fields
      Flow-ID Value, L bit and D bit have semantics consistent with the
      Flow-ID Label, L bit and D bit defined in
      [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation], except that the Flow-ID
      Value is an 18-bit value while the Flow-ID Label is a 20-bit
      value.  While the Flow-ID Label has some restrictions to avoid
      collisions with the reserved label space (0-15) [RFC3032], those
      restrictions are not necessary for the Flow-ID Value and do not
      apply.  The forwarding node in the scope of PMAMM Action SHOULD
      execute the flow-based performance measurement by using the Flow-
      ID Value, L bit and D bit.

   *  LSE Format: Format C as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].  There
      is no additional data.  The Network Action Length (NAL) field MUST
      be set to zero.

   *  Post-Stack Data: None.

Cheng, et al.             Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft             MNA for PM with AMM              October 2023

3.  Security Considerations

   Security issues discussed in [RFC9341],
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] and [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
   apply to this document.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests that IANA allocates a codepoint (TBA1) from
   the MPLS "HBH and Select In-Stack MPLS Network Action Indicator
   Opcodes" from the "IETF Review" range and the same codepoint from the
   MPLS "I2E In-Stack MPLS Network Action Indicator Opcodes" from the
   "IETF Review" range for the Performance Measurement with Alternate
   Marking Method Action.  Note that both the "HBH and Select In-Stack
   MPLS Network Action Indicator Opcodes" and the "I2E In-Stack MPLS
   Network Action Indicator Opcodes" will be created based on the
   request from [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].  Specifically, this document
   requests the following allocation from IANA.

   MNA Opcode   Description                        Scope
   ----------   --------------------------------   -------------------
      TBA1      PM with Alternate Marking Method   HBH, Select, or I2E

5.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Loa Andersson for his careful
   review and helpful comments.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation]
              Cheng, W., Min, X., Zhou, T., Dai, J., and Y. Peleg,
              "Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with
              Alternate Marking Method", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-06, 14 June
              2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-06>.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
              Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K.
              Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-
              03, 6 September 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
              mna-hdr-03>.

Cheng, et al.             Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft             MNA for PM with AMM              October 2023

   [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>.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

   [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>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]
              Saad, T., Makhijani, K., Song, H., and G. Mirsky, "Use
              Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS
              Ancillary Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-03, 15 September 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
              mna-usecases-03>.

Authors' Addresses

   Weiqiang Cheng
   China Mobile
   Beijing
   China
   Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com

   Xiao Min
   ZTE Corp.
   Nanjing
   China
   Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn

   Rakesh Gandhi
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Canada

Cheng, et al.             Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft             MNA for PM with AMM              October 2023

   Email: rgandhi@cisco.com

   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson
   United States of America
   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

Cheng, et al.             Expires 20 April 2024                 [Page 6]