Requirement and Solution for Multicast Traffic Telemetry
draft-song-multicast-telemetry-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-11-01
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized 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)
Network Working Group                                       H. Song, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                M. McBride
Intended status: Informational                    Futurewei Technologies
Expires: May 4, 2020                                           G. Mirsky
                                                               ZTE Corp.
                                                        November 1, 2019

        Requirement and Solution for Multicast Traffic Telemetry
                   draft-song-multicast-telemetry-01

Abstract

   This document discusses the requirement of on-path telemetry for
   multicast traffic.  The existing solutions are examined and their
   issues are addressed with new modifications that adapt to the
   multicast scenario.

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
   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Song, et al.               Expires May 4, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             Multicast Telemetry             November 2019

   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 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements for Multicast Traffic Telemetry  . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Issues of Existing Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Proposed Modifications to Existing Techniques . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Per-hop postcard  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Per-section postcard  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Considerations for Different Multicast Protocols  . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Application in PIM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Application in P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Application in BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Multicast traffic is an important traffic type in today's Internet.
   Multicast provides services that are often real time (e.g., online
   meeting) or have strict QoS requirements (e.g., IPTV, Market Data).
   Multicast packet drop and delay can severely affect the application
   performance and user experience.

   It is important to monitor the performance of the multicast traffic.
   Existing OAM techniques cannot gain direct and accurate information
   about the multicast traffic.  New on-path telemetry techniques such
   as In-situ OAM [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-data] and Postcard-based
   Telemetry [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] provide promising
   means to directly monitor the network experience of multicast
   traffic.  However, multicast traffic has some unique characteristics
   which pose some challenges on efficiently applying such techniques.

Song, et al.               Expires May 4, 2020                  [Page 2]
Show full document text