Flag-based MPLS On Path Telemetry Network Actions
draft-song-mpls-flag-based-opt-03
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Haoyu Song , Giuseppe Fioccola , Rakesh Gandhi | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-04 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (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-song-mpls-flag-based-opt-03
MPLS H. Song
Internet-Draft Futurewei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track G. Fioccola
Expires: 5 September 2024 Huawei Technologies
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems
4 March 2024
Flag-based MPLS On Path Telemetry Network Actions
draft-song-mpls-flag-based-opt-03
Abstract
This document describes the scheme to support two on-path telemetry
techniques, PBT-M and Alternate Marking, as flag-based MPLS Network
Actions for OAM in MPLS networks.
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 5 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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.
Song, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS OPT March 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PBT-M Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Alternate Marking Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Action Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
On-path telemetry, as described in [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework],
is a kind of hybrid type I network OAM [RFC7799] which directly
measure and monitor the user packets. Some on-path telemetry
technique incur very little overhead but offer big benefits on
network performance monitoring and troubleshooting. PBT-M
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] (Postcard-Based On-Path
Telemetry using Packet Marking) is such on-path telemetry technique
which uses only a single flag bit to trigger the collection of the
telemetry data regarding the packet. Alternate Marking Method
[RFC9341] is another on-path performance measurement method which
uses only two flag bits to measure packet loss, delay, and jitter for
live data traffic.
In MPLS networks, MPLS Network Action (MNA) [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
extends the MPLS label stack by supporting extra network actions
encoded both in stack and post stack. The MNA header encoding is
described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].
This document describe the scheme to use flag-based MNAs to support
PBT-M and Alternate Marking Method (AMM).
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.
Song, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS OPT March 2024
2. PBT-M Action
A flag bit (TBA1) in the flag-based network action field is used as
the PBT-M indicator. If the bit is set to '1', a configured node is
triggered to collect and export the telemetry data as configured by
the control plane. The detailed method on node configuration, data
export and correlation are recommended in
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry].
3. Alternate Marking Action
Two flag bits (TBA2) in the flag-based network action field are used
to support the alternate marking method as described in [RFC9341].
4. Action Encoding
The proposed action encoding is shown in Figure 1 adapted from
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. In the figure, 'P' stands for PBT-M flag
and 'AM' stands for alternate marking flags.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|NAI-Opcode=2 |P|AM | |0|IHS|S| Res |U| NASL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(TBA)
Figure 1: Action Encoding
The scope of the Network Action is carried in the IHS field for
Ingress-To-Egress (I2E), Hop-By-Hop (HBH) or Select.
Network Sub Stack Length is set to number of LSEs following this
network action LSE which is 0 in this example.
No Post Stack Network Action is required for this.
Note that the in-stack MNA encoding may take different form, and
these flag-based on-path telemetry use cases would adapt to it.
Song, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS OPT March 2024
5. Security Considerations
Only the ingress edge node is allowed to set/reset these flag bits.
The other on-path nodes can only react to the bit values. The
tampering of these flag-based actions would result in DoS attack or
unreliable measurements. Therefore, security measures must be taken
to ensure the proper functioning of these actions.
6. IANA Considerations
This document requires IANA allocation a bit for PBT-M action (TBA1)
and two bits for Alternate Marking (TBA2) from the MPLS "In-Stack
MPLS Network Action Indicator Flags" registry created in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].
7. Acknowledgments
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[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-
04, 21 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-hdr-04>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements]
Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "Requirements for MPLS Network
Action Indicators and MPLS Ancillary Data", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-
Song, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS OPT March 2024
requirements-00, 5 May 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
miad-mna-requirements-00>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS
Network Actions Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-06, 24 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-fwk-06>.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
Song, H., Mirsky, G., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Graf, T., Mishra,
G. S., Shin, J., and K. Lee, "On-Path Telemetry using
Packet Marking to Trigger Dedicated OAM Packets", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-
telemetry-16, 2 June 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-ippm-
postcard-based-telemetry-16>.
[I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]
Song, H., Qin, F., Chen, H., Jin, J., and J. Shin,
"Framework for In-situ Flow Information Telemetry", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-opsawg-ifit-
framework-21, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-opsawg-
ifit-framework-21>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Haoyu Song
Futurewei Technologies
United States of America
Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Song, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS OPT March 2024
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Song, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]