Performance Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service Function Chaining (SFC) Domain
draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-01
| The information below is for an old version of the document |
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-06-29
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| 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)
|
SFC Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track G. Fioccola
Expires: December 30, 2017 Telecom Italia
T. Mizrahi
Marvell
June 28, 2017
Performance Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service
Function Chaining (SFC) Domain
draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-01
Abstract
This document describes how the alternate marking method be used as
the passive performance measurement method in a Service Function
Chaining (SFC) domain.
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 http://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 December 30, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(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
Mirsky, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC June 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Mark Field in NSH Base Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Single Mark Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Double Mark Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Mark Field in NSH Base Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
[RFC7665] introduced architecture of a Service Function Chain (SFC)
in the network and defined its components as classifier, Service
Function Forwarder (SFF), and Service Function (SF).
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] describes passive performance measurement
method, which can be used to measure packet loss, latency and jitter
on live traffic. Because this method is based on marking consecutive
batches of packets the method often referred as Alternate Marking
Method (AMM).
This document defines how the alternate marking method can be used to
measure packet loss and delay metrics of a service flow over e2e or
any segment of the SFC.
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology
MM: Marking Method
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
SFC: Service Function Chain
SF: Service Function
Mirsky, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC June 2017
SFF: Service Function Forwarder
SFP: Service Function Path
NSH: Network Service Header
2.2. 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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
Show full document text