NETCONF G. Zheng
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track A. Clemm
Expires: January 1, 2019 Huawei
June 30, 2018
UDP based Publication Channel for Streaming Telemetry
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-03
Abstract
This document describes a UDP-based publication channel for streaming
telemetry use to collect data from devices. A new shim header is
proposed to facilitate the distributed data collection mechanism
which directly pushes data from line cards to the collector. Because
of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher frequency and better
transit performance can be achieved.
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 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 January 1, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Transport Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Dynamic Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Configured Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. UDP Transport for Publication Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Data Format of the UPC Message Header . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3.1. Reliability Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3.2. Fragmentation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Using DTLS to Secure UPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Port Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. DTLS Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4. Sending Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.5. Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
Streaming telemetry refers to sending a continuous stream of
operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides
an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network
analytics. Devices generate telemetry data and push that data to a
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
collector for further analysis. By streaming the data, much better
performance, finer-grained sampling, monitoring accuracy, and
bandwidth utilization can be achieved than with polling-based
alternatives.
Sub-Notif [I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] defines a
mechanism that allows a collector to subscribe to updates of YANG-
defined data that is maintained in a YANG [RFC7950] datastore. The
mechanism separates the management and control of subscriptions from
the transport that is used to actually stream and deliver the data.
Two transports, NETCONF transport
[I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications] and HTTP transport
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif], have been defined so far for the
notification messages.
While powerful in its features and general in its architecture, in
its current form the mechanism needs to be extended to stream
telemetry data at high velocity from devices that feature a
distributed architecture. The transports that have been defined so
far, NETCONF and HTTP, are ultimately based on TCP and lack the
efficiency needed to stream data continuously at high velocity. A
lighter-weight, more efficient transport, e.g. a transport based on
UDP is needed.
o Firstly, data collector will suffer a lot of TCP connections from,
for example, many line cards equipped on different devices.
o Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP
encapsulation can be easily implemented by hardware which will
further improve the performance.
o Thirdly, because of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher
frequency and better transit performance can be achieved, which is
important for streaming telemetry.
This document specifies a higher-performance transport option for
Sub-Notif that leverages UDP. Specifically, it facilitates the
distributed data collection mechanism described in
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]. In the case of data
originating from multiple line cards, the centralized design requires
data to be internally forwarded from those line cards to the push
server, presumably on a main board, which then combines the
individual data items into a single consolidated stream. The
centralized data collection mechanism can result in a performance
bottleneck, especially when large amounts of data are involved. What
is needed instead is the support for a distributed mechanism that
allows to directly push multiple individual substreams, e.g. one from
each line card, without needing to first pass them through an
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
additional processing stage for internal consolidation, but still
allowing those substreams to be managed and controlled via a single
subscription. The proposed UDP based Publication Channel (UPC)
natively supports the distributed data collection mechanism.
The transport described in this document can be used for transmitting
notification messages over both IPv4 and IPv6 [RFC8200].
While this document will focus on the data publication channel, the
subscription can be used in conjunction with the mechanism proposed
in [I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] with extensions
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators].
2. Terminology
Streaming Telemetry: refers to sending a continuous stream of
operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides
an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network
analytics.
Component Subscription: A subscription that defines the data from
each individual telemetry source which is managed and controlled by a
single Subscription Server.
Component Subscription Server: An agent that streams telemetry data
per the terms of a component subscription.
3. Solution Overview
The typical distributed data collection solution is shown in Fig. 1.
Both the Collector and the Publisher can be distributed. The
Collector includes the Subscriber and a set of Receivers. And the
Publisher includes a Subscription Server and a set of Component
Subscription Servers. The Subscriber cannot see the Component
Subscription Servers directly, so it will send the Global
Subscription information to the Subscription Server (e.g., main
board) via the Subscription Channel. When receiving a Global
Subscription, the Subscription Server decomposes the subscription
request into multiple Component Subscriptions, each involving data
from a separate internal telemetry source, for example a line card.
The Component Subscriptions are distributed to the Component
Subscription Server. Subsequently, each data originator generates
its own stream of telemetry data, collecting and encapsulating the
packets per the Component Subscription and streaming them to the
designated Receivers. This distributed data collection mechanism may
form multiple Publication Channels to the Receivers. The Receiver is
able to assemble many pieces of data associated with one Global
Subscription.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
The Publication Channel supports the reliable data streaming, for
example for some alarm events. The Collector has the option of
deducing the packet loss and the disorder based on the information
carried by the notification data. And the Collector may decide the
behavior to request retransmission.
The rest of the draft describes the UDP based Publication Channel
(UPC).
+-------------------------------------+
| Collector |
| |
| +------------+ +-----------+ |
| | Subscriber | | Receivers | |
| +----+-------+ +--^----^---+ |
| | | | |
+-------------------------------------+
| | |
Subscription | | | Publication
Channel | | | Channel
| +---------+ |
| | |
+-------------------------------------+
| | | | |
| +----v---+-----+ +------+-------+ |
| | Subscription | | Component | |
| | Server | | Subscription | |
| | | | Servers | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| |
| Publisher |
+-------------------------------------+
Fig. 1 Distributed Data Collection
4. Transport Mechanisms
For a complete pub-sub mechanism, this section will describe how the
UPC is used to interact with the Subscription Channel relying on
NETCONF or RESTCONF.
4.1. Dynamic Subscription
Dynamic subscriptions for Sub-Notif are configured and managed via
signaling messages transported over NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF
[RFC8040]. The Sub-Notif defined RPCs which are sent and responded
via the Subscription Channel (a), between the Subscriber and the
Subscription Server of the Publisher. In this case, only one
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
Receiver is associated with the Subscriber. In the Publisher, there
may be multiple data originators. Notification messages are pushed
on separate channels (b), from different data originators to the
Receiver.
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Collector | | Publisher |
| | | |
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+--+------+----+ +--+-------+---+
| | | |
| | RPC:establish-subscription | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:notifications | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | RPC:modify-subscription | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:notifications | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | RPC:delete-subscription | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
+ + + +
Fig. 2 Call Flow For Dynamic Subscription
In the case of dynamic subscription, the Receiver and the Subscriber
SHOULD be colocated. So UPC can use the source IP address of the
Subscription Channel as it's destination IP address. The Receiver
MUST support listening messages at the IANA-assigned PORT-X or PORT-
Y, but MAY be configured to listen at a different port.
The Publication Channels MUST share fate with the subscription
session. In other words, when the delete-subscription is received or
the subscription session is broken, all the associated Publication
Channels MUST be closed.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
4.2. Configured Subscription
For a Configured Subscription, there is no guarantee that the
Subscriber is currently in place with the associated Receiver(s). As
defined in Sub-Notif, the subscription configuration contains the
location information of all the receivers, including the IP address
and the port number. So that the data originator can actively send
generated messages to the corresponding Receivers via the UPC.
The first message MUST be a separate subscription-started
notification to indicate the Receiver that the pushing is started.
Then, the notifications can be sent immediately without any wait.
All the subscription state notifications, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], MUST be encapsulated to
be separated notification messages.
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Collector | | Publisher |
| | | |
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+--+------+----+ +--+-------+---+
| | | |
| | Capability Exchange | |
<----------------------------------------> |
| | | |
| | Edit config(create) | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:subscription started | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | UPC:notifications | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | Edit config(delete) | |
+----------------------------------------> |
| | RPC Reply: OK | |
<----------------------------------------+ |
| | UPC:subscription terminated | |
| <-----------------------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
+ + + +
Fig. 3 Call Flow For Configured Subscription
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
5. UDP Transport for Publication Channel
5.1. Design Overview
As specified in Sub-Notif, the telemetry data is encapsulated in the
NETCONF/RESTCONF notification message, which is then encapsulated and
carried in the transport protocols, e.g. TLS, HTTP2. The following
figure shows the overview of the typical UPC message structure.
o The Message Header contains information that can facilitate the
message transmission before de-serializing the notification
message.
o Notification Message is the encoded content that the publication
channel transports. The common encoding method includes GPB [1],
CBOR [RFC7049], JSON, and XML.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] describes the structure
of the Notification Message for both single notification and
multiple bundled notifications.
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| UDP | | Message | | Notification |
| | | Header | | Message |
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Fig. 4 UDP Publication Message Overview
5.2. Data Format of the UPC Message Header
The UPC Message Header contains information that can facilitate the
message transmission before de-serializing the notification message.
The data format is shown as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+
| Vers. | Flag | ET | Length |
+-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+
| Message-Generator-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Message ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ Options ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 3 UPC Message Header Format
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
The Message Header contains the following field:
o Vers.: represents the PDU (Protocol Data Unit) encoding version.
The initial version value is 0.
o Flag: is a bitmap indicating what features this packet has and the
corresponding options attached. Each bit associates to one
feature and one option data. When the bit is set to 1, the
associated feature is enabled and the option data is attached.
The sequence of the presence of the options follows the bit order
of the bitmap. In this document, the flag is specified as
follows:
* bit 0, the reliability flag;
* bit 1, the fragmentation flag;
* other bits are reserved.
o ET: is a 4 bits identifier to indicate the encoding type used for
the Notification Message. 16 types of encoding can be expressed:
* 0: GPB;
* 1: CBOR;
* 2: JSON;
* 3: XML;
* others are reserved.
o Length: is the total length of the message, measured in octets,
including message header.
o Message-Generator-ID: is a 32-bit identifier of the process which
created the notification message. This allows disambiguation of
an information source, such as the identification of different
line cards sending the notification messages. The source IP
address of the UDP datagrams SHOULD NOT be interpreted as the
identifier for the host that originated the UPC message. The
entity sending the UPC message could be merely a relay.
o The Message ID is generated continuously by the message generator.
Different subscribers share the same notification ID sequence.
o Options: is a variable-length field. The details of the Options
will be described in the respective sections below.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
5.3. Options
The order of packing the data fields in the Options field follows the
bit order of the Flag field.
5.3.1. Reliability Option
The UDP based publication transport described in this document
provides two streaming modes, the reliable mode an the unreliable
mode, for different SLA (Service Level Agreement) and telemetry
requirements.
In the unreliable streaming mode, the line card pushes the
encapsulated data to the data collector without any sequence
information. So the subscriber does not know whether the data is
correctly received or not. Hence no retransmission happens.
The reliable streaming mode provides sequence information in the UDP
packet, based on which the subscriber can deduce the packet loss and
disorder. Then the subscriber can decide whether to request the
retransmission of the lost packets.
In most case, the unreliable streaming mode is preferred. Because
the reliable streaming mode will cost more network bandwidth and
precious device resource. Different from the unreliable streaming
mode, the line card cannot remove the sent reliable notifications
immediately, but to keep them in the memory for a while. Reliable
notifications may be pushed multiple times, which will increase the
traffic. When choosing the reliable streaming mode or the unreliable
streaming mode, the operate need to consider the reliable requirement
together with the resource usage.
When the reliability flag bit is set to 1 in the Flag field, the
following option data will be attached
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Previous Message ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 4 Reliability Option Format
Current Message ID and Previous Message ID will be added in the
packets.
For example, there are two subscriber A and B,
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
o Message IDs for the generator are : [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9],
in which Subscriber A subscribes [1,2,3,6,7] and Subscriber B
subscribes [1,2,4,5,7,8,9].
o Subscriber A will receive [Previous Message ID, Current Message
ID] like: [0,1][1,2][2,3][3,6][6,7].
o Subscriber B will receive [Previous Message ID, Current Message
ID] like: [0,1][1,2][2,4][4,5][5,7][7,8][8,9].
5.3.2. Fragmentation Option
UDP palyload has a theoretical length limitation to 65535. Other
encapsulation headers will make the actual payload even shorter.
Binary encodings like GPB and CBOR can make the message compact. So
that the message can be encapsulated within one UDP packet, hence
fragmentation will not easily happen. However, text encodings like
JSON and XML can easily make the message exceed the UDP length
limitation.
The Fragmentation Option can help not Application layer can split the
YANG tree into several leaves. Or table into several rows. But the
leaf or the row cannot be split any further. Now we consider a very
long path. Since the GPB and CBOR are so compact, it's easy to fit
into a UDP packet. But for JSON or XML, it is possible that even one
leaf will exceed the UDP boundary.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------------------------------------+-+
| Fagment Number |L|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+-+
Fig. 5 Fragmentation Option Format
The Fragmentation Option is available in the message header when the
fragmentation flag is set to 1. The option contains:
Fragment Number: indicates the sequence number of the current
fragment.
L: is a flag to indicate whether the current fragment is the last
one. When 0 is set, current fragment is not the last one, hence more
fragments are expected. When 1 is set, current fragment is the last
one.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
5.4. Data Encoding
Subscribed data can be encoded in GPB, CBOR, XML or JSON format. It
is conceivable that additional encodings may be supported as options
in the future. This can be accomplished by augmenting the
subscription data model with additional identity statements used to
refer to requested encodings.
Implementation may support different encoding method per
subscription. When bundled notifications is supported between the
publisher and the receiver, only subscribed notifications with the
same encoding can be bundled as one message.
6. Using DTLS to Secure UPC
The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol [RFC6347] is
designed to meet the requirements of applications that need secure
datagram transport.
DTLS can be used as a secure transport to counter all the primary
threats to UDP based Publication Channel:
o Confidentiality to counter disclosure of the message contents.
o Integrity checking to counter modifications to a message on a hop-
by-hop basis.
o Server or mutual authentication to counter masquerade.
In addition, DTLS also provides:
o A cookie exchange mechanism during handshake to counter Denial of
Service attacks.
o A sequence number in the header to counter replay attacks.
6.1. Transport
As shown in Figure 6, the DTLS is layered next to the UDP transport
is to provide reusable security and authentication functions over
UDP. No DTLS extension is required to enable UPC messages over DTLS.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
+-----------------------------+
| UPC Message |
+-----------------------------+
| DTLS |
+-----------------------------+
| UDP |
+-----------------------------+
| IP |
+-----------------------------+
Fig. 6: Protocol Stack for DTLS secured UPC
The application implementer will map a unique combination of the
remote address, remote port number, local address, and local port
number to a session.
Each UPC message is delivered by the DTLS record protocol, which
assigns a sequence number to each DTLS record. Although the DTLS
implementer may adopt a queue mechanism to resolve reordering, it may
not assure that all the messages are delivered in order when mapping
on the UDP transport.
Since UDP is an unreliable transport, with DTLS, an originator or
relay may not realize that a collector has gone down or lost its DTLS
connection state, so messages may be lost.
The DTLS record has its own sequence number, the encryption and
decryption will done by DTLS layer, UPC Message layer will not
concern this.
6.2. Port Assignment
The Publisher is always a DTLS client, and the Receiver is always a
DTLS server. The Receivers MUST support accepting UPC Messages on
the UDP port PORT-Y, but MAY be configurable to listen on a different
port. The Publisher MUST support sending UPC messages to the UDP
port PORT-Y, but MAY be configurable to send messages to a different
port. The Publisher MAY use any source UDP port for transmitting
messages.
6.3. DTLS Session Initiation
The Publisher initiates a DTLS connection by sending a DTLS Client
Hello to the Receiver. Implementations MUST support the denial of
service countermeasures defined by DTLS. When these countermeasures
are used, the Receiver responds with a DTLS Hello Verify Request
containing a cookie. The Publisher responds with a DTLS Client Hello
containing the received cookie, which initiates the DTLS handshake.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
The Publisher MUST NOT send any UPC messages before the DTLS
handshake has successfully completed.
Implementations MUST support DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and MUST support the
mandatory to implement cipher suite, which is
TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA [RFC5246] as specified in DTLS 1.0. If
additional cipher suites are supported, then implementations MUST NOT
negotiate a cipher suite that employs NULL integrity or
authentication algorithms.
Where privacy is REQUIRED, then implementations must either negotiate
a cipher suite that employs a non-NULL encryption algorithm or else
achieve privacy by other means, such as a physically secured network.
6.4. Sending Data
All UPC messages MUST be sent as DTLS "application data". It is
possible that multiple UPC messages be contained in one DTLS record,
or that a publication message be transferred in multiple DTLS
records. The application data is defined with the following ABNF
[RFC5234] expression:
APPLICATION-DATA = 1*UPC-FRAME
UPC-FRAME = MSG-LEN SP UPC-MSG
MSG-LEN = NONZERO-DIGIT *DIGIT
SP = %d32
NONZERO-DIGIT = %d49-57
DIGIT = %d48 / NONZERO-DIGIT
UPC-MSG is defined in section 5.2.
6.5. Closure
A Publisher MUST close the associated DTLS connection if the
connection is not expected to deliver any UPC Messages later. It
MUST send a DTLS close_notify alert before closing the connection. A
Publisher (DTLS client) MAY choose to not wait for the Receiver's
close_notify alert and simply close the DTLS connection. Once the
Receiver gets a close_notify from the Publisher, it MUST reply with a
close_notify.
When no data is received from a DTLS connection for a long time
(where the application decides what "long" means), Receiver MAY close
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
the connection. The Receiver (DTLS server) MUST attempt to initiate
an exchange of close_notify alerts with the Publisher before closing
the connection. Receivers that are unprepared to receive any more
data MAY close the connection after sending the close_notify alert.
Although closure alerts are a component of TLS and so of DTLS, they,
like all alerts, are not retransmitted by DTLS and so may be lost
over an unreliable network.
7. Congestion Control
Congestion control mechanisms that respond to congestion by reducing
traffic rates and establish a degree of fairness between flows that
share the same path are vital to the stable operation of the Internet
[RFC2914]. While efficient, UDP has no build-in congestion control
mechanism. Because streaming telemetry can generate unlimited
amounts of data, transferring this data over UDP is generally
problematic. It is not recommended to use the UDP based publication
channel over congestion-sensitive network paths. The only
environments where the UDP based publication channel MAY be used are
managed networks. The deployments require the network path has been
explicitly provisioned for the UDP based publication channel through
traffic engineering mechanisms, such as rate limiting or capacity
reservations.
8. IANA Considerations
This RFC requests that IANA assigns three UDP port numbers in the
"Registered Port Numbers" range with the service names "upc" and
"upc-dtls". These ports will be the default ports for the UDP based
Publication Channel for NETCONF and RESTCONF. Below is the
registration template following the rules in [RFC6335].
Service Name: upc
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: UDP based Publication Channel
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-X
Service Name: upc-dtls
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: UDP based Publication Channel (DTLS)
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-Y
9. Security Considerations
TBD
10. Acknowledgements
The authors of this documents would like to thank Eric Voit, Tim
Jenkins, and Huiyang Yang for the initial comments.
11. References
11.1. 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>.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and
A. Tripathy, "NETCONF Support for Event Notifications",
draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-09 (work in
progress), May 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages]
Voit, E., Birkholz, H., Bierman, A., Clemm, A., and T.
Jenkins, "Notification Message Headers and Bundles",
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-03 (work in
progress), February 2018.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif]
Voit, E., Rahman, R., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Clemm, A., and
A. Bierman, "RESTCONF and HTTP Transport for Event
Notifications", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-06 (work
in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and
A. Tripathy, "Customized Subscriptions to a Publisher's
Event Streams", draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-
notifications-13 (work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]
Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Bierman,
"Subscription to Multiple Stream Originators", draft-zhou-
netconf-multi-stream-originators-02 (work in progress),
May 2018.
11.3. URIs
[1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/
Appendix A. Change Log
(To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)
A.1. draft-ietf-zheng-udp-pub-channel-00 to v00
o Modified the message header format.
o Added a section on the Authentication Option.
o Cleaned up the text and removed unnecessary TBDs.
A.2. v01
o Removed the detailed description on distributed data collection
mechanism from this document. Mainly focused on the description
of a UDP based publication channel for telemetry use.
o Modified the message header format.
A.2. v02
o Add the section on the transport mechanism.
o Modified the fixed message header format.
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft udp-pub-channel June 2018
o Add the fragmentation option for the message header.
A.2. v03
o Clarify term through the document.
o Add a section on DTLS support.
Authors' Addresses
Guangying Zheng
Huawei
101 Yu-Hua-Tai Software Road
Nanjing, Jiangsu
China
Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Alexander Clemm
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, California
USA
Email: alexander.clemm@huawei.com
Zheng, et al. Expires January 1, 2019 [Page 19]
