[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01

V6OPS Working Group                                          G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft                                            Telecom Italia
Intended status: Standards Track                         G. Van de Velde
Expires: December 7, 2018                                          Nokia
                                                             M. Cociglio
                                                          Telecom Italia
                                                                P. Muley
                                                                   Nokia
                                                            June 5, 2018


       IPv6 Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
                 draft-fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark-01

Abstract

   This document describes how the alternate marking method in [RFC8321]
   can be used as the passive performance measurement method in an IPv6
   domain, and will discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of the
   implementation options available to network operations.  It proposes
   how to extend [RFC7837] to apply alternate marking technique.

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 7, 2018.







Fioccola, et al.        Expires December 7, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              IPv6 PM with AMM                   June 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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.  IPv6 application of Alternate Marking . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  IPv6 Extension Headers as Marking Field . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Other Possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  IPv6 Addresses as Marking Field . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.2.  IPv6 Flow Label as Marking Field  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Alternate Marking Method Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Single Mark Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Double Mark Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   This document reports a summary on the possible implementation
   options for the application of the alternate marking method in an
   IPv6 domain.

   [RFC8321] describes passive performance measurement method, which can
   be used to measure packet loss, latency and jitter on live traffic.
   Because this method is based on marking consecutive batches of
   packets the method often referred as Alternate Marking Method.

   This document defines how the alternate marking method can be used to
   measure packet loss and delay metrics of IPv6 tunneled packets or
   SRv6 policies.



Fioccola, et al.        Expires December 7, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              IPv6 PM with AMM                   June 2018


   The IPv6 Header Format defined in [RFC8200] introduces the format of
   IPv6 addresses, the Extension Headers in the base IPv6 Header and the
   availability of a 20-bit flow label, that can be considered for the
   application of the Alternate Marking methodology.

2.  IPv6 application of Alternate Marking

   The application of the alternate marking requires a marking field.
   The alternatives that can be taken into consideration for the choice
   of the marking field are the following:

   o  Extension Header

   o  IPv6 Address

   o  Flow Label

2.1.  IPv6 Extension Headers as Marking Field

   A new type of EH may be a solution space proposal (e.g.  [RFC8250]
   and [RFC7837] give a chance).

   A possibility can be to use a Hop-By-Hop(HBH) Extension Header(EH).
   The assumption is that a HBH EH with an alternate marking measurement
   option can be defined.  The router processing can be optimized to
   handle this use case.

   Using a new EH assumes that ALL routers in the domain support this
   type of headers, which complicates backward compatibility of the
   technology.  The extension of an existing EH (e.g.  [RFC7837]) can
   overcome this issue.




















Fioccola, et al.        Expires December 7, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              IPv6 PM with AMM                   June 2018


    0                   1                   2
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  | Option Length |X|L|E|C| MF|res|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Mark Field (MF) is:

    0
    0   1
   +-+-+-+-+
   | S | D |
   +-+-+-+-+

             Figure 1: ConEx HBH Option Layout with Mark Field

   where:

   o  S - Single mark method;

   o  D - Double mark method.

   The Figure 1 defines a new ConEx HBH (Hop-By-Hop) Option Layout.

   This proposal starts from ConEx Destination Option Layout defined in
   [RFC7837], where the Reserved (res) field is made by four bits that
   are not used in that specification, in fact they are set to zero by
   the sender and are ignored by the receiver.

   This document aims to introduce the Mark Field (2 bits from 4 bits
   res field).  So the Mark Field (MF) reduces the number of Reserved
   bits and the Reserved (res) field is now made by 2 bits.

   It is important to highlight that the Destination Option Layout is
   used as Hop-By-Hop Option Layout, since the alternate marking
   methodology in [RFC8321] allows, by definition, Hop-By-Hop
   performance measurements.

   [I-D.krishnan-conex-ipv6] also tried to introduce a ConEx HBH Options
   and inspired this proposal.

   [I-D.fear-ippm-mpdm] introduces Marking Performance and Diagnostic
   Metrics (M-PDM) and aims to combine [RFC8250] with [RFC8321], while
   the extension of [RFC7837], proposed in this document, is optimized
   to include only marking method without any considerations on how to
   report and manage, this can be done in-band or out-of-band depending
   on the case.



Fioccola, et al.        Expires December 7, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              IPv6 PM with AMM                   June 2018


2.2.  Other Possibilities

   This section reports the other possibilities that have been
   discussed.

2.2.1.  IPv6 Addresses as Marking Field

   There is an advantage of using destination addresses (DA) to encode
   the alternate marking method.  In addition to identifying a host, a
   destination address is also and more fundamentally identifying an
   exit point from the forwarding domain.  It indicates where processing
   for forwarding to the DA stops, and where other processing of the
   packet is to occur.  Using the DA to encode this alternate marking
   processing means that it is easy to retrofit into existing devices
   and models.  There is no need to replace existing IPv6 forwarding
   devices, because they already support DA based forwarding.

   However using DA for marking seems a lot expensive.

2.2.2.  IPv6 Flow Label as Marking Field

   Considering the Flow Label, [RFC6294] makes a survey of Proposed Use
   Cases for the IPv6 Flow Label.  The flow label is an immutable field
   recommended to contain a pseudo-random value, however, often it has
   the default value of zero.  [RFC6436] and [RFC6437] open the door for
   IPv6 Flow Label to be used in a controlled environment and [RFC6438]
   describes the use of the IPv6 Flow Label field for load distribution
   purpose, especially across Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and/or Link
   Aggregation Group (LAG) paths.  In addition it is possible to mention
   [I-D.krishnan-6man-header-reserved-bits] that tried to set aside 4
   bits from the flow label field for future expansion.

   There are few drawbacks to use Flow Label instead of an EH solution
   or IPv6 Addresses for IPv6 alternate marking, in particular an easier
   backward compatibility and less bits on the wire.  In this way
   nothing breaks if a transit router does not have the capability of
   understanding the Flow Label context.

   Since the flow-label based load balancing has been defined, the
   application of the Alternate Marking method to the flow label could
   be realised with two fundamental assumptions:

   o  The original flow-label reconstructed when leaving the controlled
      domain.

   o  The usage of IPv6 tunnels (IPv6inIPv6, IPSec, IPv6 UDP, etc..) or
      SRv6 policies.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires December 7, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              IPv6 PM with AMM                   June 2018


   In this case, the controlled domain reflects to the fact that it is a
   network operator choice that grabs control of packet handling within
   its own network.  In fact, regarding the flow label, four options can
   be supposed:

      1) Just do not do anything with Flow Label (leave it default).

      2) Entropy only and NO alternate marking for performance
      measurements.

      3) Alternate marking only and NO usage of entropy.

      4) Alternate marking and entropy (in this case the entropy SHOULD
      be based upon a subset of bits because otherwise paths may be
      changed when the marking changes).

3.  Alternate Marking Method Operation

   [RFC8321] describes in detail the methodology, that we briefly
   illustrate also here.

3.1.  Single Mark Measurement

   As explained in the [RFC8321], marking can be applied to delineate
   blocks of packets based either on equal number of packets in a block
   or based on equal time interval.  The latter method offers better
   control as it allows better account for capabilities of downstream
   nodes to report statistics related to batches of packets and, at the
   same time, time resolution that affects defect detection interval.

   If the Single Mark measurement used, then the D flag MUST be set to
   zero on transmit and ignored by monitoring point.

   The S flag is used to create alternate flows to measure the packet
   loss by switching value of the S flag.  Delay metrics MAY be
   calculated with the alternate flow using any of the following
   methods:

   o  First/Last Batch Packet Delay calculation: timestamps are
      collected based on order of arrival so this method is sensitive to
      packet loss and re-ordering.

   o  Average Packet Delay calculation: an average delay is calculated
      by considering the average arrival time of the packets within a
      single block.  This method only provides single metric for the
      duration of the block and it doesn't give information about the
      delay distribution.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires December 7, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              IPv6 PM with AMM                   June 2018


3.2.  Double Mark Measurement

   Double Mark method allows more detailed measurement of delays for the
   monitored flow but it requires more nodal and network resources.  If
   the Double Mark method used, then the S flag MUST be used to create
   the alternate flow.  The D flag MUST be used to mark single packets
   to measure delay jitter.

   The first marking (S flag alternation) is needed for packet loss and
   also for average delay measurement.  The second marking (D flag is
   put to one) creates a new set of marked packets that are fully
   identified and dedicated for delay.  This method is useful to have
   not only the average delay but also to know more about the statistic
   distribution of delay values.

4.  Security Considerations

   tbc

5.  IANA Considerations

   tbc

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Fred Baker, Ole Troan, Robert Hinden,
   Suresh Krishnan, Brian Carpenter, Roberta Maglione, Tom Herbert, Mark
   Smith, Joel Halpern, Fernando Gont, Xiaohu Xu and Joel Jaeggli for
   their comments and feedbacks.

7.  References

7.1.  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>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.fear-ippm-mpdm]
              Elkins, N., Fioccola, G., and m. mackermann@bcbsm.com,
              "IPv6 Marking and Performance and Diagnostic Metrics
              (MPDM)", draft-fear-ippm-mpdm-00 (work in progress), June
              2018.





Fioccola, et al.        Expires December 7, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              IPv6 PM with AMM                   June 2018


   [I-D.krishnan-6man-header-reserved-bits]
              Krishnan, S. and J. Halpern, "Reserving bits in the IPv6
              header for future use", draft-krishnan-6man-header-
              reserved-bits-00 (work in progress), October 2010.

   [I-D.krishnan-conex-ipv6]
              Krishnan, S., Kuehlewind, M., and C. Ucendo, "Options for
              Conex marking in IPv6 packets", draft-krishnan-conex-
              ipv6-02 (work in progress), March 2011.

   [RFC6294]  Hu, Q. and B. Carpenter, "Survey of Proposed Use Cases for
              the IPv6 Flow Label", RFC 6294, DOI 10.17487/RFC6294, June
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6294>.

   [RFC6436]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., and S. Jiang, "Rationale for
              Update to the IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6436,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6436, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6436>.

   [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.

   [RFC6438]  Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
              for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
              Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.

   [RFC7837]  Krishnan, S., Kuehlewind, M., Briscoe, B., and C. Ralli,
              "IPv6 Destination Option for Congestion Exposure (ConEx)",
              RFC 7837, DOI 10.17487/RFC7837, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7837>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8250]  Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
              Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
              Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.








Fioccola, et al.        Expires December 7, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              IPv6 PM with AMM                   June 2018


   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Giuseppe Fioccola
   Telecom Italia
   Torino
   Italy

   Email: giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it


   Gunter Van de Velde
   Nokia
   Antwerp
   BE

   Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com


   Mauro Cociglio
   Telecom Italia
   Torino
   Italy

   Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it


   Praveen Muley
   Nokia
   Mountain View
   USA

   Email: praveen.muley@nokia.com













Fioccola, et al.        Expires December 7, 2018                [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/