Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-03
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".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Thomas Graf | ||
| Last updated | 2020-03-28 (Latest revision 2020-03-26) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type, RFC 9160 | ||
| 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-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-03
Network Working Group T. Graf
Internet-Draft Swisscom
Intended status: Standards Track March 29, 2020
Expires: September 30, 2020
Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in
IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-03
Abstract
This document introduces additional code points in the Information
Element mplsTopLabelType for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 MPLS Segment
Routing (SR) extensions and a new SID type element to enable Segment
Routing label and segment type information in IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX).
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [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 September 30, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Graf Expires September 30, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPFIX MPLS Segment Routing Information March 2020
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. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Segment Routing Segment Identifier Type . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Besides existing MPLS control plane protocols such as BGP-4
[RFC8277], LDP [RFC5036] and BGP VPN [RFC4364], three new routing-
protocols, OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3 Extensions [RFC8666]
and IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667] had been added to propagate Segment
Routing labels for the MPLS dataplane [RFC8660].
Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks
[I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] describes how IPFIX can be
leveraged to account traffic to MPLS-SR label dimensions within a
Segment Routing domain.
In the Information Model for IP Flow Information Export IPFIX
[RFC5102], the information element #46 mplsTopLabelType describes
which MPLS control plane protocol allocated the top-of-stack label in
the MPLS label stack. RFC 7012 section 7.2 [RFC7012] describes the
IANA Information Element #46 SubRegistry [IANA-IPFIX-IE46] where new
code points should be added.
2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type
By introducing three new code points to information element #46
mplsTopLabelType for IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, when Segment Routing
with one of these three routing protocols is deployed, we get insight
into which traffic is being forwarded based on which MPLS control
plane protocol.
Graf Expires September 30, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPFIX MPLS Segment Routing Information March 2020
A typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane
migrations from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF. By looking at the label value
itself, it is not always clear as to which label protocol it belongs,
since they could potentially share the same label allocation range.
This is the case for IGP-Adjacency SID's and LDP as an example.
3. Segment Routing Segment Identifier Type
By introducing a new information element called SrSidType, which
contains the Segment Routing Segment Identifier type according to
Segment Routing Architectur [RFC8402], we get the intended Segment
Routing forwarding behaviour in the forwarding plane.
A typical use case scenario is to monitor the forwarding behaviour
when Topology Independent Fast Reroute
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] or micro loop avoidance
[I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop] tunnel traffic with IGP-
Adjacency Segment SID's or when ECMP load balancing should occur with
Anycast-SID's.
4. IANA Considerations
This document specifies three additional code points for IS-IS, OSPv2
and OSPFv3 Segment Routing extension in the existing sub-registry
"IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" of the "IPFIX Information
Elements" and one new "IPFIX Information Element" with a new sub-
registry in the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" name
space.
----------------------------------------------
| Value| Description | Reference |
|--------------------------------------------|
| TBD1 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing | RFC8665 |
|--------------------------------------------|
| TBD2 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing | RFC8666 |
|--------------------------------------------|
| TBD3 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 |
----------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX Information Element #46" SubRegistry
Graf Expires September 30, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPFIX MPLS Segment Routing Information March 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ElementID| Name |Abstract |Data Type | Description |Reference|
| | |Data Type|Semantics | | |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| TBD4 |SrSidType|unsigned8|identifier|This field | RFC8402 |
| | | | |identifies the | |
| | | | |Segment Routing| |
| | | | |Identifier Type| |
| | | | |of the | |
| | | | |top-of-stack. | |
| | | | |SID types for | |
| | | | |this field are | |
| | | | |listed in the | |
| | | | |SR SID type | |
| | | | |registry. | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2: New "IPFIX Information Element #TBD4"
-------------------------------------
| Value | Description | Reference |
|-----------------------------------|
| TBD5 | Prefix-SID | RFC8402 |
|-----------------------------------|
| TBD6 | Node-SID | RFC8402 |
|-----------------------------------|
| TBD7 | Anycast-SID | RFC8402 |
|-----------------------------------|
| TBD8 | Adjacency-SID | RFC8402 |
|-----------------------------------|
| TBD9 | PeerNode-SID | RFC8402 |
|-----------------------------------|
| TBD10 | PeerAdj-SID | RFC8402 |
|-----------------------------------|
| TBD11 | PeerSet-SID | RFC8402 |
-------------------------------------
Figure 3: New "IPFIX Information Element #TBD4" SubRegistry
5. Security Considerations
The same security considerations apply as for the IPFIX Protocol
RFC7012 [RFC7012].
Graf Expires September 30, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPFIX MPLS Segment Routing Information March 2020
6. Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Paul Aitken, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou,
Pierre Francois, Bruno Decreane and Paolo Lucente for their review
and valuable comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[IANA-IPFIX-IE46]
"IANA IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information
Element #46 SubRegistry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-
mpls-label-type>.
[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>.
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
RFC 5102, DOI 10.17487/RFC5102, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5102>.
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer,
M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton,
"Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", draft-
ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 (work in progress),
February 2020.
Graf Expires September 30, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPFIX MPLS Segment Routing Information March 2020
[I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B.,
Francois, P., and P. Psenak, "Loop avoidance using Segment
Routing", draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-08
(work in progress), January 2020.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B.,
Francois, P., Voyer, D., Clad, F., and P. Camarillo,
"Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-03 (work in
progress), March 2020.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
Graf Expires September 30, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPFIX MPLS Segment Routing Information March 2020
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
Author's Address
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binzring 17
Zurich 8045
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Graf Expires September 30, 2020 [Page 7]