MPLS Flow Identification Considerations
draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Last updated 2018-04-11 (latest revision 2018-03-01)
Replaces draft-bryant-mpls-flow-ident
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Loa Andersson
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2017-07-28)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Deborah Brungard
Send notices to "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu>, draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state No IC
RFC Editor RFC Editor state AUTH48
MPLS Working Group                                             S. Bryant
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Informational                              C. Pignataro
Expires: September 2, 2018                                 Cisco Systems
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                                   Z. Li
                                                                  Huawei
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                               ZTE Corp.
                                                          March 01, 2018

                MPLS Flow Identification Considerations
                     draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-07

Abstract

   This document discusses the aspects that need to be be considered
   when developing a solution for MPLS flow identification.  The key
   application that needs this is in-band performance monitoring of MPLS
   flows when MPLS is used to encapsulate user data packets.

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 September 2, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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

Bryant, et al.          Expires September 2, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   MPLS FI                      March 2018

   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.  Loss Measurement Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Delay Measurement Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Units of identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Types of LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Network Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Dataplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   14. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   This document discusses the aspects that need to be considered when
   developing a solution for MPLS flow identification.  The key
   application that needs this is in-band performance monitoring of MPLS
   flows when MPLS is used for the encapsulation of user data packets.

   There is a need to identify flows in MPLS networks for various
   applications such as determining packet loss and packet delay
   measurement.  A method of loss and delay measurement in MPLS networks
   was defined in [RFC6374].  When used to measure packet loss [RFC6374]
   depends on the use of injected Operations, Administration, and
   Maintenance (OAM) packets to designate the beginning and the end of
   the packet group over which packet loss is being measured.  Where the
   misordering of packets from one group relative to the following
   group, or misordering of one of the packets being counted relative to
   the [RFC6374] packet occurs, then an error will occur in the packet
   loss measurement.

   In addition, [RFC6374] did not support different granularities of
   flow or address a number of multi-point cases in which two or more
   ingress Label Switching Routers (LSRs) could send packets to one or
Show full document text