OPSAWG T. Graf
Internet-Draft Swisscom
Intended status: Standards Track G. Fioccola
Expires: 7 May 2025 T. Zhou
Huawei
M. Cociglio
M. Nilo
Telecom Italia
3 November 2024
IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Alternate-Marking Information
Elements
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-01
Abstract
This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Information Elements (IEs) to export Alternate Marking measurement
data.
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 7 May 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. AltMark IPFIX Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Flow Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Flow Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Flow Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. FlowMonID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Lflag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Dflag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. PeriodNumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Alternate-Marking Method (AltMark) [RFC9341] [RFC9342] is a technique
used to measure packet loss, delay, and jitter on in-flight packets.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] provides a framework for
Alternate Marking deployments and includes considerations and
guidance for application and methodology. The IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX) protocol [RFC7011] [RFC7012] is considered for data
export in Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment].
[RFC7012] defines the data types and management policy for the
information model of the IPFIX protocol [RFC7011]. This document
defines the new IPFIX Information Elements (IEs) for the Alternate
Marking Method.
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
1.1. 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.
2. AltMark IPFIX Information Elements
This section describes existing IEs [IANA-IPFIX] that are relevant
for the Alternate Marking application and also introduces new IEs.
With AltMark [RFC9341] [RFC9342], each node needs to export the
packet counters and timestamps at each period for the monitored flow,
according to AltMark operation. To identify and export telemetry
data for an AltMark monitored flow, it is needed a combination of
already existing IEs and new IEs, which are introduced in this
document. A flow can be identified using IEs such as source address,
destination address, protocol and ports. But, according to [RFC9343]
and any other AltMark protocol extensions, it is also needed to
define new IEs (the flow identifier FlowMonID, the Period Number, the
L flag and the D flag) to complete the AltMark information to be
exported.
2.1. Flow Decomposition
Data decomposition can be achieved on an Alternate-Marking-aware node
where IPFIX is exported or on the IPFIX data collection.
The ipPayloadPacketSection(IE314) Information Element (IE) carries a
series of n octets from the IP payload, starting sectionOffset(IE409)
octets into the IP payload.
When decomposed at the data collection, the packet header sections,
as example the IPv6 options type header described in Section 3.1 of
[RFC9343] or the Segment Routing header TLV as described in
Section 3.1 of [I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark] containing the
FlowMonID, Loss and Delay flag are being exposed as part of
ipPayloadPacketSection(IE314), defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC7133].
The IPv4 payload is that part of the packet that follows the IPv4
header and any options. The IPv6 payload is the rest of the packet
following the 40-octet IPv6 header. Note that any extension headers
present are considered part of the payload. The
sectionExportedOctets(IE410) expresses how much data was observed,
while the remainder is padding.
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
2.2. Flow Aggregation
An Aggregated Flow is simply an IPFIX Flow generated from Original
Flows by an Intermediate Aggregation Process.
When being decomposed on an Alternate-Marking-aware node, new IPFIX
entities for FlowMonID, Loss and Delay flags are needed so that the
data can now be aggregated according to Section 5 of [RFC7015].
According to Section 4 of [RFC7015] new Flow Keys may be derived from
existing Flow Keys or "promoted" from specific non-key fields.
Therefore FlowMonID, Loss and Delay flags are considered Flow Key
fields.
2.3. Flow Correlation
The following IPFIX entities are of interest to describe the
relationship to the forwarding topology and the control-plane.
* Hostname, ingressInterface(IE10) and egressInterface(IE14)
describes on which node which logical ingress and egress
interfaces have been used to forward the packet.
* Hostname and egressPhysicalInterface(IE253) describes on which
node which physical egress interfaces have been used to forward
the packet.
* Hostname and ipNextHopIPv4Address(IE15) or
ipNextHopIPv6Address(IE62), describes the forwarding path to which
next-hop IP address the packets are forwarded to.
* Hostname and mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(IE47) or srhActiveSegmentIPv6
(IE495) describes the forwarding path to which MPLS top label IPv4
address or SRv6 active segment the packets are forwarded to.
* BGP communities [RFC1997] are often used for setting a path
priority or service selection.
bgpDestinationExtendedCommunityList(IE488) or
bgpDestinationCommunityList(IE485) or
bgpDestinationLargeCommunityList(IE491) describes which group of
prefixes have been used to forward the packet.
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
* Hostname, sourceIPv4Address(IE8) or sourceIPv6Address(IE27),
sourceTransportPort(IE7), destinationIPv4Address(IE12) or
destinationIPv6Address(IE28), destinationTransportPort(IE11),
protocolIdentifier(IE4) describe the forwarding path on each node
from each IPv4 or IPv6 source address to a specific application in
the network.
Note that, in case of Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interface, the
ingressInterface IE and egressInterface IE can be used to refer the
logical LAG port, while ingressPhysicalInterface IE and
egressPhysicalInterface IE can be used to indicate the physical
interfaces which are members of the LAG port.
2.4. Flow Measurements
To calculate loss, the packet count can be based upon
octetDeltaCount(IE1) or packetDeltaCount(IE2).
While, to calculate delay, either flowStartSeconds(IE150),
flowStartMilliseconds(IE152), flowStartMicroseconds(IE154) or
flowStartNanoseconds(IE156), can be used depending on timestamp
granularity requirements. It is also possible to use
flowEndSeconds(IE151), flowEndMilliseconds(IE153),
flowEndMicroseconds(IE155) or flowEndNanoseconds(IE157).
It is also defined the PeriodNumber, which is needed for Alternate-
Marking measurement correlation as per
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment].
3. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to create a new registry called "IPFIX
Alternate-Marking" under the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry
[RFC7012] available at [IANA-IPFIX].
The allocation policy of this new registry is Expert Review
(Section 4.5 of [RFC8126]).
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
The designated experts for this registry should be familiar with
Alternate-Marking. The guidelines that are being followed by the
designated experts for the IPFIX registry should be followed for this
registry. In particular, criteria that should be applied by the
designated experts include determining whether the proposed
registration duplicates existing entries and whether the registration
description is clear and fits the purpose of this registry. Within
the review period, the designated experts will either approve or deny
the registration request, communicating this decision to IANA.
Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions
as to how to make the request successful.
The code points in the registry are defined in Table 1.
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| Element ID | Name | Reference |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| TBD1 | FlowMonID | [RFC-to-be], |
| | | RFC9341, RFC9342, RFC9343 |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| TBD2 | Lflag | [RFC-to-be], |
| | | RFC9341, RFC9342, RFC9343 |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| TBD3 | Dflag | [RFC-to-be], |
| | | RFC9341, RFC9342, RFC9343 |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| TBD4 | PeriodNumber | [RFC-to-be], |
| | | [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 1: "IPFIX Alternate-Marking" Registry
3.1. FlowMonID
Name: FlowMonID
Element ID: TBD1
Description: The Flow Monitoring Identification (FlowMonID) is
described in [RFC9343]. It is 20-bit unsigned integer. It MUST
be set pseudo-randomly by the source node or by a centralized
controller.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned32
Data Type Semantics: identifier
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
3.2. Lflag
Name: Lflag
Element ID: TBD2
Description: Loss flag (L flag) for Packet Loss Measurement as
described in [RFC9343].
Abstract Data Type: boolean
Data Type Semantics: flags
3.3. Dflag
Name: Dflag
Element ID: TBD3
Description: Delay flag (D flag) for Single Packet Delay Measurement
as described in [RFC9343].
Abstract Data Type: boolean
Data Type Semantics: flags
3.4. PeriodNumber
Name: PeriodNumber
Element ID: TBD4
Description: The Period Number (PN), described in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment], is used to help to determine the
packet counts related to the same block of markers, or the timestamps
related to the same marked packet. The PN is associated with each
packet count and timestamp reported.
Abstract Data Type: unsigned64
Data Type Semantics: deltaCounter
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
4. Security Considerations
Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Multipoint Alternate Marking
[RFC9342] analyze different security concerns and related solutions.
These aspects are valid and applicable also to this document. In
particular the fundamental security requirement is that Alternate
Marking MUST only be applied in a specific limited domain, as also
mentioned in [RFC8799].
There are no additional security considerations regarding allocation
of these new IPFIX IEs compared to [RFC7012]. The IEs described in
this document export AltMark telemetry data. Applications and
operators using the IEs described in this document must evaluate the
sensitivity of this information in their implementation context and
apply the storage guidance in Section 11.8 of [RFC7011] as
appropriate.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors of this document would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Alex
Huang Feng and Mohamed Boucadair for their comments and reviews.
6. Contributors
Fabrizio Milan
Telecom Italia
Email: fabrizio.milan@telecomitalia.it
7. References
7.1. 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>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[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>.
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
[RFC7015] Trammell, B., Wagner, A., and B. Claise, "Flow Aggregation
for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol",
RFC 7015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7015, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7015>.
[RFC7133] Kashima, S., Kobayashi, A., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Information Elements for Data Link Layer Traffic
Measurement", RFC 7133, DOI 10.17487/RFC7133, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7133>.
[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>.
[RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.
[RFC9342] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and
T. Zhou, "Clustered Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9342,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9342, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9342>.
[RFC9343] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate-Marking Method",
RFC 9343, DOI 10.17487/RFC9343, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9343>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Mishra, G. S., wang,
X., and G. Zhang, "Application of the Alternate Marking
Method to the Segment Routing Header", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-09, 9 August
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fz-
spring-srv6-alt-mark-09>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment]
Fioccola, G., Keyi, Z., Graf, T., Nilo, M., and L. Zhang,
"Alternate Marking Deployment Framework", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-
deployment-02, 9 October 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
alt-mark-deployment-02>.
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
[IANA-IPFIX]
"IANA, IPFIX",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml>.
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
Authors' Addresses
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binzring 17
CH-8045 Zurich
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei
Palazzo Verrocchio, Centro Direzionale Milano 2
20054 Segrate (Milan)
Italy
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia
Italy
Email: mauro.cociglio@outlook.com
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking November 2024
Massimo Nilo
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
10148 Torino
Italy
Email: massimo.nilo@telecomitalia.it
Graf, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 11]
