IPPM T. Zhou, Ed.
Internet-Draft G. Fioccola
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: July 8, 2022 Y. Liu
China Mobile
S. Lee
LG U+
M. Cociglio
Telecom Italia
W. Li
Huawei
January 04, 2022
Enhanced Alternate Marking Method
draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-08
Abstract
This document extends the IPv6 Alternate Marking Option, defined in
IPv6 AltMark Option [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark], to provide the
enhanced capabilities and allow advanced functionalities.
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 July 8, 2022.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires July 8, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking January 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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. Data Fields Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] and Multipoint Alternate Marking
[RFC8889] define the Alternate Marking technique that is an hybrid
performance measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of
measurement methods. This method is based on marking consecutive
batches of packets and it can be used to measure packet loss,
latency, and jitter on live traffic.
IPv6 AltMark Option [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark] applies the
Alternate Marking Method to the IPv6 protocol, and defines Extension
Header Option to encode Alternate Marking Method for both Hop-by-Hop
Options Header and Destination Options Header. Similarly, SRv6
AltMark [I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark] defines how Alternate Marking
data is carried as SRH TLV.
While the AltMark Option implements the basic alternate marking
method, this document defines the extended data fields for the
AltMark Option and provides the enhanced capabilities.
It is worth mentioning that the enhanced capabilities are intended
for further use and are optional.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires July 8, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking January 2022
2. Data Fields Format
The Data Fields format is represented in the next figure. An 8 bits
NextHeader field is allocated from the Reserved field of IPv6 AltMark
Option [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark].
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
+---------------------------------------+-+-+---+---------------+
| FlowMonID |L|D| R | NextHeader |
+---------------------------------------+-+-+---+---------------+
Fig. 1: Data fields indicator for enhanced capabilities
The NextHeader field is used to indicate the extended data fields
which are used for enhanced capabilities. When the NextHeader is
0x00, there is no extended data field attached. Value 1-8 are
reserved for private use.
The following figure shows the extended data fields format when the
NextHeader value is 0x09.
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
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| FlowMonID Ext | Flag | Len | R |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| MetaInfo | Padding |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 2: Data fields extension for enhanced alternate marking
where:
o FlowMonID Ext - 20 bits unsigned integer. This is used to extend
the FlowMonID to reduce the conflict when random allocation is
applied. The disambiguation of the FlowMonID field is discussed
in IPv6 AltMark Option [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark].
o Flag - A 4 bits flag to indicate the special purpose usage.
o Len - Length. It indicates the length of extension headers.
o MetaInfo - A 16 bits Bitmap to indicate more meta data attached
for the enhanced function.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires July 8, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking January 2022
o R - Reserved for further use. These bits MUST be set to zero.
o Padding - These bits MUST be set to zero when not being used.
The Flag is defined as follows:
o bit 0 - Measurement mode, M bit. M=0, indicates that it is for
hop-by-hop monitoring. M=1, indicates that it is for end-to-end
monitoring.
o bit 2 - Flow direction identification, F bit. This flag is used
in the case backward direction flow monitoring is requested to set
up automatically. F=1, indicates that the flow direction is
forward. F=0, indicates the flow direction is backward.
o others - Reserved.
0 1 2 3
+-------+
|M|R|F|R|
+-------+
Fig. 3: Flag data field
The MetaInfo is defined as a bit map as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---------------+
| MetaInfo |
+---------------+
Fig. 4: MetaInfo data field
o bit 0: indicates a 6 bytes Timestamp is attached after the
MetaInfo. Timestamp(s) stands for the second part. It will
overwrite the Padding after MetaInfo. Timestamp(ns) stands for
the subsecond part with the unit of nano second. This Timestamp
is filled by the encapsulation node, and is taken all the way to
the decapsulation node. So that all the intermediate nodes could
compare it with its local time, and measure the one way delay.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires July 8, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking January 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
+-------------------------------+
| Timestamp(s) |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Timestamp(ns) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 5: Timestamp data field
o bit 1: indicates the control information with the following data
format is attached
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
+---------------+---------------+-----------+-------------------+
| DIP Mask | SIP Mask | Control | Period |
+---------------+---------------+-----------+-------------------+
Fig. 6: Control words for backward direction flow monitoring
This is used to set up the backward direction flow monitoring.
Where:
* DIP Mask: is the length of the destination IP prefix.
* SIP Mask: is the length of the source IP prefix.
* Control: indicates more match fields to set up the backward
direction flow monitoring.
* Period: indicates the alternate marking period with the unit of
second.
o bit 2: indicates a 4 bytes Sequence number with the following data
format is attached after the MetaInfo
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
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sequence |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 7: Sequence number data field
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires July 8, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking January 2022
3. Security Considerations
IPv6 AltMark Option [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark] analyzes different
security concerns and related solutions. These aspects are valid and
applicable also to this document. In particular the fundamental
security requirement is that Alternate Marking MUST be applied in a
specific limited domain, as also mentioned in [RFC8799].
4. IANA Considerations
This document has no request to IANA.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., and M. Cociglio, "Segment Routing
Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method", draft-
fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-01 (work in progress), July 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-12 (work in progress),
October 2021.
[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>.
5.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires July 8, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking January 2022
[RFC8889] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto,
"Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and
Hybrid Performance Monitoring", RFC 8889,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8889, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8889>.
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
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Shinyoung Lee
LG U+
71, Magokjungang 8-ro, Gangseo-gu
Seoul
Republic of Korea
Email: leesy@lguplus.co.kr
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires July 8, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking January 2022
Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
Weidong Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: poly.li@huawei.com
Zhou, Ed., et al. Expires July 8, 2022 [Page 8]