Skip to main content

Performance Monitoring Analysis for L3VPN
draft-zheng-l3vpn-pm-analysis-01

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Lianshu Zheng , Zhenbin Li , Bhavani Parise
Last updated 2013-04-17
Stream (None)
Formats plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex
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-zheng-l3vpn-pm-analysis-01
Network Working Group                                           L. Zheng
Internet-Draft                                                     Z. Li
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: October 19, 2013                                      B. Parise
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                          April 17, 2013

               Performance Monitoring Analysis for L3VPN
                    draft-zheng-l3vpn-pm-analysis-01

Abstract

   To perform the measurement of packet loss, delay and other metrics on
   a particular VPN flow, the egress PE need to tell to which specific
   ingress VRF a packet belongs to.  But for L3VPN, multipoint-to-point
   or multipoint-to-multipoint (MP2MP) network model applies, flow
   identifying is a big challenge.  This document summarizes the current
   performance monitoring mechanisms for MPLS networks, and analyzes the
   challenge for L3VPN performance monitoring.  This document also
   discuss the key points need to be taken in consideration when
   designing L3VPN performance monitoring mechanisms.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 October 19, 2013.

Copyright Notice

Zheng, et al.           Expires October 19, 2013                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           PM Analysis for L3VPN                April 2013

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Overview of current mechanisms for MPLS networks  . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks . . .   3
     2.2.  Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Challenge for L3VPN Performance Monitoring  . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Design Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  P2P Connection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Hierarchy L3VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Data Plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.5.  MPLS OAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.6.  QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Manageability Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Level 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) [RFC4364]service is widely
   deployed in the production network.  It is deployed to provide
   enterprise interconnection, Voice over IP (VoIP), video, mobile, etc.
   services.  Most of these services are sensitive to the packet loss
   and delay.  The capability to measure and monitor performance metrics
   for packet loss, delay, as well as related metrics is essential for
   SLA.  The requirement for SLA measurement for MPLS networks has been
   documented in [RFC4377].

Zheng, et al.           Expires October 19, 2013                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           PM Analysis for L3VPN                April 2013

   One popular deployment of L3VPN nowadays is in mobile backhaul
   networks.  When deploying MPLS-TP in mobile backhaul network, due to
   the scalability issue with PW, L3VPN is used either for end-to-end
   service delivery, or L2VPN and L3VPN hybrid networking.  The
   measurement capability of L3VPN provides operators with greater
   visibility into the performance characteristics of their networks,
   and provides diagnostic information in case of performance
   degradation or failure and helps for fault localization.

   To perform the measurement of packet loss, delay and other metrics on
   a particular VPN flow, the egress PE need to tell to which specific
   ingress VRF a packet belongs.  But for L3VPN, multipoint-to-point or
   multipoint-to-multipoint (MP2MP) network model applies, flow
   identifying is a big challenge.  This document summarizes the current
   performance monitoring mechanisms for MPLS networks, and analyzes the
   challenge for L3VPN performance monitoring.  This document also
   discuss the key points need to be taken in consideration when
   designing L3VPN performance monitoring mechanisms.

2.  Overview of current mechanisms for MPLS networks

2.1.  Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks

   [RFC6374]defines procedure and protocol mechanisms to enable the
   efficient and accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, as well as
   related metrics in MPLS networks.

   The LM protocol can perform two distinct kinds of loss measurement.
   In inferred mode, it can measure the loss of specially generated test
   packets (in order to infer the approximate data-plane loss level).
   In direct mode, it can directly measure data-plane packet loss.
   Direct measurement provides perfect loss accounting, but may require
   specialized hardware support and is only applicable to some LSP
   types.  Inferred measurement provides only approximate loss
   accounting but is generally applicable.  There should also be
   inferred mode and direct mode for LM in the L3VPN environment.  This
   document focuses on the direct mode.  The inferred mode is out of
   scope of the document.

   The LM and DM protocols are initiated from a single node, the
   querier.  A query message may be received either by a single node or
   by multiple nodes; i.e.  these protocols provide point-to-point or
   point-to-multipoint measurement capabilities.

2.2.  Profile for MPLS-based Transport Networks

   Procedures for the measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput
   in MPLS networks are defined in [RFC6374].  [RFC6375]describes a

Zheng, et al.           Expires October 19, 2013                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           PM Analysis for L3VPN                April 2013

   profile, i.e.  a simplified subset, of procedures that suffices to
   meet the specific requirements of MPLS-based transport networks
   [RFC5921] as defined in [RFC5860].  This profile is presented for the
   convenience of implementers who are concerned exclusively with the
   transport network context.

   LM session is externally configured and the values of several
   protocol parameters can be fixed in advance at the endpoints involved
   in the session, so that inspection or negotiation of these parameters
   is not required.

3.  Challenge for L3VPN Performance Monitoring

   To perform the measurement of packet loss, delay and other metrics on
   a particular VPN flow, the egress PE need to tell to which specific
   ingress VRF a packet belongs.

   The above mentioned existing mechanisms for MPLS networks provide
   either point-to-point or point-to-multipoint measurement
   capabilities.  For a specific receiver, it could easily identify a
   specific flow by the label stack information, when LDP is not used
   and Penultimate Hop Pop (PHP) function is disabled.

   But in the case of L3VPN, multipoint-to-point or multipoint-to-
   multipoint (MP2MP) network model applies , it makes the flow
   identifying a big challenge for packets loss and delay measurement.
   According to the label allocation mechanisms of L3VPN, a private
   label itself cannot uniquely identify a specific VPN flow.  That is,
   when the egress PE allocates VPN label for a specific prefix of a
   VPN, the same label will be advertised to all its peers.  Given a VPN
   flow, the egress PE cannot tell which ingress VRF is from based on
   the private label it carries.  As a result, it's not feasible to
   perform the loss or delay measurement on this flow.

   In L3VPN the LSPs may be merged at any intermediate nodes along the
   LSP (e.g., Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] based LSP).
   The egress PE cannot derive a unique identifier of the source PE from
   label stack.  The tunnel label cannot help for flow identification
   due to the LSP merge.

   In L3VPN, the ingress PE could be identified by the tunnel label when
   TE LSP applies [RFC3209], but the egress PE cannot tell to which
   specific VRF a packet belongs when extranet (If the various sites in
   a VPN are owned by different enterprises) exist on ingress PE.
   Figure 1 shows an example of extranet.  In Figure1, Site A,B,C,D all
   belong to the same VPN-A, but Site C and Site D does not belong to
   the same enterprise (Site D also belongs to a VPN-B), so different
   VRFs are maintained for each site on PE3.  PE1 assign the same label

Zheng, et al.           Expires October 19, 2013                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           PM Analysis for L3VPN                April 2013

   L for prefix 10.0.0.1 to PE3 of VPN-A, when it receives the VPN-A
   flow from PE3, it can not tell the flow is from either VRFC or VRFD
   by the label stack.

    +------+         +------------+         +-------------+          +------+
    | SITE |----+----|     PE     +---------+      PE     +----+-----+ SITE |
    |   A  |    |VRFA|      1     |         |       2     |VRFB|     |   B  |
    +------+    +----+------------+         +------+------+----+     +------+
                             |                     |
                             |         VPN-A       |
                             |                     |
                             |               +------+-----+
                             +---------------+     PE     |
                                             |      3     |
                                             +----+--+----+
                                             |VRFC|  |VRFD|
                                             +----+  +----+
                                               |        |
                                               |        | Extranet   VPN-B
                                         +------+     +------+
                                         | SITE |     | SITE |
                                         |   C  |     |   D  +----
                                         +------+     +------+

                                      Figure1: Extranet on Ingress PE

   The current label allocation mechanism of L3VPN makes the flow
   identification a big challenge for L3VPN performance monitoring, as a
   result the current performance monitoring mechanisms for MPLS
   networks cannot be applied to L3VPN networks.  Extension or
   alteration to current label allocation mechanism is needed to solve
   the problem.

4.  Design Consideration

   This section discuss the key points need to be taken in consideration
   when designing L3VPN performance monitoring mechanism.

4.1.  P2P Connection

   As analyzed above, to perform the packet loss or delay measurement on
   a specific VPN flow, it is critical for the egress PE to identify the
   unique ingress VRF, i.e.  to establish the Point-to-Point connection
   between the two VRFs.  Current allocation mechanism may need
   extension or alteration to help build up the Point-to-Point
   connection.  Once the Point-to-Point connection is built up, current
   measurement mechanisms may be applied to L3VPN .

Zheng, et al.           Expires October 19, 2013                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           PM Analysis for L3VPN                April 2013

   Conditions like Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP), Equal-Cost Multi-Path
   (ECMP) load-balancing and BGP multi-path may make it infeasible for
   receiving PE to identify the ingress PE.  These conditions are out of
   scope of the mechanism design.

4.2.  Hierarchy L3VPN

   There are flexible hierarchy L3VPN deployment scenarios such as
   inter-AS, carrier's carrier, etc[RFC4364].  The mechanism design
   should take into account these scenarios.  Since the document focuses
   on MPLS transport network which seldom introduces the complex L3VPN
   scenarios, it is for further research if more complex mechanisms for
   these hierarchy L3VPN scenarios besides reusing the mechanism for the
   simple L3VPN scenarios has to be introduced.

4.3.  Control Plane

   In L3VPN, BGP is used to distribute a particular route, as well as an
   MPLS label that is mapped to that route [RFC4364].  The label mapping
   information for a particular route is piggybacked in the same BGP
   Update message that is used to distribute the route itself.  In order
   to setup the Point-to-Point connection between ingress and egress
   VRFs the current label distribution mechanism may be altered.  For
   compatibility, this alteration SHOULD NOT change the current label
   distribution mechanism dramatically.

4.4.  Data Plane

   Same as for control plane, for compatibility reason, the data plane
   should as far as be compatible with the current L3VPN forwarding
   procedure.

4.5.  MPLS OAM

   [RFC6374], [RFC6375]defines procedure and protocol mechanisms to
   enable the measurement of packet loss, delay, as well as related
   metrics in MPLS networks.  These mechanisms SHOULD be reasonably
   reused in L3VPN networks.  The addressing of source an destination of
   Loss Measurement (LM) and Delay Measurement (DM) messages may needed
   to be changed to identify the measured VRF.

4.6.  QoS

   To perform the packet loss or delay measurement in L3VPN network,
   either proactive or on-demand, SHOULD NOT impact the customer QoS
   experience.

Zheng, et al.           Expires October 19, 2013                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           PM Analysis for L3VPN                April 2013

5.  Manageability Consideration

   [RFC6374] describes manageability consideration of packet loss and
   delay measurement for MPLS network.  The defined mechanisms should be
   reused for L3VPN PM.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not change the security properties of L3VPN.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request to IANA.

8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank XXX for their valuable comments.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

   [RFC4377]  Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and S.
              Matsushima, "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements
              for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks", RFC
              4377, February 2006.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
              Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.

   [RFC5860]  Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
              Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.

Zheng, et al.           Expires October 19, 2013                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           PM Analysis for L3VPN                April 2013

   [RFC5921]  Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.
              Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC
              5921, July 2010.

   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.

   [RFC6375]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "A Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
              RFC 6375, September 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Lianshu Zheng
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com

   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com

   Bhavani Parise
   Cisco Systems

   Email: bhavani@cisco.com

Zheng, et al.           Expires October 19, 2013                [Page 8]