Flag-based MPLS On Path Telemetry Network Actions
draft-song-mpls-flag-based-opt-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Haoyu Song , Giuseppe Fioccola | ||
| Last updated | 2022-11-16 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-song-mpls-on-path-telemetry-flag | ||
| RFC stream | (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-00
MPLS H. Song
Internet-Draft Futurewei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track G. Fioccola
Expires: 20 May 2023 Huawei Technologies
16 November 2022
Flag-based MPLS On Path Telemetry Network Actions
draft-song-mpls-flag-based-opt-00
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 MPLS network OAM.
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 20 May 2023.
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.
Song & Fioccola Expires 20 May 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS OPT November 2022
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PBT-M Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Alternate Marking Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Action Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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] is such an on-path telemetry
technique which uses only a single flag bit to trigger the collection
of the telemetry data regarding the packet. Alternate Marking
[I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis] is another on-path performance measurement
method which uses only two bits to measure packet loss, delay, and
jitter on live 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.jags-mpls-mna-hdr].
This document describe the scheme to use flag-based MNAs to support
PBT-M and Alternate Marking.
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 & Fioccola Expires 20 May 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS OPT November 2022
2. PBT-M Action
A flag bit (TBA1) in the flag-based 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 action field are used to
support the alternate marking method as described in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].
4. Action Encoding
The proposed action encoding is shown in Figure 1 adapted from
[I-D.jags-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 | | |S| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(TBA)
Figure 1: Action Encoding
Note that the in-stack MNA encoding may take different form, and
these flag-based on-path telemetry use cases would adapt to it.
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.
Song & Fioccola Expires 20 May 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS OPT November 2022
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.
7. Acknowledgments
8. References
8.1. 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>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis]
Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., and
T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-03, 25 July
2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-
rfc8321bis-03.txt>.
[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-
requirements-00, 5 May 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-
requirements-00.txt>.
[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-02, 21 October 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-
02.txt>.
Song & Fioccola Expires 20 May 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS OPT November 2022
[I-D.jags-mpls-mna-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K.
Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Header Encodings",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr-
03, 5 November 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr-03.txt>.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
Song, H., Mirsky, G., Filsfils, C., Abdelsalam, A., Zhou,
T., Li, Z., Graf, T., Mishra, G., Shin, J., and K. Lee,
"Marking-based Direct Export for On-path Telemetry", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-ippm-postcard-
based-telemetry-14, 7 September 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-song-ippm-postcard-
based-telemetry-14.txt>.
[I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]
Song, H., Qin, F., Chen, H., Jin, J., and J. Shin, "A
Framework for In-situ Flow Information Telemetry", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-opsawg-ifit-
framework-19, 24 October 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-
framework-19.txt>.
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 & Fioccola Expires 20 May 2023 [Page 5]