IPPM H. Song, Ed.
Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track T. Zhou
Expires: December 14, 2019 Z. Li
Huawei
J. Shin
SK Telecom
K. Lee
LG U+
June 12, 2019
Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry
draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-04
Abstract
The Postcard-Based Telemetry (PBT) allows network OAM applications to
collect telemetry data about any user packet. Unlike the E2E and
trace modes in in-situ OAM (IOAM), PBT does not require user packets
to carry any telemetry data, but directly exports the telemetry data
from network nodes to a collector through separated OAM packets
called postcards. Two variations of PBT, PBT-I and PBT-M, are
described. PBT-I requires inserting an instruction header to user
packets to guide the data collection. PBT-I is designed as another
mode of IOAM, Per-Hop Postcard (PHP), to complement the existing
operational modes of IOAM. PBT-M only marks the user packets or
configure the flow filter to invoke the data collection. PBT-M also
provides a complement to IOAM and address several implementation and
deployment challenges of it.
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 December 14, 2019.
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
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
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. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PBT-M: Postcard-based Telemetry with Packet Marking . . . . . 5
2.1. New Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Solution Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. New Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Considerations on PBT-M Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.1. Packet Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.2. Flow Path Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.3. Packet Identity for Export Data Correlation . . . . . 9
2.5. Avoid Packet Marking through Node Configuration . . . . . 9
3. PBT-I: Postcard-based Telemetry with Instruction Header . . . 10
3.1. Solution Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. PHP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Postcard Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Motivation
In order to gain detailed data plane visibility to support effective
network OAM, it is important to be able to examine the trace of user
packets along their forwarding paths. Such on-path flow data reflect
the state and status of each user packet's real-time experience and
provide valuable information for network monitoring, measurement, and
diagnosis.
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
The telemetry data include but not limited to the detailed forwarding
path, the timestamp/latency at each network node, and, in case of
packet drop, the drop location and reason. The emerging programmable
data plane devices allow user-defined data
collection[I-D.song-opsawg-dnp4iq] or conditional data collection
based on trigger events. Such on-path flow data are from and about
the live user traffic, which complement with the data acquired
through other passive and active OAM mechanisms such as IPFIX
[RFC7011] and ICMP [RFC2925].
In-band Network Telemetry (INT) was designed to cater this need (note
that although INT has been widely used, the term "in-band" here does
not comply with IETF's definition. "on-path" or "in-situ" may be more
accurate terms). in-situ OAM (IOAM)
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements] represents the related
standardization efforts. In essence, INT augments user packets with
instructions to tell each network node on their forwarding paths what
data to collect. The requested data are inserted into and travel
along with the user packets. Some end nodes are responsible to strip
off the data trace and export it to a data collector for processing.
While the concept is simple and straightforward, INT faces several
technical challenges:
o Issue 1: INT header and data processing needs to be done in data
plane fast path. It may interfere with the normal traffic
forwarding (e.g., leading to forwarding performance degradation)
and lead to inaccurate measurements (e.g., resulting in longer
latency measurements than usual). This undesirable "observer
effect" is problematic to carrier networks where stringent SLA
must be observed.
o Issue 2: INT may significantly increase the user packet's original
size by adding the instruction header and data at each traversed
node. The longer the forwarding path and the more the data
collected, the larger the packet will become. The size may exceed
the path MTU so either INT cannot apply or the packet needs to be
fragmented. Limiting the data size or path length reduces the
effectiveness of INT. On the other hand, the INT header and data
can be deeply embedded in a packet due to various transport
protocol and tunnel configurations. The required deep packet
header inspection and processing may be infeasible to some data
plane fast path where only a limited number of header bytes are
accessible.
o Issue 3: INT requires attaching an instruction header to user
packets to inform network nodes what types of data to collect.
Due to the header overhead constraint and hardware-friendly
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
consideration, TLV is undesirable for data type encoding.
Instead, IOAM use a bitmap where each bit indicates one pre-
defined data type [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. However, new use
cases may require new data types. The current allocated 16-bit
bitmap limits the data type scalability. The proposed bitmap
extension in [I-D.song-ippm-ioam-data-extension] provides a method
to support more data types but it also increases the IOAM header
size.
o Issue 4: INT header needs to be encapsulated into user packets for
transport. [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport] has discussed
several encapsulation approaches for different transport
protocols. However, it is difficult to encapsulate extra header
in MPLS and IPv4 networks which happens to be the most widely
deployed and where the path-associated telemetry data is most
wanted by operators. The proposed NVGRE encapsulation for IPv4 in
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport] requires a tunnel to be built
between each pair of nodes which may be unrealistic for plain IP
networks.
o Issue 5: The INT header and data are vulnerable to eavesdropping
and tampering as well as DoS attack. Extra protective measurement
is difficult on the fast data path.
o Issue 6: Since INT only exports the telemetry data at the
designated end node, if the packet is dropped in the network, the
data will be lost as well. It cannot pinpoint the packet drop
location which is required for fault diagnosis. Even worse, the
end node may not be aware of the lost of packet at all.
The above issues are inherent to the INT-based solutions.
Nevertheless, the on-path data acquired by INT are valuable for
network operators. Therefore, alternative approaches which can
collect the same data but avoid or mitigate the above issues are
desired. This document provides a new approach named Postcard-Based
Telemetry (PBT) with two different implementation variations, each
having its own trade-off and addressing some or all of the above
issues. The basic idea of PBT is simple: at each node, instead of
inserting the collected data into the user packets, the data are
directly exported through dedicated OAM packets. Such "postcard"
approach is in contrast to the "passport stamps" approach adopted by
INT [DOI_10.1145_2342441.2342453]. The OAM packets or postcards can
be generated by the node's slow path and transported in band or out
of band, independent of the original user packets.
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
2. PBT-M: Postcard-based Telemetry with Packet Marking
This section describes the first variation of PBT. PBT-M aims to
address all the challenges of INT listed above and introduce some new
benefits. We first list all the design requirements of PBT-M.
2.1. New Requirements
o Req. 1: We should avoid augmenting user packets with new headers
or introducing new data plane protocols. This helps to alleviate
or eliminate the issue 1, 2, 4, and 5. We expect the OAM data
collecting signaling remains in data plane. Simple packet marking
techniques suffice to serve this purpose. It is also possible to
configure the OAM data collecting from the control plane.
o Req. 2: We should make the scheme extensible for collecting
arbitrary new data to support possible future use cases. The data
set to be collected is preferred to be configured through
management plane or control plane. Since there is no limitation
on the types of data, any custom data including those generated by
DNPs [I-D.song-opsawg-dnp4iq] can be collected. Since there is no
size constraints any more, it is free to use the more flexible
data set template for data type definition. This addresses the
issue 2 and 3.
o Req. 3: We should avoid interfering the normal forwarding and
affecting the forwarding performance when conducting data plane
OAM tasks. Hence, the collected data are better to be transported
independently by dedicated OAM packets through in-band or out-of-
band channels. The data collecting, processing, assembly,
encapsulation, and transport are therefore decoupled from the
forwarding of the corresponding user packets and can be performed
in data plane slow path if necessary. This addresses the issue 1,
4, and 5.
o Req. 4: The data collected from each node is not necessarily
identical, depending on application requirements and node
capability. Data for different operation modes can be collected
at the same time. These requirements are either impossible or
very difficult to be supported by INT in which data types
collected per node are supposed to be identical and for a single
mode.
o Req. 5: The flow's path-associated data can be sensitive and the
security concerns need to be carefully addressed. Sending OAM
data with independent packets also makes it easy to secure the
collected data without exposing it to unnecessary entities. For
example, the data can be encrypted before being sent to the
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
collector so passive eavesdropping and man-in-the-middle attack
can both be deterred. This addresses the issue 5.
o Req. 6: Even if a user packet under inspection is dropped in
network, the OAM data that have been collected should still be
exported and help to diagnose the packet drop location and reason.
This addresses the issue 6.
2.2. Solution Description
In light of the above discussion, the sketch of the proposed
solution, PBT-M, is as follows. The user packet, if its path-
associated data need to be collected, is marked at the path head
node. At each PBT-aware node, if the mark is detected, a postcard
(i.e., the dedicated OAM packet triggered by a marked user packet) is
generated and sent to a collector. The postcard contains the data
requested by the management plane. The requested data are configured
by the management plane through data set templates (as in IPFIX
[RFC7011]). Once the collector receives all the postcards for a
single user packet, it can infer the packet's forwarding path and
analyze the data set. The path end node is configured to unmark the
packets to its original format if necessary.
The overall architecture of PBT-M is depict in Figure 1.
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
+------------+ +-----------+
| Network | | Telemetry |
| Management |(-------| Data |
| | | Collector |
+-----:------+ +-----------+
: ^
:configurations |postcards (OAM pkts)
: |
...............:.....................|........
: : : | :
: +---------:---+-----------:---+--+-------:---+
: | : | : | : |
V | V | V | V |
+------+-+ +-----+--+ +------+-+ +------+-+
usr pkts | Head | | Path | | Path | | End |
====>| Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>
| | | A | | B | | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
gen postcards gen postcards gen postcards gen postcards
mark usr pkts unmark usr pkts
Figure 1: Architecture of PBT-M
2.3. New Challenges
Although PBT-M solves the issues of INT, it introduces a few new
challenges.
o Challenge 1: A user packet needs to be marked in order to trigger
the path-associated data collection. Since we do not want to
augment user packets with any new header fields (i.e., Req. 1), we
must reuse some bit from existing header fields.
o Challenge 2: Since the packet header will not carry OAM
instructions any more, the data plane devices need to be
configured to know what data to collect. However, in general, the
forwarding path of a flow packet (due to ECMP or dynamic routing)
is unknown beforehand. Configuring the data set for each flow at
all data plane devices is expensive in terms of configuration load
and data plane resources.
o Challenge 3: Due to the variable transport latency, the dedicated
OAM packets for a single packet may arrive at the collector out of
order or be dropped in networks for some reason. In order to
infer the packet forwarding path, the collector needs some
information from the OAM packets to identify the user packet
affiliation and the order of path node traversal.
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
2.4. Considerations on PBT-M Design
To address the above challenges, we propose several design details of
PBT-M.
2.4.1. Packet Marking
To trigger the path-associated data collection, usually a single bit
from some header field is sufficient. While no such bit is
available, other packet marking techniques are needed. we discuss
three possible application scenarios.
o IPv4. IPFPM [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] is an IP flow performance
measurement framework which also requires a single bit for packet
coloring. The difference is that IPFPM does in-network
measurement while PBT only collects and exports data at network
nodes (i.e., the data analysis is done at the collector rather
than in the network nodes). IPFPM suggests to use some reserved
bit of the Flag field or some unused bit of the TOS field.
Actually, IPFPM can be considered a subcase of PBT so the same bit
can be used for PBT. The management plane is responsible to
configure the actual operation mode.
o SFC NSH. The OAM bit in NSH header can be used to trigger the
path-associated data collection [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]. PBT does not
add any other metadata to NSH.
o MPLS. Instead of choosing a header bit, we take advantage of the
synonymous flow label [I-D.bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels]
approach to mark the packets. A synonymous flow label indicates
the path-associated data should be collected and forwarded through
a postcard.
2.4.2. Flow Path Discovery
By default, all PBT-aware nodes are configured to react to the marked
packets by exporting some basic data such as node ID and TTL before a
data set template for that flow is configured. This way, the
management plane can learn the flow path dynamically.
If the management plane wants to collect the path-associated data for
some flow, it configures the head node(s) with a probability or time
interval for the flow packet marking. When the first marked packet
is forwarded in the network, the PBT-aware nodes will export the
basic data to the collector. Hence, the flow path is identified. If
other types of data need to be collected, the management plane can
further configure the data set template to the target nodes on the
flow's path. The PBT-aware nodes would collect and export data
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
accordingly if the packet is marked and a data set template is
present.
If for any reason, the flow path is changed. The new path nodes can
be learned immediately by the collector, so the management plane
controller can be informed to configure the new path nodes. The
outdated configuration can be automatically timed out or explicitly
revoked by the management plane controller.
2.4.3. Packet Identity for Export Data Correlation
The collector needs to correlate all the OAM packets for a single
user packet. Once this is done, the TTL (or the timestamp, if the
network time is synchronized) can be used to infer the flow
forwarding path. The key issue here is to correlate all the
postcards for a same user packet.
The first possible approach is to include the flow ID plus the user
packet ID in the OAM packets. The flow ID can be the 5-tuple IP
header of the user traffic. The user packet ID can be some unique
information pertaining to a user packet (e.g., the sequence number of
a TCP packet).
If the packet marking interval is large enough, then the flow ID
itself is enough to identify the user packet. That is, we can assume
all the exported OAM packets for the same flow during a short period
of time belong to the same user packet.
Alternatively, if the network is synchronized, then the flow ID plus
the timestamp at each node can also infer the postcard affiliation.
However, some errors may occur under some circumstances. For
example, if two consecutive user packets from the same flows are both
marked but one exported postcard from a node is lost, then it is
difficult for the collector to decide which user packet the remaining
postcard belongs to. In many cases, such rare error has no
catastrophic consequence therefore is tolerable.
2.5. Avoid Packet Marking through Node Configuration
It is possible to avoid needing to mark user packets yet still
allowing in-band flow data collection. We could simply configure the
Access Control List (ACL) to filter out the set of target flows.
This approach has two potential issues: (1) Since the packet
forwarding path is unknown in advance, one needs to configure all the
nodes in a network to filter the flows and capture the complete data
set. This wastes the precious ACL resource and is not scalable. (2)
If a node cannot collect data for all the filtered packets of a flow,
it needs to determine which packets to sample independently, so the
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
collector may not be able to receive the full set of postcards for a
same user packet.
Nevertheless, since this approach does not require to touch the user
packets at all, it has its unique merits: (1) User can freely choose
any nodes as vantage points for data collection; (2) No need to worry
that any "modified" user packets to leak out of the PBT domain; (3)
It has the minimum impact to the forwarding of the user traffic.
No data plane standard is required to support this mode, except the
postcard format.
3. PBT-I: Postcard-based Telemetry with Instruction Header
Since PBT-M has some challenges as listed in Section 2.3, this
section describes another variation of PBT, which essentially
compromises some of the design requirements listed in Section 2.1,
yet retains most of the benefits of PBT.
PBT-I can be seen as a trade-off between INT and PBT-M. PBT-I needs
to add a fixed length instruction header to user packets for OAM data
collection. However, the collected data will be exported through
dedicated postcards. On the one hand, PBT-I violates the Req. 1 in
Section 2.1. It also makes it harder to meet the Req. 2. On the
other hand, the overhead of the instruction header is fixed and user
packets will not inflate with path length or telemetry data quantity.
We also introduce an optimization to mitigate the impact on Req. 2.
In return, PBT-I addresses all the challenges of PBT-M:
o There is no need to find an existing header field to mark a user
packet. PBT-I is purposely made another mode of IOAM, Per-Hop
Postcard (PHP). The PHP header use the same encapsulation method
for IOAM. So far, the IOAM header encapsulation methods have been
defined for several protocols, including IPv6, VXLAN-GPE, NSH,
SRv6 [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport],[I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh],
GENEVE [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-geneve], and GRE
[I-D.weis-ippm-ioam-gre]. [I-D.song-mpls-extension-header]
describes the approach to encapsulate the instruction header into
MPLS packets.
o There is no need to configure the nodes about the data to be
collected since the data set information is carried in the
instruction header. The data set representation is identical to
that of the trace modes of IOAM.
o The PHP header contains enough information to help correlate the
OAM packets belonging to a user packets. Even better, new fields
are added to track the flow and the packet, so any packet under
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
inspection can be easily identified even in tunnels and the
collector can easily check if any user packet under inspection or
its OAM data packet is missing.
3.1. Solution Description
The sketch of the proposed solution, PBT-I, is as follows. If the
path-associated data need to be collected for a user packet, a PHP
header is inserted into the packet at the path head node. At each
PBT-aware node, if PHP header is detected, a postcard is generated
and sent to a collector. Once the collector receives all the
postcards for a single user packet, it can combine and analyze the
data set. The path end node is configured to remove the PHP header.
The overall architecture of PBT-I is depict in Figure 2. Note that
in the figure we omit the controller which configures the nodes for
necessary functions (e.g., head node encapsulation) and information
(e.g., IP address of the data collector).
+-----------+
| Telemetry |
| Data |
| Collector |
+-----------+
^
|postcards (OAM pkts)
|
|
|
+--------------+------+-------+--------------+
| | | |
| | | |
+---+----+ +---+----+ +---+----+ +---+----+
usr pkts | Head | | Path | | Path | | End |
====>| Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>
| | | A | | B | | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
insert PHP Hdr remove PHP Hdr
gen postcards gen postcards gen postcards gen postcards
Figure 2: Architecture of PBT-I
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
3.2. PHP Header
The proposed format of PHP Header is shown in Figure 3.
0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3
0 7 8 5 6 3 4 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace ID | Flags | Hop Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow ID (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: PHP Header Format
o Namespace ID: the same as that defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
o Flags: Extended to 9 bits from 4 bits defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The defined flags keeps the same
definition as in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
o Hop Count: the 8-bit Hop Count field. If it is initialized to 0,
it means the field is unused and its value remains to 0 at each
hop. If it is initialized to 1, it is used to count the hops of
the PBT-aware nodes and its value is incremented by 1 at each PBT-
aware node. The value is saturated at 127. Hop Count provides a
convenient approach to order the postcards from the same user
packets and help identify if any postcard is missing, in case the
TTL data is absent from collected data set or nonconsecutive.
Note that the data collector cannot tell whether or not some
postcards are missing with nonconsecutive TTL values.
o IOAM-Trace-Type: the same as that defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
o Flow ID: the 32-bit flow ID field. If the actual flow ID is
shorter than 32 bits, it is right aligned with the leading bits
being filled with 0. The field is set at the head node. The flow
ID can be uniformly assigned by the central controller or
algorithmically generated by the head node. The latter approach
cannot guarantee the uniqueness of flow ID, yet the conflict
probability is small due to the large flow ID space. Flow ID
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
provides a convenient approach to correlate the postcards from the
same flow.
o Sequence Number: the 32-bit sequence number starting from 0 and
increasing by 1 for each following monitored packet from the same
flow at the head node. Sequence Number, when combining with Flow
ID, provides a convenient approach to correlate the postcards from
the same user packet.
Both Flow ID and Sequence Number fields are optional. These two
fields are either present or absent simultaneously. Therefore, the
PHP header length can be either 8 bytes or 16 bytes, which is
indicated by the upper layer encapsulation header. Making these two
fields optional is to cater the need of minimizing the header
overhead in case the postcard correlation can still be achieved
without the help of flow ID and Sequence Number.
4. Postcard Format
Postcard can use the same data export format as that used by IOAM.
[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport] proposes a raw format that can be
interpreted by IPFIX.
5. Security Considerations
Several security issues need to be considered.
o Eavesdrop and tamper: the postcards can be encrypted and
authenticated to avoid such security threats.
o DoS attack: PBT can be limited to a single administration domain,
or the enforce mark or instruction header are checked at the
domain edge. The node can rate limit the extra traffic incurred
by postcards.
6. IANA Considerations
An IOAM Mode ID for PHP needs to be assigned.
7. Contributors
TBD.
8. Acknowledgments
We thank Barak Gafni, Mickey Spiegel, Frank Brockners, Zhenqiang Li,
and others for reviewing and commenting the earlier version of the
draft.
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
9. Informative References
[DOI_10.1145_2342441.2342453]
Handigol, N., Heller, B., Jeyakumar, V., MaziA(C)res, D.,
and N. McKeown, "Where is the debugger for my software-
defined network?", Proceedings of the first workshop on
Hot topics in software defined networks - HotSDN '12,
DOI 10.1145/2342441.2342453, 2012.
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Dara, S., Pignataro, C.,
Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mozes, D., Mizrahi,
T., Lapukhov, P., and r. Chang, "Requirements for In-situ
OAM", draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-03 (work in
progress), March 2017.
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes,
D., Lapukhov, P., and R. Chang, "Encapsulations for In-
situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-05
(work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-geneve]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes,
D., Lapukhov, P., and R. Chang, "Geneve encapsulation for
In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-geneve-01
(work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels]
Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., Mirsky, G., Chen,
M., and Z. Li, "RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels", draft-
bryant-mpls-synonymous-flow-labels-01 (work in progress),
July 2015.
[I-D.clemm-netconf-push-smart-filters-ps]
Clemm, A., Voit, E., Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Zhou, T.,
Zheng, G., and H. Birkholz, "Smart filters for Push
Updates - Problem Statement", draft-clemm-netconf-push-
smart-filters-ps-00 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L.,
Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid
performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-14 (work
in progress), December 2017.
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
[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., and d. daniel.bernier@bell.ca, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-00 (work in
progress), September 2017.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel]
Zheng, G., Zhou, T., and A. Clemm, "UDP based Publication
Channel for Streaming Telemetry", draft-ietf-netconf-udp-
pub-channel-01 (work in progress), November 2017.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, A., Voit, E., Prieto, A., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-
Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel, "YANG Datastore
Subscription", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-12 (work in
progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes,
D., Lapukhov, P., and R. Chang, "NSH Encapsulation for In-
situ OAM Data", draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-00 (work in
progress), May 2018.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]
Quinn, P., Elzur, U., and C. Pignataro, "Network Service
Header (NSH)", draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-28 (work in progress),
November 2017.
[I-D.sambo-netmod-yang-fsm]
Sambo, N., Castoldi, P., Fioccola, G., Cugini, F., Song,
H., and T. Zhou, "YANG model for finite state machine",
draft-sambo-netmod-yang-fsm-00 (work in progress), October
2017.
[I-D.song-ippm-ioam-data-extension]
Song, H. and T. Zhou, "In-situ OAM Data Type Extension",
draft-song-ippm-ioam-data-extension-00 (work in progress),
October 2017.
[I-D.song-ippm-ioam-tunnel-mode]
Song, H., Li, Z., Zhou, T., and Z. Wang, "In-situ OAM
Processing in Tunnels", draft-song-ippm-ioam-tunnel-
mode-00 (work in progress), June 2018.
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
[]
Song, H., Li, Z., Zhou, T., and L. Andersson, "MPLS
Extension Header", draft-song-mpls-extension-header-01
(work in progress), August 2018.
[I-D.song-opsawg-dnp4iq]
Song, H. and J. Gong, "Requirements for Interactive Query
with Dynamic Network Probes", draft-song-opsawg-dnp4iq-01
(work in progress), June 2017.
[I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport]
Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R.
Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX",
draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-01 (work in progress),
October 2018.
[I-D.talwar-rtgwg-grpc-use-cases]
Specification, g., Kolhe, J., Shaikh, A., and J. George,
"Use cases for gRPC in network management", draft-talwar-
rtgwg-grpc-use-cases-01 (work in progress), January 2017.
[I-D.weis-ippm-ioam-gre]
Weis, B., Brockners, F., crhill@cisco.com, c., Bhandari,
S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., Leddy, J.,
Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Lapukhov,
P., and M. Spiegel, "GRE Encapsulation for In-situ OAM
Data", draft-weis-ippm-ioam-gre-00 (work in progress),
March 2018.
[RFC2925] White, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote
Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations", RFC 2925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2925, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2925>.
[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>.
[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>.
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Postcard-Based Telemetry June 2019
Authors' Addresses
Haoyu Song (editor)
Futurewei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, 95050
USA
Email: hsong@futurewei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Road
Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Jongyoon Shin
SK Telecom
South Korea
Email: jongyoon.shin@sk.com
Kyungtae Lee
LG U+
South Korea
Email: coolee@lguplus.co.kr
Song, et al. Expires December 14, 2019 [Page 17]