IPPM Working Group H. Wang
Internet Draft S. Weng
Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: August 28, 2022 C. Lin
New H3C Technologies
March 4, 2022
Distributed Flow Measurement in IPv6
draft-wang-ippm-ipv6-distribted-flow-measurement-00
Abstract
Flow measurement based on Alternate-Marking method for IPv6 network
requires the controller to collect statistical data, calculate and
present the results. This document proposes a distributed method for
in-situ flow measurement, which is indpendent of the controller.
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28 2022.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
1.1. Requirements Language .................................. 3
2. Requirement scenarios ....................................... 3
3. End-to-end measurement ...................................... 5
4. Hop-by-hop measurement ...................................... 5
5. Extension to the Flow Monitor Option ........................ 6
5.1. Previous cycle count bit (bit1) ........................ 6
5.2. Packet time stamp bit (bit2) ........................... 6
6. Measurement information and result notification ............. 7
6.1. Data format ............................................ 7
6.1.1. Base data structure ............................... 8
6.1.2. Packet count TLV .................................. 8
6.1.3. Time Stamp TLV .................................... 9
6.1.4. Packet loss TLV .................................. 10
6.1.5. Packet delay TLV ................................. 11
6.1.6. Average Packet loss TLV .......................... 11
6.1.7. Average Packet delay TLV ......................... 12
6.2. Transport channel ..................................... 13
6.2.1. Independent control protocol ..................... 13
6.2.2. Extend BGP Protocol .............................. 14
6.2.3. Reverse traffic .................................. 14
7. Application of measurement results ......................... 14
8. IANA Considerations ........................................ 15
9. Security Considerations .................................... 15
10. References ................................................ 16
10.1. Normative References ................................. 16
Authors' Addresses ............................................ 17
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
1. Introduction
[draft-wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement] describes how to measure the
network by carrying the detection data in the traffic in the IPv6
network based on Alternate-Marking.
The nodes participating in the measurement need to collect message
statistics, timestamp and other information, report the collected
data to the controller through telemetry and other methods, and the
controller calculates the packet loss and delay of each flow.
Based on the basic method of [draft-wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-
measurement], this document proposes a flow measurement without the
participation of the controller. The nodes involved in the
measurement calculate the network metrics such as packet loss and
delay Distributed.
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. Requirement scenarios
The method described in [draft-wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement]
requires the controller to summarize the data collected by each node
and then calculate the final measurement result. In some practical
scenarios, this method could not meet the requirements of
measurement well.
o Scenario1:
For the customers who have high requirements for SLA such as banks
and finance, this method cannot meet the customers well. Firstly,
each participating measuring node reports to the controller, and
then the centralized controller calculates the path quality, and
then the controller notifies the source node to schedule the path of
traffic. The whole processing path is too long and it is difficult
to guarantee the SLA requirements of customers in this way
o Scenario2:
For the transport network with multiple AS and multi-level
controllers, one inter-as controller is deployed and one intra-as
controller is deployed for each AS typically.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
Inter-as controller programs end-to-end paths, but do not manage
network devices. Each intra-as controller only manages devices in
its own AS and is not aware of the entire end-to-end path.
Therefore, the measurement data will be reported to the intra-as
controller by the measurement node, but the final data needs to be
summarized, calculated and presented on the centralized inter-as
controller. This will cause the interaction between different levels
of controllers to be too complex.
+-------+
inter-as controller-->| |
+-------+
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Intra-as +------+ / \ +-------+
controller -->| |---+ +---| |
+------+ +-------+
/ | \ / | \
/ : \ / : \
/ | \ / | \
+-----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
| / | \ | | / | \ |
| +----+ +----+ +----+ | | +----+ +----+ +----+ |
| | +-----+ +---+ +- -------+ +----+ +----+ | |
| +----+ +----+ +----+ | | +----+ +----+ +----+ |
+-----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
AS100 AS200
Figure 1: reference topology of multiple level controller
o Scenario3:
For some networks may not have the conditions or requirements to
deploy controllers, but they also hope to use the technology of flow
measurement to measure and present the quality of traffic forwarding
path.
In order to meet the requirement of these scenarios, this document
proposes a distributed flow measurement, which does not depend on
the controller. All the nodes participating in the measurement
complete the measurement, and finally the measurement results can be
used on the source node for fast intelligent routing, simplifying
operation and maintenance, and optimize the experience.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
3. End-to-end measurement
For end-to-end measurement, there are two working models, which are
suitable for different scenarios.
o Source node model:
The source node completes the summary and calculation of statistical
data.
The source node inserts the required flow measurement data into the
specified traffic, and marks the traffic according to [draft-wang-
ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement]. The end node collects the statistical
data and time stamp, the collected information is periodically
notified to the source node, which completes the calculation of the
measurement results.
In this model, the source node undertakes the work of the controller
and can count the data measured by the traffic through source node.
o End node model:
The end node is responsible for calculating measurement result. In
addition to marking the traffic, the source node also needs to carry
additional information through the flow monitor option. For example,
in order to measure packet loss, the traffic count of the source
node in the previous cycle need to be carried in the flow monitor
option, packet delay measurement requires the source node to carry a
timestamp when marking the D bit.
Through this information, the end node could calculate the packet
loss and delay stream on the flow. Furthermore, the average packet
loss and delay could be calculated. All the result could be send to
the corresponding source node.
This model is suitable for the scenario of one source node vs
multiple end nodes, such as multicast. It can reduce the calculation
pressure of the source node and transfer the workload to each end
node
4. Hop-by-hop measurement
Hop-by-hop measurement requires that intermediate nodes also
participate in data collection, so only the source node model should
be used.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
5. Extension to the Flow Monitor Option
Refer to [draft-wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement], the additional
information required by the end node model can be carried by
extending Ext FM type
Define the corresponding bit and data format for the packet count of
previous cycle and time stamp.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|1|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Ext FM type extension
5.1. Previous cycle count bit (bit1)
This bit indicates the flow monitor option carries the packet count
of the source node in the previous cycle. The end node can calculate
the packet loss data according to this value in combination with the
locally recorded count.
The data format is shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ PacketCount(64bits) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: PacketCount data format
o packetCount 64bits Packet count of the previous cycle of the
source node.
5.2. Packet time stamp bit (bit2)
This bit indicates the flow monitor option carries the timestamp set
by the source node, which is the time when the source node receives
the packet. The end node could calculate the packet delay according
to this value in combination with the packet receiving time of end
node.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
The data format is shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ TimestampSecond(64bit) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ TimestampNanoSecond(64bit) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: timestamp data format
o TimestampSecond: 64bits, Integer value of the second part from
1970 to the time when the message is received.
o TimestampNanoSecond:64bits, Integer value of the nanosecond part
from 1970 to the time of receiving the message.
6. Measurement information and result notification
For the source node model, the measurement data of the intermediate
node and the end node need to be sent to the corresponding source
node.
For the end node model, the end node needs to send the calculated
measurement results to the corresponding source node
The address of the original node is obtained through the outer
encapsulation source address of the packet carrying the monitor
data. The notification cycle of collection data or results can be
according to the measurement cycle or the configured cycle.
6.1. Data format
The notification data structure includes a base data structure and
multiple data structures defined through TLV.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
6.1.1. Base data structure
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NodeMonID | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Base data format
The fields are defined as following:
o NodeMonID: A 20 bits field, which is consistent with the
definition in flow monitor option.
o Length: A 12 bits field, Length of the notification data in 4-
octet units, not including the first 4 octets
6.1.2. Packet count TLV
This TLV is used to notify packet count to source node and is used
in the source node model. The tlv is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Flags | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FlowMonID | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PeriodID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ PacketCount(64bit) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: packet count TLV
o Type: A one-octet field. Value 1 will be register in IANA.
o Flags: A one-octet field.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
o Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Value field
in octets.
o FlowMonID: A 20 bits field, which is consistent with the
definition in flow monitor option.
o PeriodID: A 4 Octets period ID of the packet count
o PacketCount: A 8 Octets packet count in the period received by
node.
6.1.3. Time Stamp TLV
This TLV is used to notify time stamp to source node and is used in
the source node model. The tlv is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Flags | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FlowMonID | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PeriodID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ TimestampSecond(64bit) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ TimestampNanoSecond(64bit) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: time stamp TLV
o Type: A one-octet field. Value 2 will be register in IANA.
o Flags: A one-octet field.
o Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Value field
in octets.
o FlowMonID: A 20 bits field, which is consistent with the
definition in flow monitor option.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
o PeriodID: A 4 Octets period ID of the packet count
o TimestampSecond: 64bits, Integer value of the second part from
1970 to the time when the message is received.
o TimestampNanoSecond:64bits, Integer value of the nanosecond part
from 1970 to the time of receiving the message.
6.1.4. Packet loss TLV
This TLV is used to notify measurement of packet loss to source node
and is used in the end node model. The tlv is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Flags | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FlowMonID | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PeriodID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ PacketLoss(64bit) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: packet count TLV
o Type: A one-octet field. Value 3 will be register in IANA.
o Flags: A one-octet field.
o Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Value field
in octets.
o FlowMonID: A 20 bits field, which is consistent with the
definition in flow monitor option.
o PeriodID: A 4 Octets period ID of the packet count
o PacketLoss: A 8 Octets count of packet loss in the period
specified by periodID.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
6.1.5. Packet delay TLV
This TLV is used to notify measurement of packet delay to source
node and is used in the end node model. The tlv is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Flags | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FlowMonID | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PeriodID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ packetDelay(64bit ) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: time stamp TLV
o Type: A one-octet field. Value 4 will be register in IANA.
o Flags: A one-octet field.
o Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Value field
in octets.
o FlowMonID: A 20 bits field, which is consistent with the
definition in flow monitor option.
o PeriodID: A 4 Octets period ID of the packet count
o packetDelay: 64bits field of nanosecond, which is the packet
delay in the period specified by peroidID.
6.1.6. Average Packet loss TLV
This TLV is used to notify measurement of average packet loss to
source node and is used in the end node model. The tlv is defined as
follows:
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Flags | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FlowMonID | Periods |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ AveragePacketLoss(64bit) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Average packet loss TLV
o Type: A one-octet field. Value 3 will be register in IANA.
o Flags: A one-octet field.
o Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Value field
in octets.
o FlowMonID: A 20 bits field, which is consistent with the
definition in flow monitor option.
o Periods A 12 bits field, which identifies the number of periods
used to calculate the average packet loss
o AveragePacketLoss: A 8 Octets count of packet loss in the period
specified by periodID.
6.1.7. Average Packet delay TLV
This TLV is used to notify measurement of average packet delay to
source node and is used in the end node model. The tlv is defined as
follows:
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Flags | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FlowMonID | Periods |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ AveragePacketDelay(64bit ) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: Average packet delay TLV
o Type: A one-octet field. Value 5 will be register in IANA.
o Flags: A one-octet field.
o Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Value field
in octets.
o FlowMonID: A 20 bits field, which is consistent with the
definition in flow monitor option.
o Periods A 12 bits field, which identifies the number of periods
used to calculate the average packet delay. The number of periods
used to calculate the average value could base on the capacity or
configuration of the end node
o AveragePacketDelay: 64bits field of nanosecond, which is the
Average Packet delay in the past periods.
6.2. Transport channel
The following methods can be considered for the channel of data and
result notification:
6.2.1. Independent control protocol
Notify the source node of the statistical results or collection data
through an independent controller protocol. This document considers
using UDP as the transport layer.
A Specific UDP port will be registered in IANA in the future for
distributed flow measurement, or the UDP port number can be
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
distributed on each node through configuration, Such as CLI and
NETCONF.
6.2.2. Extend BGP Protocol
For end-to-end measurement type, only source and end nodes are
involved. In the scenario where BGP is deployed, the collection data
or result can be carried by extending BGP protocol.
This method requires a new definition of BGP measurement address
family, which is used to publish measurement data and measurement
results. This method will be discussed in detail in subsequent
versions of this document.
6.2.3. Reverse traffic
This method is only applicable to end-to-end measurement type too.
The end node could carry the collection data and results to the
source node through reverse data flow.
This method will be discussed in detail in subsequent versions of
this document.
7. Application of measurement results
Using the distributed flow measurement method described in this
document, the source node can obtain the quality result of the
actual traffic forwarding path faster. According to different actual
needs, the source node could present the measurement results and
optimize the path based on the measurement results, and more other
application.
As illustrated in the figure below, in the srv6 scenario, the
traffic from CE1 to CE2 requires the SLA of low delay. There are two
paths on PE1 to form a primary-slave relationship,
Path1: PE1->P1->P2->P3->CE2
Path2: PE1->P4->P5->P6->CE2
Path1 is the primary path.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
* +----+ +----+ +----+
* +----+ P1 +----+ P2 +-------+ P3 +........
* | +----+ +----+ +----+ :
* | * :
* | * :
* | * :
+----+ +----+ * +----+
+ CE1+.....+ PE1+ * + CE2+
+----+ +----+ * +----+
* | * :
* | +----+ +----+ +----+ :
* +----+ P4 +------+ P5 +------+ P6 +......:
* +----+ +----+ +----+
* *
* * * * * * SRv6 domain * * * * * * *
Figure 12: reference topology
The distributed flow measurement function can be deployed to measure
the quality of the path. PE1, as the source node of the measurement,
adopts the tail node mode. The end nodes P3 and P6 complete the
calculation of the measurement results and notify PE1
When PE1 finds out that the delay of path 1 exceeds the threshold,
it can immediately start the switching between the primary and
standby paths, switch the traffic to the standby path, and send an
alarm message.
More kinds of applications based on measure results on source nodes
are not in the scope of this document
8. IANA Considerations
TBD
9. Security Considerations
The potential security threats of Alternate-Marking method have been
described in detail in Section 9 of [RFC8321]. The performance
measurement method described in this document does not introduce
additional new security issues
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.wang-ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement]Wang, H.,Liu, Y., Lin, C.,
Xiao, M., "Flow Measurement in IPv6 Network", draft-wang-
ippm-ipv6-flow-measurement-00(work in progress), October
2021.
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M.,
Qin, F., and R.Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate
Marking Method",draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-08 (work in
progress), January 2022.
[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>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M.,
Castaldelli, L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T.
Mizrahi, "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022
Authors' Addresses
Haojie Wang
China Mobile
Beijing
Email: wanghaojie@chinamobile.com
CN
Sijun Weng
China Mobile
Beijing
CN
Email: wengsijun@chinamobile.com
Changwang Lin
New H3C Corporation
Beijing
China
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Wang, et al. Expire August, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Distributed flow measurement In IPv6 March 2022