Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag-02

Network Working Group                                              Z. Li
Internet-Draft                                              China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track                                 T. Zhou
Expires: 8 September 2022                                         Huawei
                                                                  J. Guo
                                                               ZTE Corp.
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                                Ericsson
                                                               R. Gandhi
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            7 March 2022

 Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
                           Measurement on LAG
                     draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag-02

Abstract

   This document extends Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
   (STAMP) to implement performance measurement on every member link of
   a Link Aggregation Group (LAG).  Knowing the measured metrics of each
   member link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a performance based
   traffic steering policy across the member links.

Requirements Language

   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
   [RFC2119] [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."

Li, et al.              Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG                  March 2022

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 September 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 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
   2.  Micro Session on LAG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Member Link Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Micro-session ID TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Micro STAMP-Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides
   mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical
   link.  This logical link offers higher bandwidth and better
   resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the
   aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the
   remaining operational physical member links.

Li, et al.              Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG                  March 2022

   Usually, when forwarding traffic over LAG, the hash-based mechanism
   is used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links.
   Link delay of each member link varies because of different transport
   paths.  To provide low latency service for time sensitive traffic, we
   need to explicitly steer the traffic across the LAG member links
   based on the link delay, loss and so on.  That requires a solution to
   measure the performance metrics of each member link of a LAG.  Hence
   the measured performance metrics can work together with layer 2
   bundle member link attributes advertisement [RFC8668] for traffic
   steering.

   Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is an
   active measurement method according to the classification given in
   [RFC7799], which can complement passive and hybrid methods.  It
   provides a mechanism to measure both one-way and round-trip
   performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
   Running a single STAMP test session over the aggregation without the
   knowledge of each member link would make it impossible to measure the
   performance of a given physical member link.  The measured metrics
   can only reflect the performance of one member link or an average of
   some/all member links of the LAG.

   This document extends STAMP to implement performance measurement on
   every member link of a LAG.  The proposed method could also
   potentially apply to layer 3 ECMP (Equal Cost Multi-Path), e.g., with
   SR-Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].

2.  Micro Session on LAG

   This document intends to address the scenario (e.g., Figure 1) where
   a LAG (e.g., the LAG includes four member links) directly connects
   two nodes (A and B) . The goal is to measure the performance of each
   link of the LAG.

                     +---+                       +---+
                     |   |-----------------------|   |
                     | A |-----------------------| B |
                     |   |-----------------------|   |
                     |   |-----------------------|   |
                     +---+                       +---+

                            Figure 1: PM for LAG

   To measure the performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
   multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
   established between the two end points that are connected by the LAG.
   These sessions are called micro sessions in the remainder of this
   document.

Li, et al.              Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG                  March 2022

   All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
   Receiver IP Address.  As for the UDP Port, the micro sessions may
   share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or each micro
   session is configured with a different Sender Port and Receiver Port
   pair.  But from the operational point of view, the former is simpler
   and is recommended.

   At the Sender side, each micro STAMP session MUST be assgined with a
   unique SSID [RFC8972].  Both the micro STAMP Session Sender and
   Reflector MUST use SSID to correlate the Test packet to a micro
   session.  If there is no such a session, or the SSID is not correct,
   the Test packet MUST be discarded.

   Test packets MAY carry the member link information for validation
   check.  For example, when a micro STAMP Session-Sender receives a
   reflected Test packet, it may need to check whether the Test packet
   is from the expected member link.  The detailed description about the
   member link validation is in section 3.

   A micro STAMP Session-Sender MAY include the Follow-Up Telemetry TLV
   [RFC8972] to request information from the micro Session-Reflector.
   This timestamp might be important for the micro Session-Sender, as it
   improves the accuracy of network delay measurement by minimizing the
   impact of egress queuing delays on the measurement.

3.  Member Link Validation

   Test packets MAY carry the member link information for validation
   check.  The micro Session Sender can verify whether the test packet
   is reveived from the expected member link.  It can also verify
   whether the packet is sent from the expected member link at the
   Reflector side.  The micro Session Reflector can verify whether the
   test packet is received from the expected member link.

3.1.  Micro-session ID TLV

   STAMP TLV [RFC8972] mechanism extends STAMP Test packets with one or
   more optional TLVs.  This document defines the TLV Type (value TBA1)
   for the Micro-session ID TLV that carries the micro STAMP Session-
   Sender member link identifier and Session-Reflector member link
   identifier.  The format of the Micro-session ID TLV is shown as
   follows:

Li, et al.              Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG                  March 2022

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |STAMP TLV Flags|  Type = TBA1  |           Length              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Sender Micro-session ID   |   Reflector Micro-session ID  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 2: Micro-session ID TLV

   *  Type: A one-octet field.  Value TBA1 is allocated by IANA
      (Section 5).

   *  Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Value field
      in octets.  The Length field value MUST be 4 octets.

   *  Sender Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
      carry the Micro-session identifier of the Sender side.  The value
      of the Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender.

   *  Reflector Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
      carry the Micro-session identifier of the Reflector side.  The
      value of the Reflector Member ID MUST be unique at the Session-
      Reflector.

3.2.  Micro STAMP-Test Procedures

   The micro STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of
   STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions.

   The micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro STAMP-Test packets
   over the member link with which the session is associated.  The
   configuration and management of the mapping between a micro STAMP
   session and the Sender/Reflector member link identifiers are outside
   the scope of this document.

   When sending a Test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST set
   the Sender Micro-session ID field with the member link identifier
   associated with the micro STAMP session.  If the Session-Sender knows
   the Reflector member link identifier, the Reflector Micro-session ID
   field MUST be set.  Otherwise, the Reflector Micro-session ID field
   MUST be zero.  The Reflector member link identifier can be obtained
   from pre-configuration or learned from data plane (e.g., the
   reflected Test packet).  How to obtain/learn the Reflector member
   link identifier is outside of this document's scope.

Li, et al.              Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG                  March 2022

   When the micro STAMP Session-Reflector receives a Test packet, if the
   Reflector Micro-session ID is not zero, the micro STAMP Session-
   Reflector MUST use the Reflector member link identifier to check
   whether it is associated with the micro STAMP session.  If the
   validation fails, the Test packet MUST be discarded.  If all
   validations passed, the Session-Reflector sends a reflected Test
   packet to the Session-Sender.  The micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST
   put the Sender and Reflector member link identifiers that are
   associated with the micro STAMP session in the Sender Micro-session
   ID and Reflector Micro-session ID fields respectively.  The Sender
   member link identifier is copied from the received Test packet.

   When receiving a reflected Test packet, the micro Session-Sender MUST
   use the Sender Micro-session ID to validate whether the reflected
   Test packet is correctly transmitted over the expected member link.
   If the validation fails, the Test packet MUST be discarded.  The
   micro Session-Sender MUST use the Reflector Micro-session ID to
   validate the Reflector's behavior.  If the validation fails, the Test
   packet MUST be discarded.

4.  IANA Considerations

   In the "STAMP TLV Types" registry created for [RFC8972], a new STAMP
   TLV Type for Micro-session ID TLV is requested from IANA as follows:

   +----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
   | STAMP TLV Type | Description       | Semantics       | Reference  |
   | Value          |                   | Definition      |            |
   +----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
   | TBA1           | Micro-session     | Section 3       | This       |
   |                | ID TLV            |                 | Document   |
   +----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+

                        Figure 3: New STAMP TLV Type

5.  Security Considerations

   The STAMP extension defined in this document is intended for
   deployment in LAG scenario where Session-Sender and Session-Reflector
   are directly connnected.  As such, it's assumed that a node involved
   in STAMP protocol operation has previously verified the integrity of
   the LAG connection and the identity of its one-hop-away peer node.

   This document does not introduce any additional security issues and
   the security mechanisms defined in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] apply in
   this document.

Li, et al.              Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG                  March 2022

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Mach Chen, Min Xiao, Fang Xin for the
   valuable comments to this work.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC7799]  Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
              Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
              May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8668]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri,
              M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link
              Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668,
              December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668>.

   [RFC8762]  Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
              Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.

   [RFC8972]  Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
              and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
              Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
              P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
              routing-policy-18, 17 February 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
              segment-routing-policy-18.txt>.

Li, et al.              Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft               STAMP PM on LAG                  March 2022

   [IEEE802.1AX]
              IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
              2008.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhenqiang Li
   China Mobile
   Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com

   Tianran Zhou
   Huawei
   China
   Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com

   Jun Guo
   ZTE Corp.
   China
   Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn

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

   Rakesh Gandhi
   Cisco
   Canada
   Email: rgandhi@cisco.com

Li, et al.              Expires 8 September 2022                [Page 8]