Loss and Delay Measurement in Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-08
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7456.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tal Mizrahi , Tissa Senevirathne , Samer Salam , Deepak Kumar , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2014-09-26) | ||
| Replaces | draft-mizrahi-trill-loss-delay, draft-mizrahi-trill-loss-delay | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-05)
by Alexey Melnikov
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Susan Hares | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2014-06-16 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7456 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Ted Lemon | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions |
draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-08
TRILL Working Group T. Mizrahi
Internet Draft Marvell
Intended status: Standards Track T. Senevirathne
Expires: March 2015 S. Salam
D. Kumar
Cisco
D. Eastlake 3rd
Huawei
September 26, 2014
Loss and Delay Measurement in
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
<draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-08.txt>
Abstract
Performance Monitoring (PM) is a key aspect of Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). It allows network operators to
verify the Service Level Agreement (SLA) provided to customers, and
to detect network anomalies. This document specifies mechanisms for
Loss Measurement and Delay Measurement in TRILL networks.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 26, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
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
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. Conventions Used in this Document ............................ 4
2.1. Keywords ................................................ 4
2.2. Definitions ............................................. 4
2.3. Abbreviations ........................................... 5
3. Loss and Delay Measurement in the TRILL Architecture ......... 6
3.1. Performance Monitoring Granularity ...................... 6
3.2. One-Way vs. Two-Way Performance Monitoring .............. 7
3.2.1. One-Way Performance Monitoring ..................... 7
3.2.2. Two-Way Performance Monitoring ..................... 7
3.3. Point-to-point vs. Point-to-multipoint PM ............... 8
4. Loss Measurement ............................................. 8
4.1. One-Way Loss Measurement ................................ 8
4.1.1. 1SL Message Transmission ........................... 9
4.1.2. 1SL Message Reception ............................. 10
4.2. Two-Way Loss Measurement ............................... 11
4.2.1. SLM Message Transmission .......................... 12
4.2.2. SLM Message Reception ............................. 12
4.2.3. SLR Message Reception ............................. 13
5. Delay Measurement ........................................... 14
5.1. One-Way Delay Measurement .............................. 14
5.1.1. 1DM Message Transmission .......................... 15
5.1.2. 1DM Message Reception ............................. 16
5.2. Two-Way Delay Measurement .............................. 16
5.2.1. DMM Message Transmission .......................... 17
5.2.2. DMM Message Reception ............................. 17
5.2.3. DMR Message Reception ............................. 18
6. Packet Formats .............................................. 19
6.1. TRILL OAM Encapsulation ................................ 19
6.2. Loss Measurement Packet Formats ........................ 21
6.2.1. Counter Format .................................... 21
6.2.2. 1SL Packet Format ................................. 21
6.2.3. SLM Packet Format ................................. 22
6.2.4. SLR Packet Format ................................. 23
6.3. Delay Measurement Packet Formats ....................... 24
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
6.3.1. Timestamp Format .................................. 24
6.3.2. 1DM Packet Format ................................. 24
6.3.3. DMM Packet Format ................................. 25
6.3.4. DMR Packet Format ................................. 27
6.4. OpCode Values .......................................... 28
7. Performance Monitoring Process .............................. 28
8. Security Considerations ..................................... 29
9. IANA Considerations ......................................... 30
10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 30
11. References ................................................. 30
11.1. Normative References .................................. 30
11.2. Informative References ................................ 31
1. Introduction
TRILL [RFCTRILL] is a protocol for transparent least cost routing,
where RBridges route traffic to their destination based on least
cost, using a TRILL encapsulation header with a hop count.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) [OAM] is a set of
tools for detecting, isolating and reporting connection failures and
performance degradation. Performance Monitoring (PM) is a key aspect
of OAM. PM allows network operators to detect and debug network
anomalies and incorrect behavior. PM consists of two main building
blocks - Loss Measurement and Delay Measurement. PM may also include
other derived metrics such as Packet Delivery Rate, and Inter-Frame
Delay Variation.
The requirements of OAM in TRILL networks are defined in [OAM-REQ],
and the TRILL OAM framework is described in [OAM-FRAMEWK]. These two
documents also highlight the main requirements in terms of
performance monitoring.
This document defines protocols for loss measurement and for delay
measurement in TRILL networks. These protocols are based on the
performance monitoring functionality defined in ITU-T G.8013/Y.1731
[Y.1731-2013].
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o Loss Measurement: the Loss Measurement protocol measures packet
loss between two RBridges. The measurement is performed by sending
a set of synthetic packets, and counting the number of packets
transmitted and received during the test. The frame loss is
calculated by comparing the numbers of transmitted and received
packets. This provides a statistical estimate of the packet loss
between the involved RBridges, with a margin of error that can be
controlled by varying the number of transmitted synthetic packets.
This document does not define procedures for packet loss
computation based on counting user data for the reasons given in
Section 5.1 of [OAM-FRAMEWK].
o Delay Measurement: the Delay Measurement protocol measures the
packet delay and packet delay variation between two RBridges. The
measurement is performed using timestamped OAM messages.
2. Conventions Used in this Document
2.1. Keywords
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 [KEYWORDS].
The requirement level of PM in [OAM-REQ] is 'SHOULD'. Nevertheless,
this memo uses the entire range of requirement levels, including
'MUST'; the requirements in this memo are to be read as 'A MEP
(Maintenance End Point) that implements TRILL PM
MUST/SHOULD/MAY/...'.
2.2. Definitions
o One-way packet delay - (based on [IPPM-1DM]) the time elapsed from
the start of transmission of the first bit of a packet by an
RBridge until the reception of the last bit of the packet by the
remote RBridge.
o Two-way packet delay - (based on [IPPM-2DM]) the time elapsed from
the start of transmission of the first bit of a packet from the
local RBridge, receipt of the packet at the remote RBridge, the
remote RBridge sending a response packet back to the local RBridge
and the local RBridge receiving the last bit of that response
packet.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o Packet loss - (based on [IPPM-Loss]) the number of packets sent by
a source RBridge and not received by the destination Rbridge.
In the context of this document, packet loss is measured at a
specific probe instance, and a specific observation period.
As in [Y.1731-2013], this document distinguishes between near-end
and far-end packet loss. Note that this semantic distinction
specifies the direction of packet loss, but does not affect the
nature of the packet loss metric, which is defined in [IPPM-Loss].
o Far-end packet loss - the number of packets lost on the path from
the local RBridge to the remote RBridge in a specific probe
instance, and a specific observation period.
o Near-end packet loss - the number of packets lost on the path from
the remote RBridge to the local RBridge in a specific probe
instance, and a specific observation period.
2.3. Abbreviations
1DM One-way Delay Measurement message
1SL One-way Synthetic Loss Measurement message
DMM Delay Measurement Message
DMR Delay Measurement Reply
DoS Denial of Service
FGL Fine Grained Label [RFC-FGL]
MD Maintenance Domain
MD-L Maintenance Domain Level
MEP Maintenance End Point
MIP Maintenance Intermediate Point
MP Maintenance Point
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance [OAM]
PM Performance Monitoring
SLM Synthetic Loss Measurement Message
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
SLR Synthetic Loss Measurement Reply
TLV Type, Length, and Value
TRILL Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links [RFCTRILL]
3. Loss and Delay Measurement in the TRILL Architecture
As described in [OAM-FRAMEWK], OAM protocols in a TRILL campus
operate over two types of Maintenance Points (MPs): Maintenance End
Points (MEPs) and Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs).
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | | | |
| RB1 |<===>| RB3 |<===>| RB2 |
| | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
MEP MIP MEP
Figure 1 Maintenance Points in a TRILL Campus
Performance Monitoring (PM) allows a MEP to perform loss and delay
measurements to any other MEP in the campus. Performance Monitoring
is performed in the context of a specific Maintenance Domain (MD).
The PM functionality defined in this document is not applicable to
MIPs.
3.1. Performance Monitoring Granularity
As defined in [OAM-FRAMEWK], PM can be applied at three levels of
granularity: 'Network', 'Service' and 'Flow'.
o Network-level PM: the PM protocol is run over a dedicated test
VLAN or FGL [RFC-FGL].
o Service-level PM: the PM protocol is used to perform measurements
of actual user VLANs or FGL.
o Flow-level PM: the PM protocol is used to perform measurements on
a per-flow basis. A flow, as defined in [OAM-REQ], is a set of
packets that share the same path and per-hop behavior (such as
priority). As defined in [OAM-FRAMEWK], flow-based monitoring uses
a Flow Entropy field that resides at the beginning of the OAM
packet header (see Section 6.1.), and mimics the forwarding
behavior of the monitored flow.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
3.2. One-Way vs. Two-Way Performance Monitoring
Paths in a TRILL network are not necessarily symmetric, that is, a
packet sent from RB1 to RB2 does not necessarily traverse the same
set of RBridges or links as a packet sent from RB2 to RB1. Even
within a given flow, packets from RB1 to RB2 do not necessarily
traverse the same path as packets from RB2 to RB1.
3.2.1. One-Way Performance Monitoring
In one-way PM, RB1 sends PM messages to RB2, allowing RB2 to monitor
the performance on the path from RB1 to RB2.
A MEP that implements TRILL PM SHOULD support one-way performance
monitoring. A MEP that implements TRILL PM SHOULD support both the PM
functionality of the sender, RB1, and the PM functionality of the
receiver, RB2.
One-way PM can be applied either proactively or on-demand, although
the more typical scenario is the proactive mode, where RB1 and RB2
periodically transmit PM messages to each other, allowing each of
them to monitor the performance on the incoming path from the peer
MEP.
3.2.2. Two-Way Performance Monitoring
In two-way PM, a sender, RB1, sends PM messages to a reflector, RB2,
and RB2 responds to these messages, allowing RB1 to monitor the
performance of:
o The path from RB1 to RB2.
o The path from RB2 to RB1.
o The two-way path from RB1 to RB2, and back to RB1.
Note that in some cases it may be interesting for RB1 to monitor only
the path from RB1 to RB2. Two-way PM allows the sender, RB1, to
monitor the path from RB1 to RB2, as opposed to one-way PM (Section
3.2.1.), which allows the receiver, RB2, to monitor this path.
A MEP that implements TRILL PM MUST support two-way PM. A MEP that
implements TRILL PM MUST support both the sender and the reflector PM
functionality.
As described in Section 3.1. , flow-based PM uses the Flow Entropy
field as one of the parameters that identify a flow. In two-way PM,
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
the Flow Entropy of the path from RB1 to RB2 is typically different
from the Flow Entropy of the path from RB2 to RB1. This document uses
the Reflector Entropy TLV [TRILL-FM], which allows the sender to
specify the Flow Entropy value to be used in the response message.
Two-way PM can be applied either proactively or on-demand.
3.3. Point-to-point vs. Point-to-multipoint PM
PM can be applied either as a point-to-point measurement protocol, or
as a point-to-multi-point measurement protocol.
The point-to-point approach measures the performance between two
RBridges using unicast PM messages.
In the point-to-multipoint approach, an RBridge RB1 sends PM messages
to multiple RBridges using multicast messages. The reflectors (in
two-way PM) respond to RB1 using unicast messages. To protect against
reply storms, the reflectors MUST send the response messages after a
random delay in the range of 0 to 2 seconds. This ensures that the
responses are staggered in time, and that the initiating RBridge is
not overwhelmed with responses. Moreover, a scope TLV [TRILL-FM] can
be used to limit the set of RBridges from which a response is
expected, thus reducing the impact of potential response bursts.
4. Loss Measurement
The Loss Measurement protocol has two flavors, one-way Loss
Measurement, and two-way Loss Measurement.
Note: The terms 'one-way' and 'two-way' Loss Measurement should not
be confused with the terms 'single-ended' and 'dual-ended' Loss
Measurement used in [Y.1731-2013]. As defined in Section 3.2. , the
terms 'one-way' and 'two-way' specify whether the protocol monitors
performance on one direction, or on both directions. The terms
'single-ended' and 'dual-ended', on the other hand, describe whether
the protocol is asymmetric or symmetric, respectively.
4.1. One-Way Loss Measurement
One-way Loss Measurement measures the one-way packet loss from one
MEP to another. The loss ratio is measured using a set of One-way
Synthetic Loss Measurement (1SL) messages. The packet format of the
1SL message is specified in Section 6.2.2. Figure 2 illustrates a
one-way Loss Measurement message exchange.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
TXp TXc
Sender --------------------------------------
\ \
\ 1SL . . . \ 1SL
\ \
\/ \/
Receiver --------------------------------------
RXp RXc
Figure 2 One-Way Loss Measurement
The one-way Loss Measurement procedure uses a set of 1SL messages to
measure the packet loss. The figure shows two non-consecutive
messages from the set.
The sender maintains a counter of transmitted 1SL messages, and
includes the value of this counter, TX, in each 1SL message it
transmits. The receiver maintains a counter of received 1SL messages,
RX, and can calculate the loss by comparing its counter values to the
counter values received in the 1SL messages.
In Figure 2, the subscript 'c' is an abbreviation for current, and
'p' is an abbreviation for previous.
4.1.1. 1SL Message Transmission
One-way Loss Measurement can be applied either proactively or on-
demand, although as mentioned in Section 3.2.1. , it is more likely
to be applied proactively.
The term 'on-demand' in the context of one-way Loss Measurement
implies that the sender transmits a fixed set of 1SL messages,
allowing the receiver to perform the measurement based on this set.
A MEP that supports one-way Loss Measurement MUST support unicast
transmission of 1SL messages.
A MEP that supports one-way Loss Measurement MAY support multicast
transmission of 1SL messages.
The sender MUST maintain a packet counter for each peer MEP and probe
instance (test ID). Every time the sender transmits a 1SL packet, it
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
increments the corresponding counter, and then integrates the value
of the counter into the <Counter TX> field of the 1SL packet.
The 1SL message MAY be sent with a variable size Data TLV, allowing
loss measurement for various packet sizes.
4.1.2. 1SL Message Reception
The receiver MUST maintain a reception counter for each peer MEP and
probe instance (test ID). Upon receiving a 1SL packet, the receiver
MUST verify that:
o The 1SL packet is destined to the current MEP.
o The packet's MD level matches the MEP's MD level.
If both conditions are satisfied, the receiver increments the
corresponding receive packet counter, and records the new value of
the counter, RX1.
A MEP that supports one-way Loss Measurement MUST support reception
of both unicast and multicast 1SL messages.
The receiver computes the one-way packet loss with respect to a probe
instance measurement interval. A probe instance measurement interval
includes a sequence of 1SL messages with the same test ID. The one-
way packet loss is computed by comparing the counter values TXp and
RXp at the beginning of the measurement interval, and the counter
values TXc and RXc at the end of the measurement interval (Figure 2):
one-way packet loss = (TXc-TXp) - (RXc-RXp) (1)
The calculation in Equation (1) is based on counter value
differences, implying that the sender's counter, TX, and the
receiver's counter, RX, are not required to be synchronized with
respect to a common initial value.
It is noted that if the sender or receiver resets one of the
counters, TX or RX, the calculation in Equation (1) produces a false
measurement result. Hence the sender and receiver SHOULD NOT clear
the TX and RX counters during a measurement interval.
When the receiver calculates the packet loss per Equation (1) it MUST
perform a wraparound check. If the receiver detects that one of the
counters has wrapped around, the receiver adjusts the result of
Equation (1) accordingly.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
A 1SL receiver MUST support reception of 1SL messages with a Data
TLV.
Since synthetic one-way Loss Measurement is performed using 1SL
messages, obviously some 1SL messages may be dropped during a
measurement interval. Thus, when the receiver does not receive a 1SL,
the receiver cannot perform the calculations in Equation (1) for that
specific 1SL message.
4.2. Two-Way Loss Measurement
Two-way Loss Measurement allows a MEP to measure the packet loss on
the paths to and from a peer MEP. Two-way Loss Measurement uses a set
of Synthetic loss Measurement Messages (SLM) to compute the packet
loss. Each SLM is answered with a Synthetic loss Measurement Reply
(SLR). The packet formats of the SLM and SLR packets are specified in
Sections 6.2.3. and 6.2.4. , respectively. Figure 2 illustrates a
two-way Loss Measurement message exchange.
TXp RXp TXc RXc
Sender -----------------------------------------------
\ /\ \ /\
\ / . . . \ /
SLM \ / SLR SLM \ / SLR
\/ / \/ /
Reflector -----------------------------------------------
TRXp TRXc
Figure 3 Two-Way Loss Measurement
The two-way Loss Measurement procedure uses a set of SLM-SLR
handshakes. The figure shows two non-consecutive handshakes from the
set.
The sender maintains a counter of transmitted SLM messages, and
includes the value of this counter, TX, in each transmitted SLM
message. The reflector maintains a counter of received SLM messages,
TRX. The reflector generates an SLR, and incorporates TRX into the
SLR packet. The sender maintains a counter of received SLR messages,
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
RX. Upon receiving an SLR message, the sender can calculate the loss
by comparing the local counter values to the counter values received
in the SLR messages.
The subscript 'c' is an abbreviation for current, and 'p' is an
abbreviation for previous.
4.2.1. SLM Message Transmission
Two-way Loss Measurement can be applied either proactively or on-
demand.
A MEP that supports two-way Loss Measurement MUST support unicast
transmission of SLM messages.
A MEP that supports two-way Loss Measurement MAY support multicast
transmission of SLM messages.
The sender MUST maintain a counter of transmitted SLM packets for
each peer MEP and probe instance (test ID). Every time the sender
transmits an SLM packet it increments the corresponding counter, and
then integrates the value of the counter into the <Counter TX> field
of the SLM packet.
A sender MAY include a Reflector Entropy TLV in an SLM message. The
Reflector Entropy TLV format is specified in [TRILL-FM].
An SLM message MAY be sent with a Data TLV, allowing loss measurement
for various packet sizes.
4.2.2. SLM Message Reception
The reflector MUST maintain a reception counter, TRX, for each peer
MEP and probe instance (test ID).
Upon receiving an SLM packet, the reflector MUST verify that:
o The SLM packet is destined to the current MEP.
o The packet's MD level matches the MEP's MD level.
If both conditions are satisfied, the reflector increments the
corresponding packet counter, and records the value of the new
counter, TRX. The reflector then generates an SLR message that is
identical to the received SLM, except for the following
modifications:
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o The reflector incorporates TRX into the <Counter TRX> field of the
SLR.
o The <OpCode> field in the OAM header is set to the SLR OpCode.
o The reflector assigns its MEP ID in the <Reflector MEP ID> field.
o If the received SLM includes a Reflector Entropy TLV [TRILL-FM],
the reflector copies the value of the Flow Entropy from the TLV
into the <Flow Entropy> field of the SLR message. The outgoing SLR
message does not include a Reflector Entropy TLV.
o The TRILL header and transport header are modified to reflect the
source and destination of the SLR packet. The SLR is always a
unicast message.
A MEP that supports two-way Loss Measurement MUST support reception
of both unicast and multicast SLM messages.
A reflector MUST support reception of SLM packets with a Data TLV.
When receiving an SLM with a Data TLV, the reflector includes the
unmodified TLV in the SLR.
4.2.3. SLR Message Reception
The sender MUST maintain a reception counter, RX, for each peer MEP
and probe instance (test ID).
Upon receiving an SLR message, the sender MUST verify that:
o The SLR packet is destined to the current MEP.
o The <Sender MEP ID> field in the SLR packet matches the current
MEP.
o The packet's MD level matches the MEP's MD level.
If the conditions above are met, the sender increments the
corresponding reception counter, and records the new value, RX.
The sender computes the packet loss with respect to a probe instance
measurement interval. A probe instance measurement interval includes
a sequence of SLM messages, and their corresponding SLR messages, all
with the same test ID. The packet loss is computed by comparing the
counters at the beginning of the measurement interval, denoted with a
subscript 'p', and the counters at the end of the measurement
interval, denoted with a subscript 'c' (as illustrated in Figure 3).
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
far-end packet loss = (TXc-TXp) - (TRXc-TRXp) (2)
near-end packet loss = (TRXc-TRXp) - (RXc-RXp) (3)
Note: total two-way packet loss is the sum of the far and near end
packet losses, that is (TXc-TXp) - (RXc-RXp).
The calculations in the two equations above are based on counter
value differences, implying that the sender's counters, TX and RX,
and the reflector's counter, TRX, are not required to be synchronized
with respect to a common initial value.
It is noted that if the sender or reflector resets one of the
counters, TX, TRX or RX, the calculation in Equations (2) and (3)
produces a false measurement result. Hence the sender and reflector
SHOULD NOT clear the TX, TRX and RX counters during a measurement
interval.
When the sender calculates the packet loss per Equations (2) and (3)
it MUST perform a wraparound check. If the reflector detects that one
of the counters has wrapped around, the reflector adjusts the result
of Equations (2) and (3) accordingly.
Since synthetic two-way Loss Measurement is performed using SLM and
SLR messages, obviously some SLM and SLR messages may be dropped
during a measurement interval. When an SLM or an SLR is dropped, the
corresponding two-way handshake (Figure 3) is not completed
successfully, and thus the reflector does not perform the
calculations in Equations (2) and (3) for that specific message
exchange.
A sender MAY choose to monitor only the far-end packet loss, that is,
perform the computation in Equation (2), and ignore the computation
in Equation (3). Note that, in this case, the sender can run flow-
based PM of the path TO the peer MEP without using the Reflector
Entropy TLV.
5. Delay Measurement
The Delay Measurement protocol has two flavors, One-Way Delay
Measurement, and Two-Way Delay Measurement.
5.1. One-Way Delay Measurement
One-way Delay Measurement is used for computing the one-way packet
delay from one MEP to another. The packet format used in one-way
Delay Measurement is referred to as 1DM, and is specified in Section
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
6.3.2. The one-way Delay Measurement message exchange is illustrated
in Figure 4.
T1
Sender ------------------- ----> time
\
\ 1DM
\
\/
Receiver -------------------
T2
Figure 4 One-Way Delay Measurement
The sender transmits a 1DM message incorporating its time of
transmission, T1. The receiver then receives the message at time T2,
and calculates the one-way delay as:
one-way delay = T2-T1 (4)
Equation (4) implies that T2 and T1 are measured with respect to a
common reference time. Hence, two MEPs running an one-way Delay
Measurement protocol MUST be time-synchronized. The method used for
synchronizing the clocks associated with the two MEPs is outside the
scope of this document.
5.1.1. 1DM Message Transmission
1DM packets can be transmitted proactively or on-demand, although as
mentioned in Section 3.2.1. , they are typically transmitted
proactively.
A MEP that supports one-way Delay Measurement MUST support unicast
transmission of 1DM messages.
A MEP that supports one-way Delay Measurement MAY support multicast
transmission of 1DM messages.
A 1DM message MAY be sent with a variable size Data TLV, allowing
packet delay measurement for various packet sizes.
The sender incorporates the 1DM packet's time of transmission into
the <Timestamp T1> field.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
5.1.2. 1DM Message Reception
Upon receiving a 1DM packet, the receiver records its time of
reception, T2. The receiver MUST verify two conditions:
o The 1DM packet is destined to the current MEP.
o The packet's MD level matches the MEP's MD level.
If both conditions are satisfied, the receiver terminates the packet
and calculates the one-way delay as specified in Equation (4).
A MEP that supports one-way Delay Measurement MUST support reception
of both unicast and multicast 1DM messages.
A 1DM receiver MUST support reception of 1DM messages with a Data
TLV.
When one-way Delay Measurement packets are received periodically, the
receiver MAY compute the packet delay variation based on multiple
measurements. Note that packet delay variation can be computed even
when the two peer MEPs are not time synchronized.
5.2. Two-Way Delay Measurement
Two-way Delay Measurement uses a two-way handshake for computing the
two-way packet delay between two MEPs. The handshake includes two
packets, a Delay Measurement Message (DMM) and a Delay Measurement
Reply (DMR). The DMM and DMR packet formats are specified in Section
6.3.3. and 6.3.4. , respectively.
The two-way Delay Measurement message exchange is illustrated in
Figure 5.
T1 T4
Sender ----------------------- ----> time
\ /\
\ /
DMM \ / DMR
\/ /
Reflector -----------------------
T2 T3
Figure 5 Two-Way Delay Measurement
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
The sender generates a DMM message incorporating its time of
transmission, T1. The reflector receives the DMM message and records
its time of reception, T2. The reflector then generates a DMR
message, incorporating T1, T2 and the DMR's transmission time, T3.
The sender receives the DMR message at T4, and using the 4 timestamps
it calculates the two-way packet delay.
5.2.1. DMM Message Transmission
DMM packets can be transmitted periodically or on-demand.
A MEP that supports two-way Delay Measurement MUST support unicast
transmission of DMM messages.
A MEP that supports two-way Delay Measurement MAY support multicast
transmission of DMM messages.
A sender MAY include a Reflector Entropy TLV in a DMM message. The
Reflector Entropy TLV format is specified in [TRILL-FM].
A DMM MAY be sent with a variable size Data TLV, allowing packet
delay measurement for various packet sizes.
The sender incorporates the DMM packet's time of transmission into
the <Timestamp T1> field.
5.2.2. DMM Message Reception
Upon receiving a DMM packet, the reflector records its time of
reception, T2. The reflector MUST verify two conditions:
o The DMM packet is destined to the current MEP.
o The packet's MD level matches the MEP's MD level.
If both conditions are satisfied, the reflector terminates the
packet, and generates a DMR packet. The DMR is identical to the
received DMM, except for the following modifications:
o The reflector incorporates T2 into the <Timestamp T2> field of the
DMR.
o The reflector incorporates the DMR's transmission time, T3, into
the <Timestamp T3> field of the DMR.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o The <OpCode> field in the OAM header is set to the DMR OpCode.
o If the received DMM includes a Reflector Entropy TLV [TRILL-FM],
the reflector copies the value of the Flow Entropy from the TLV
into the <Flow Entropy> field of the DMR message. The outgoing DMR
message does not include a Reflector Entropy TLV.
o The TRILL header and transport header are modified to reflect the
source and destination of the DMR packet. The DMR is always a
unicast message.
A MEP that supports two-way Delay Measurement MUST support reception
of both unicast and multicast DMM messages.
A reflector MUST support reception of DMM packets with a Data TLV.
When receiving a DMM with a Data TLV, the reflector includes the
unmodified TLV in the DMR.
5.2.3. DMR Message Reception
Upon receiving the DMR message, the sender records its time of
reception, T4. The sender MUST verify:
o The DMR packet is destined to the current MEP.
o The packet's MD level matches the MEP's MD level.
If both conditions above are met, the sender uses the 4 timestamps to
compute the two-way delay:
two-way delay = (T4-T1) - (T3-T2) (5)
Note that two-way delay can be computed even when the two peer MEPs
are not time synchronized. One-way Delay Measurement, on the other
hand, requires the two MEPs to be synchronized.
Two MEPs running a two-way Delay Measurement protocol MAY be time-
synchronized. If two-way Delay Measurement is run between two time-
synchronized MEPs, the sender MAY compute the one-way delays:
one-way delay {sender->reflector} = T2 - T1 (6)
one-way delay {reflector->sender} = T4 - T3 (7)
When two-way Delay Measurement is run periodically, the sender MAY
also compute the delay variation based on multiple measurements.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
A sender MAY choose to monitor only the sender->reflector delay, that
is, perform the computation in Equation (6), and ignore the
computations in (5) and (7). Note that in this case the sender can
run flow-based PM of the path to the peer MEP without using the
Reflector Entropy TLV.
6. Packet Formats
6.1. TRILL OAM Encapsulation
The TRILL OAM packet format is generally discussed in [OAM-FRAMEWK],
and specified in detail in [TRILL-FM]. It is quoted in this document
for convenience.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Link Header . (variable)
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ TRILL Header + 6 or more bytes
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Flow Entropy . 96 bytes
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OAM Ether Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. OAM Message Channel . Variable
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Trailer | Variable
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 TRILL OAM Encapsulation
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
The OAM Message Channel used in this document is defined in [TRILL-
FM], and has the following structure:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|MD-L | Version | OpCode | Flags |FirstTLVOffset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. OpCode-specific fields .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. TLVs .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7 OAM Packet Format
The first 4 octets of the OAM Message Channel are common to all
OpCodes, whereas the rest is OpCode-specific. Below is a brief
summary of the fields in the first 4 octets:
o MD-L : Maintenance Domain Level.
o Version: indicates the version of this protocol. Always zero in
the context of this document.
o OpCode: Operation Code (8 bits). Specifies the operation performed
by the message. See specific packet formats later in this
document.
o Flags: The definition of flags is OpCode-specific. The value of
this field is zero unless otherwise stated.
o FirstTLVOffset: defines the location of the first TLV, in octets,
starting from the end of the FirstTLVOffset field.
o TLVs: one or more TLV fields. The last TLV field is always an End
TLV.
For further details about the OAM packet format, including the format
of TLVs, see [TRILL-FM].
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
6.2. Loss Measurement Packet Formats
6.2.1. Counter Format
Loss Measurement packets use a 32-bit packet counter field. When a
counter is incremented beyond its maximal value, 0xFFFFFFFF, it wraps
around back to 0.
6.2.2. 1SL Packet Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|MD-L | Ver (0) | OpCode | Flags (0) |FirstTLVOffset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender MEP ID | Reserved (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Test ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Counter TX |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. TLVs .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8 1SL Packet Format
For fields not listed below, see Section 6.1.
o OpCode: see Section 6.4.
o FirstTLVOffset: defines the location of the first TLV, in octets,
starting from the end of the FirstTLVOffset field. The value of
this field MUST be 16 in 1SL packets.
o Sender MEP ID: the MEP ID of the MEP that initiated the 1SL.
o Reserved (0): set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver.
o Test ID: a 32-bit unique test identifier.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o Counter TX: the value of the sender's transmission counter,
including this packet, at the time of transmission.
6.2.3. SLM Packet Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|MD-L | Ver (0) | OpCode | Flags (0) |FirstTLVOffset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender MEP ID | Reserved for Reflector MEP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Test ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Counter TX |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for SLR: Counter TRX (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. TLVs .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9 SLM Packet Format
For fields not listed below, see Section 6.1.
o OpCode: see Section 6.4.
o FirstTLVOffset: defines the location of the first TLV, in octets,
starting from the end of the FirstTLVOffset field. The value of
this field MUST be 16 in SLM packets.
o Sender MEP ID: the MEP ID of the MEP that initiated this packet.
o Reserved for Reflector MEP ID: this field is reserved for the
reflector's MEP ID, to be added in the SLR.
o Test ID: a 32-bit unique test identifier.
o Counter TX: the value of the sender's transmission counter,
including this packet, at the time of transmission.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o Reserved for SLR: this field is reserved for the SLR corresponding
to this packet. The reflector uses this field in the SLR for
carrying TRX, the value of its reception counter.
6.2.4. SLR Packet Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|MD-L | Ver (0) | OpCode | Flags (0) |FirstTLVOffset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender MEP ID | Reflector MEP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Test ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Counter TX |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Counter TRX |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. TLVs .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10 SLR Packet Format
For fields not listed below, see Section 6.1.
o OpCode: see Section 6.4.
o FirstTLVOffset: defines the location of the first TLV, in octets,
starting from the end of the FirstTLVOffset field. The value of
this field MUST be 16 in SLR packets.
o Sender MEP ID: the MEP ID of the MEP that initiated the SLM that
this SLR replies to.
o Reflector MEP ID: the MEP ID of the MEP that transmits this SLR
message.
o Test ID: a 32-bit unique test identifier, copied from the
corresponding SLM message.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o Counter TX: the value of the sender's transmission counter at the
time of the SLM transmission.
o Counter TRX: the value of the reflector's reception counter,
including this packet, at the time of reception of the
corresponding SLM packet.
6.3. Delay Measurement Packet Formats
6.3.1. Timestamp Format
The timestamps used in Delay Measurement packets are 64 bits long.
These timestamps use the 64 least significant bits of the IEEE 1588-
2008 (1588v2) Precision Time Protocol timestamp format [IEEE1588].
This truncated format consists of a 32-bit seconds field followed by
a 32-bit nanoseconds field. This truncated format is also used in
IEEE 1588v1, in [Y.1731-2013], and in [MPLS-LM-DM].
6.3.2. 1DM Packet Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|MD-L | Ver (1) | OpCode | Reserved (0)|T|FirstTLVOffset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp T1 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for 1DM receiving equipment (0) |
| (for Timestamp T2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. TLVs .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11 1DM Packet Format
For fields not listed below, see Section 6.1.
o OpCode: see Section 6.4.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o Reserved (0): Upper part of Flags field. Set to 0 by the sender
and ignored by the receiver.
o T: Type flag. When this flag is set it indicates proactive
operation, and when cleared it indicates on-demand mode.
o FirstTLVOffset: defines the location of the first TLV, in octets,
starting from the end of the FirstTLVOffset field. The value of
this field MUST be 16 in 1DM packets.
o Timestamp T1: specifies the time of transmission of this packet.
o Reserved for 1DM: this field is reserved for internal usage of the
1DM receiver. The receiver can use this field for carrying T2, the
time of reception of this packet.
6.3.3. DMM Packet Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|MD-L | Ver (1) | OpCode | Reserved (0)|T|FirstTLVOffset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp T1 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for DMM receiving equipment (0) |
| (for Timestamp T2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for DMR (0) |
| (for Timestamp T3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for DMR receiving equipment |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. TLVs .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12 DMM Packet Format
For fields not listed below, see Section 6.1.
o OpCode: see Section 6.4.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o Reserved (0): Upper part of Flags field. Set to 0 by the sender
and ignored by the receiver.
o T: Type flag. When this flag is set it indicates proactive
operation, and when cleared it indicates on-demand mode.
o FirstTLVOffset: defines the location of the first TLV, in octets,
starting from the end of the FirstTLVOffset field. The value of
this field MUST be 32 in DMM packets.
o Timestamp T1: specifies the time of transmission of this packet.
o Reserved for DMM: this field is reserved for internal usage of the
MEP that receives the DMM (the reflector). The reflector can use
this field for carrying T2, the time of reception of this packet.
o Reserved for DMR: two timestamp fields are reserved for the DMR
message. One timestamp field is reserved for T3, the DMR
transmission time, and the other field is reserved for internal
usage of the MEP that receives the DMR.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
6.3.4. DMR Packet Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|MD-L | Ver (1) | OpCode | Reserved (0)|T|FirstTLVOffset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp T1 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp T2 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp T3 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved for DMR receiving equipment |
| (for Timestamp T4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. TLVs .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13 DMR Packet Format
For fields not listed below, see Section 6.1.
o OpCode: see Section 6.4.
o Reserved (0): Upper part of Flags field. Set to 0 by the sender
and ignored by the receiver.
o T: Type flag. When this flag is set it indicates proactive
operation, and when cleared it indicates on-demand mode.
o FirstTLVOffset: defines the location of the first TLV, in octets,
starting from the end of the FirstTLVOffset field. The value of
this field MUST be 32 in DMR packets.
o Timestamp T1: specifies the time of transmission of the DMM packet
that this DMR replies to.
o Timestamp T2: specifies the time of reception of the DMM packet
that this DMR replies to.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
o Timestamp T3: specifies the time of transmission of this DMR
packet.
o Reserved for DMR: this field is reserved for internal usage of the
MEP that receives the DMR (the sender). The sender can use this
field for carrying T4, the time of reception of this packet.
6.4. OpCode Values
As the OAM packets specified herein conform to [Y.1731-2013], the
same OpCodes are used as follows:
OpCode OAM packet
value type
------ ----------
45 1DM
46 DMR
47 DMM
53 1SL
54 SLR
55 SLM
These OpCodes are from the range of values that has been allocated by
IEEE 802.1 [802.1Q] for control by ITU-T.
7. Performance Monitoring Process
The Performance Monitoring process is made up of a number of
Performance Monitoring instances, known as PM Sessions. A PM session
can be initiated between two MEPs on a specific flow and be defined
as either a Loss Measurement session or Delay Measurement session.
The Loss Measurement session can be used to determine the performance
metrics Frame Loss Ratio, availability, and resiliency. The Delay
Measurement session can be used to determine the performance metrics
Frame Delay, Inter-Frame Delay Variation, Frame Delay Range, and Mean
Frame Delay.
The PM session is defined by the specific PM function (PM tool) being
run, and also by the Start Time, Stop time, Message Period,
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
Measurement Interval, and Repetition Time. These terms are defined as
follows:
o The Start Time is the time that the PM session begins.
o The Stop Time is the time that the measurement ends.
o The Message Period is the message transmission frequency (the time
between message transmissions).
o The Measurement Interval is the time period over which
measurements are gathered and then summarized. The Measurement
Interval can align with the PM Session duration, but it doesn't
need to. PM messages are only transmitted during a PM Session.
o The Repetition Time is the time between start times of the
Measurement Intervals.
Measurement Interval Measurement Interval
(Completed, Historic) (In Process, Current)
| |
| |
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
Start time Message Stop time
(service enabled) Period (Service disabled)
Figure 14 Relationship Between Different Timing Parameters
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations of TRILL OAM are discussed in [OAM-REQ]
and in [OAM-FRAMEWK] and in [TRILL-FM]. General TRILL security
considerations are discussed in [RFCTRILL].
As discussed in [OAM-Over], an attack on a PM protocol can falsely
indicate nonexistent performance issues, or prevent the detection of
actual ones, consequently resulting in DoS (Denial of Service).
Furthermore, synthetic PM messages can be used maliciously as a means
to implement DoS attacks on RBridges. Another security aspect is
network reconnaissance; by passively eavesdropping to PM messages an
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
attacker can gather information that can be used maliciously to
attack the network.
As in [TRILL-FM], TRILL PM OAM Messages MAY include the OAM
Authentication TLV. It should be noted that an Authentication TLV
requires a cryptographic algorithm, which may have performance
implications on the RBridges that take part in the protocol, and thus
may, in some cases, affect the measurement results. Based on a
system-specific threat assessment, the benefits of the security TLV
must be weighed against the potential measurement inaccuracy it may
inflict, and based on this tradeoff operators should take a decision
whether to use authentication.
9. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please delete
this section before publication.
10. Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Adrian Farrel, Alexey Melnikov,
Jan Novak, Carlos Pignataro, Gagan Mohan Goel, Pete Resnick, and
Prabhu Raj for their helpful comments.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFCTRILL] Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S.,
Ghanwani, A., "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base
Protocol Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.
[RFC-FGL] D. Eastlake, M. Zhang, P. Agarwal, R. Perlman, D.
Dutt," Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Fine-Grained Labeling", RFC 7172, May 2014.
[TRILL-FM] Senevirathne, T., Finn, N., Salam, S., Kumar, D.,
Eastlake, D., Aldrin, S., Li, Y., "TRILL Fault
Management", draft-ietf-trill-oam-fm (work in
progress), April 2014.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
11.2. Informative References
[OAM-REQ] Senevirathne, T., Bond, D., Aldrin, S., Li, Y., Watve,
R., "Requirements for Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) in Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links (TRILL)", RFC 6905, March 2013.
[OAM-FRAMEWK] Salam, S., Senevirathne, T., Aldrin, S., Eastlake, D.,
"Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Framework", RFC 7174, May 2014.
[Y.1731-2013] ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, "OAM Functions and
Mechanisms for Ethernet-based Networks", July 2011.
[802.1Q] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and
Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std
802.1Q(tm), 2012 Edition, October 2012.
[IEEE1588] IEEE TC 9 Instrumentation and Measurement Society,
"1588 IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems Version 2", IEEE Standard, 2008.
[MPLS-LM-DM] Frost, D., Bryant, S., "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September
2011.
[OAM] Andersson, L., Van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., Mansfield, S., "Guidelines for the use of the OAM
acronym in the IETF ", RFC 6291, June 2011.
[IPPM-1DM] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[IPPM-2DM] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A round-
trip delay metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.
[IPPM-Loss] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September
1999.
[OAM-Over] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E. and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC
7276, June 2014.
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft TRILL Performance Monitoring September 2014
Authors' Addresses
Tal Mizrahi
Marvell
6 Hamada St.
Yokneam, 20692 Israel
Email: talmi@marvell.com
Tissa Senevirathne
Cisco
375 East Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134, USA
Email: tsenevir@cisco.com
Samer Salam
Cisco
595 Burrard Street, Suite 2123
Vancouver, BC V7X 1J1, Canada
Email: ssalam@cisco.com
Deepak Kumar
Cisco
510 McCarthy Blvd,
Milpitas, CA 95035, USA
Phone : +1 408-853-9760
Email: dekumar@cisco.com
Donald Eastlake 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Mizrahi, et al. Expires March 26, 2015 [Page 32]