IPPM Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track W. Lingqiang
Expires: April 10, 2020 G. Zhui
ZTE Corporation
October 8, 2019
Hybrid Two-Step Performance Measurement Method
draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step-04
Abstract
Development of, and advancements in, automation of network operations
brought new requirements for measurement methodology. Among them is
the ability to collect instant network state as the packet being
processed by the networking elements along its path through the
domain. This document introduces a new hybrid measurement method,
referred to as hybrid two-step, as it separates the act of measuring
and/or calculating the performance metric from the act of collecting
and transporting network state.
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 April 10, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Operation of the HTS Ingress Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Operation of the HTS Transient Node . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Operation of the HTS Egress Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Considerations for HTS Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Deploying HTS in a Multicast Network . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Successful resolution of challenges of automated network operation,
as part of, for example, overall service orchestration or data center
operation, relies on a timely collection of accurate information that
reflects the state of network elements on an unprecedented scale.
Because performing the analysis and act upon the collected
information requires considerable computing and storage resources,
the network state information is unlikely to be processed by the
network elements themselves but will be relayed into the data storage
facilities, e.g., data lakes. The process of producing, collecting
network state information also referred to in this document as
network telemetry, and transporting it for post-processing should
work equally well with data flows or injected in the network test
packets. RFC 7799 [RFC7799] describes a combination of elements of
passive and active measurement as a hybrid measurement.
Several technical methods have been proposed to enable collection of
network state information instantaneous to the packet processing,
among them [P4.INT] and [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
This document introduces Hybrid Two-Step (HTS) as a new hybrid
measurement method that separates measuring or calculating the
performance metric from the collecting and transporting this
information. The Hybrid Two-Step method extends the two-step mode of
Residence Time Measurement (RTM) defined in [RFC8169] to on-path
network state collection and transport.
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology
RTM Residence Time Measurement
ECMP Equal Cost Multipath
MTU Maximum Transmission Unit
HTS Hybrid Two-Step
Network telemetry - the process of collecting and reporting of
network state
2.2. 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.
3. Problem Overview
Performance measurements are meant to provide data that characterize
conditions experienced by traffic flows in the network and possibly
trigger operational changes (e.g., re-route of flows, or changes in
resource allocations). Modifications to a network are determined
based on the performance metric information available at the time
that a change is to be made. The correctness of this determination
is based on the quality of the collected metrics data. The quality
of collected measurement data is defined by:
o the resolution and accuracy of each measurement;
o predictability of both the time at which each measurement is made
and the timeliness of measurement collection data delivery for
use.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
Consider the case of delay measurement that relies on collecting time
of packet arrival at the ingress interface and time of the packet
transmission at the egress interface. The method includes recording
a local clock value on receiving the first octet of an affected
message at the device ingress, and again recording the clock value on
transmitting the first byte of the same message at the device egress.
In this ideal case, the difference between the two recorded clock
times corresponds to the time that the message spent in traversing
the device. In practice, the time that has been recorded can differ
from the ideal case by any fixed amount and a correction can be
applied to compute the same time difference taking into account the
known fixed time associated with the actual measurement. In this
way, the resulting time difference reflects any variable delay
associated with queuing.
Depending on the implementation, it may be a challenge to compute the
difference between message arrival and departure times and - on the
fly - add the necessary residence time information to the same
message. And that task may become even more challenging if the
packet is encrypted. Implementations SHOULD NOT record a message
departure time that may be significantly inaccurate in the same
message, as the result of estimating the departure time that includes
the variable time component (such as that associated with buffering
and queuing of the message). A similar problem may cause a lower
quality of, for example, information that characterizes utilization
of the egress interface. If unable to obtain the data consistently,
without variable delays for additional processing, information may
not accurately reflect the state at the egress interface. To
mitigate this problem [RFC8169] defined an RTM two-step mode.
Another challenge associated with methods that collect network state
information into the actual data packet is the risk to exceed the
Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size, especially if the packet
traverses overlay domains or VPNs. Since the fragmentation is not
available at the transport network, operators may have to reduce MTU
size advertised to client layer or risk missing network state data
for the part, most probably the latter part, of the path.
4. Theory of Operation
The HTS method consists of the two phases:
o performing a measurement or obtaining network state information,
one or more than one type, on a node;
o collecting and transporting the measurement.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
HTS uses HTS Trigger carried in a data packet or a specially
constructed test packet. Nature of the HTS Trigger is transport
network layer specific, and its description is outside the scope of
this document. The packet that includes the HTS Trigger in this
document also referred to as the trigger packet.
The HTS method uses the HTS Follow-up packet, in this document also
referred to as the follow-up packet, to collect measurement and
network state data from the nodes. The node that creates the HTS
Trigger also generates the HTS Follow-up packet. The follow-up
packet contains characteristic information, copied from the trigger
packet, sufficient for participating HTS nodes to associate it with
the original packet. The exact composition of the characteristic
information is specific for each transport network, and its
definition is outside the scope of this document. The follow-up
packet also uses the same encapsulation as the data packet. If not
payload but only network information used to load-balance flows in
equal cost multipath (ECMP), use of the network encapsulation
identical to the trigger packet should guarantee that the follow-up
packet remains in-band, i.e., traverses the same set of network
elements, with the original data packet with the HTS Trigger. Only
one outstanding follow-up packet MUST be on the node for the given
path. That means that if the node receives an HTS Trigger for the
flow on which it still waits for the follow-up packet to the previous
HTS Trigger, the node will originate the follow-up packet to
transport the former set of the network state data and transmit it
before it sends the follow-up packet with the latest collection of
network state information.
4.1. Operation of the HTS Ingress Node
A node that originates the HTS Trigger is referred to as HTS ingress
node. As stated, the ingress node originates the follow-up packet.
The follow-up packet has the transport network encapsulation
identical with the trigger packet followed by the HTS shim and one or
more telemetry information elements encoded as Type-Length-Value
{TLV}. Figure 1 displays the example of the follow-up packet format.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Transport Network ~
| Encapsulation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver|HTS Shim Len| Flags | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Telemetry Data Profile |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Telemetry Data TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Follow-up Packet Format
Fields of the HTS shim are as follows:
Version (Ver) is the two-bits long field. It specifies the
version of the HTS shim format. This document defines the format
for the 0b00 value of the field.
HTS Shim Length is the six bits-long field. It defines the length
of the HTS shim in bytes. The minimal value of the field is four
bytes.
Flags is eight-bits long field. The format of the Flags field
displayed in Figure 2.
Full (F) flag MUST be set to zero by the node originating the
HTS follow-up packet and MUST be set to one by the node that
does not add its telemetry data to avoid exceeding MTU size.
The node originating the follow-up packet MUST zero the
Reserved field and ignore it on the receipt.
Sequence Number is 16 bits-long field. The value of the field
reflects the number of the HTS follow-up packet in the sequence of
the HTS follow-up packets originated in response to the same HTS
trigger. The ingress node MUST set the value of the field to
zero.
Telemetry Data Profile is the optional variable length field of
bit-size flags. Each flag indicates requested type of telemetry
data to be collected at the each HTS node. The increment of the
field is four bytes with a minimum length of zero.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Flags Field Format
4.2. Operation of the HTS Transient Node
Upon receiving the trigger packet the HTS transient node MUST:
o copy the transport information;
o start the HTS Follow-up Timer for the obtained flow.
Upon receiving the follow-up packet the HTS transient node MUST:
o verify that the matching transport information exists and the Full
flag is cleared, then stop the associated HTS Follow-up timer;
o collect telemetry data requested in the Telemetry Data Profile
field or defined by the local HTS policy;
o if adding the collected telemetry would not exceed MTU, then
append data into Telemetry Data TLVs field and transmit the
follow-up packet;
o otherwise, set the value of the Full flag to one and transmit the
received a follow-up packet;
o originate the new follow-up packet using the same transport
information. The value of the Sequence Number field in the HTS
shim MUST be set to the value of the field in the received follow-
up packet incremented by one. Copy collected telemetry data and
transmit the packet.
If the follow-up timer expires the transient node MUST:
o originate the follow-up packet using transport information
associated with the expired timer;
o initialize the HTS shim by setting Version field to 0b00 and
Sequence Number field to 0. Values of HTS Shim Length and
Telemetry Data Profile fields MAY be set according to the local
policy.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
o copy telemetry information into Telemetry Data TLVs field and
transmit the packet.
4.3. Operation of the HTS Egress Node
Upon receiving the trigger packet the HTS egress node MUST:
o copy the transport information;
o start the HTS Collection timer for the obtained flow.
When the egress node receives the follow-up packet for the known
flow, i.e., the flow to which the Collection timer is running, the
node MUST:
o copy telemetry information;
o restart the corresponding Collection timer.
When the Collection timer expires the egress relays the collected
telemetry information for processing and analysis to a local or
remote agent.
4.4. Considerations for HTS Timers
This specification defines two timers - HTS Follow-up and HTS
Collection. Because for the particular flow there MUST be not more
than one HTS Trigger, values of HTS timers bounded by the rate of the
trigger generation for that flow.
4.5. Deploying HTS in a Multicast Network
Previous sections discussed the operation of HTS in a unicast
network. Multicast services are important, and the ability to
collect telemetry information is an invaluable component in
delivering a high quality of experience. While the replication of
data packets is necessary, replication of HTS follow-up packets is
not. Replication of multicast data packets down a multicast tree may
be set based on multicast routing information or explicit information
included in the special header, as, for example, in Bit-Indexed
Explicit Replication [RFC8296]. A replicating node processes HTS
packet as defined below:
o the first transmitted multicast packet MUST be followed by the
received corresponding HTS packet as described in Section 4.2;
o each consecutively transmitted copy of the original multicast
packet MUST be followed by the new HTS packet originated by the
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
replicating node that acts as a transient HTS node when the
Follow-up timer expired.
As a result, there are no duplicate copies of Telemetry Data TLV for
the same pair of ingress and egress interfaces. At the same time,
all ingress/egress pairs traversed by the given multicast packet
reflected in their respective Telemetry Data TLV. Consequently, a
centralized controller would be able to reconstruct and analyze the
state of the particular multicast distribution tree based on HTS
packets collected from egress nodes.
5. IANA Considerations
TBD
6. Security Considerations
Nodes that practice HTS method are presumed to share a trust model
that depends on the existence of a trusted relationship among nodes.
This is necessary as these nodes are expected to correctly modify the
specific content of the data in the follow-up packet, and the degree
to which HTS measurement is useful for network operation depends on
this ability. In practice, this means either confidentiality or
integrity protection cannot cover those portions of messages that
contain the network state data. Though there are methods that make
it possible in theory to provide either or both such protections and
still allow for intermediate nodes to make detectable yet
authenticated modifications, such methods do not seem practical at
present, particularly for protocols that used to measure latency and/
or jitter.
The ability to potentially authenticate and/or encrypt the network
state data for scenarios both with and without the participation of
intermediate nodes that participate in HTS measurement is left for
further study.
While it is possible for a supposed compromised node to intercept and
modify the network state information in the follow-up packet, this is
an issue that exists for nodes in general - for all data that to be
carried over the particular networking technology - and is therefore
the basis for an additional presumed trust model associated with an
existing network.
7. Acknowledgments
Authors express their gratitude and appreciation to Joel Halpern for
the most helpful and insightful discussion on the applicability of
HTS in a Service Function Chaining domain.
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
8. References
8.1. 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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
"Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-07 (work in progress), September 2019.
[P4.INT] "In-band Network Telemetry (INT)", P4.org Specification,
October 2017.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Hybrid Two-Step October 2019
Wang Lingqiang
ZTE Corporation
No 19 ,East Huayuan Road
Beijing 100191
P.R.China
Phone: +86 10 82963945
Email: wang.lingqiang@zte.com.cn
Guo Zhui
ZTE Corporation
No 19 ,East Huayuan Road
Beijing 100191
P.R.China
Phone: +86 10 82963945
Email: guo.zhui@zte.com.cn
Mirsky, et al. Expires April 10, 2020 [Page 11]