IPPM T. Zhou, Ed.
Internet-Draft G. Fioccola
Intended status: Standards Track ZB. Li
Expires: December 22, 2019 Huawei
S. Lee
LG U+
M. Cociglio
Telecom Italia
ZQ. Li
China Mobile
June 20, 2019
Enhanced Alternate Marking Method
draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-02
Abstract
This document proposes several ways to encapsulate the alternate
marking field with enough space. More information can be considered
within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and
ease the deployment.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2019.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Encapsulation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Use the IOAM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Use the PostCard based Telemetry Header . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly . . . . . . . . 4
3. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry . . . . . . 4
4. Implementing Multipoint Alternate Marking . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. IOAM vs PBT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] technique is an hybrid performance
measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement
methods. It can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter
on live traffic. Because this method is based on marking consecutive
batches of packets.
For the basic Alternate Marking method, bits are needed to record the
mark. However, in some protocols, no additional bit can be used,
which blocks the wide deployment of the alternate marking technique.
And the basic Alternate Marking method is limited with the
scalability for further extension.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking June 2019
This document proposes several ways to encapsulate the alternate
marking field with enough space. More information can be considered
within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and
ease the deployment. Specifically, the flow identifier is applied as
an enhancement for the basic Alternate Marking when determining
packet loss and packet delay measurement. The flow identifier helps
the data plane to identify the specific flow, hence to do the
processing with respect to the Alternate Marking. It also simplifies
the export by directly being encapsulated as the index for the
associated metrics.
2. Encapsulation Considerations
2.1. Use the IOAM Data
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) defines a generic meta data structure to
records OAM information within user packets while the packets
traverse a network. The data types and data formats for IOAM data
records have been defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The IOAM
data can be embedded in many protocol encapsulations such as Network
Services Header, Segment Routing, and IPv6
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport].
The IOAM edge-to-edge option is to carry data that is added by the
IOAM encapsulating node and interpreted by IOAM decapsulating node.
It provide a bit map to indicate what is present in the data, so that
alternate marking filed can be included in the IOAM edge-to-edge
option. This provides a way for an end to end deployment for the
alternate marking method.
Since the IOAM edge-to-edge option data is not able to be interpreted
by the intermediate node, alternate marking method cannot be applied
within the path hop by hop with this encapsulation way.
2.2. Use the PostCard based Telemetry Header
The PostCard Base Telemetry (PBT)
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] is proposed to directly
exports the telemetry data to a collector through separated OAM
packets called postcards, while not require inserting telemetry data
into user packets. The alternate making data can also be
encapsulated in this option header. Different from the IOAM edge-to-
edge option, the PostCard based Telemetry facilitates the hop by hop
deployment of alternate marking method.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking June 2019
2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly
In addition to the previous ways which carry the alternate marking
filed within the existing generic OAM header. The alternate marking
field can also be encapsulate within the transport protocol directly
as an extension header or so. This may vary according to the
transport protocol.
3. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field
3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM
The IOAM-E2E-Type filed within the IOAM edge-to-edge option header is
a 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types are used in the
E2E option data. The IOAM-E2E-Type value is a bit field, in which
bit 0-3 are currently defined by [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. So one
bit from bit 4-15 can be used to indicate the presence of data used
for alternate marking.
The alternate marking data is a 8-octet field 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
+-+-+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
|L|D| Reserved | FlowID |
+-+-+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
| FlowID(contd) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
where:
o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321];
o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321];
o FlowID - 6-octet unsigned integer. Flow identifier field is to
uniquely identify a monitored flow within the in-situ OAM domain.
The field is set at the engress node. The FlowID can be uniformly
assigned by the central controller or algorithmically generated by
the engress node. The latter approach cannot guarantee the
uniqueness of FlowID, yet the conflict probability is small due to
the large FlowID space.
3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry
The following figures sho ws a proposed change to the Telemetry
Information Header (TIH) [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry].
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking June 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
+---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+
| Next Header | TIH Length | Reserved |L|D| Hop Count |
+---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+
This proposes to use the two bits from the Reserved field from the
Telemetry Information Header.
Where:
o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321];
o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321].
The Data Element Bitmap defined in the TIH is an 31-bit bitmap
indicating the list of required data elements. One not used bit from
the Data Element Bitmap can be used to indicate the presence of the
marking bits, and trigger the statistic process.
4. Implementing Multipoint Alternate Marking
There are some considerations to do on how to manage the general
Multipoint Alternate Marking application in order to get more
adaptable performance measurement.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark] introduces the network clustering
approach for Alternate Marking: the network clusters partition can be
done at different levels to perform the needed degree of detail. The
Network Management can use an intelligent strategy: it can start
without examining in depth, and, in case of problems (i.e. measured
packet loss or too high delay), various filtering criteria can be
specified in order to perform a detailed analysis by using different
combination of clusters or, at the limit, a per-flow measurement.
4.1. IOAM vs PBT
Both IOAM and PBT can easily include the base Alternate Marking
method. But the more general implementation of Multipoint Alternate
Marking, described in [I-D.ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark], needs a
centralized Data Collector and Network Management to allow the
intelligent and flexible Alternate Marking algorithm. For this
purpose, the PostCard based Telemetry Header can really be useful.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] introduces the architecture
to directly export the telemetry data from network nodes to a
collector through separated OAM packets called postcards.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking June 2019
The overall architecture of PBT and the closed loop between Nodes,
Telemetry Data Collector and Network Management enables exactly the
application of the network clustering approach for Alternate Marking.
5. Security Considerations
TBD
6. IANA Considerations
TBD
7. Acknowledgements
TBD
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>.
[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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[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.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking 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., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
"Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-05 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto,
"Multipoint Alternate Marking method for passive and
hybrid performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-
multipoint-alt-mark-01 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Shin, J., and K. Lee,
"Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song-
ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-04 (work in progress), June
2019.
Authors' Addresses
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei
Riesstrasse, 25
Munich 80992
Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking June 2019
Shinyoung Lee
LG U+
71, Magokjungang 8-ro, Gangseo-gu
Seoul
Republic of Korea
Email: leesy@lguplus.co.kr
Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires December 22, 2019 [Page 8]