[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

ippm                                                        R. Geib, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                          Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: Standards Track                          March 11, 2019
Expires: September 12, 2019


               A Connectivity Monitoring Metric for IPPM
               draft-geib-ippm-connectivity-monitoring-00

Abstract

   Segment Routed measurement packets can be sent along pre-determined
   paths.  This allows new kinds of measurements.  Connectivity
   monitoring allows to supervise the state of a connection or a
   (sub)path from one or a few central monitoring systems.  This
   document specifies a suitable type-P connectivity monitoring metric.

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 September 12, 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.



Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  A brief segment routing connectivity monitoring framework . .   3
   3.  Singleton Definition for Type-P-Path-Connectivity-and-
       Congestion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Metric Units  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Defintion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.5.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.6.  Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.7.  Errors and Uncertainties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.8.  Reporting the Metric  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Segment Routing enables sending measurement packets along pre-
   determined segment routed paths [RFC8402].  A segment routed path may
   consist of pre-determined sub paths down to specific router-
   interfaces.  It may also consist of sub paths spanning multiple
   routers, given that all segments to address a desired path are
   available and known at the SR domain edge interface.

   A Path Monitoring System or PMS (see [RFC8403]) is a dedicated rather
   central Segment Routing domain monitoring device (as compared to a
   distributed monitoring approach based on router data and functions
   only).  Monitoring individual sub-paths or point-to-point connections
   is executed for different purposes.  IGP routing exchanges hello
   messages between neighbors to keep alive routing and switfly adapt to
   changes.  Network Operators may be interested in monitoring
   connectivity and lasting congestion of interfaces or sub-paths at a
   higher timescale,e.g., on the order of seconds.  This is still
   significantly faster than interface monitoring based on router
   information, which may be collected on a minute timescale to reduce
   the CPU load caused by monitoring.

   The IPPM architecture was a first step to that direction [RFC2330].
   Commodity IPPM solutions require dedicated measurement systems, a
   large number of measurement agents and synchronised clocks.
   Monitoring a domain from edge to edge by commodity IPPM solutions



Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


   helps to increase scalability of the monitoring system, but
   localising a source cause of a detected change in network behaviour
   then may require network tomography methods.

   A Segment Routing PMS which is part of an SR domain is IGP topology
   aware, covering the IP and (if present) the MPLS layer topology
   [RFC8402].  This enables to design a PMS which can steer packets
   along arbitrary pre-determined concatenated sub-paths, identified by
   suitable segments.  Combining the SR measurement path configuration
   with a priori network tomography assumptions and methods allows for
   localisation of detected changes.  The latter requires setting up
   multiple measurement paths which share sub-paths following the
   constraints derived from network tomography, and a suitable
   evaluation.

   This document specifies a type-p metric determining properties of an
   SR path which allows to monitor connectivity and congestion of
   interfaces and further allows to locate the connection or interface
   which caused a change in the reported type-p metric.  This document
   is focussed on the MPLS layer, but the methodolgy may be applied
   within SR doamins or MPLS domains in general.

1.1.  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].

2.  A brief segment routing connectivity monitoring framework

   The Segment Routing IGP topology information consists of the IP and
   (if present) the MPLS layer topology.  The minimum SR topology
   information are Node-Segment-Identifiers (Node-SID), identifying an
   SR router.  The IGP exchange of Adjacency-SIDs [I-D.draft-ietf-isis-
   segment-routing-extensions], which identify local interfaces to
   adjacent nodes, is optional.  It is RECOMMENDED to distribute Adj-
   SIDs in a domain operating a PMS to monitor connectivity as specified
   below.  If Adj-SIDs aren't availbale, [RFC8029] provides methods how
   to steer packets along desired paths by the proper choice of an MPLS
   Echo-request IP-destination address.  A detailed description of
   [RFC8029] methods as a replacement of Adj-SIDs is out of scope of
   this document.

   A round trip measurement between two adjacent nodes is a simple
   method to monitor connectivity of a connecting link.  If multiple
   links are operational between two adjacent nodes and only a single
   one fails, a single plain round trip measurement may fail to identify
   which link has failed.  A round trip measurement also fails to



Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


   identify which inteface is congested, even if only a single link
   connects two adjacent nodes.

   Segment Routing enables the set-up of extended measurement loops.
   Several different measurement loops can be set up.  If these form a
   partial overlay, any change in the network properties impacts more
   than a single loops round trip time (or drops packets of more than
   one loop).  An randomly chosen paths may fail to produce unique
   result patterns.  A centralised monitoring approach further benefits
   from keeping the number of measurement loops low, as this improves
   scalability one hand and keeps the number of results to be evaluated
   and correlated low.

   Segment Routing enables the set-up of extended measurement loops.
   Several different measurement loops can be set up.  If these form a
   partial overlay, any change in the network properties impacts more
   than a single loops round trip time (or drops packets of more than
   one loop).  An randomly chosen paths may fail to produce unique
   result patterns.  A centralised monitoring approach further benefits
   from keeping the number of measurement loops low, as this improves
   scalability one hand and keeps the number of results to be evaluated
   and correlated low.

   An example SR domain is shown below.  The PMS shown should monitor
   the connectivity of all 6 links between nodes L100 and L200 one one
   side and the connected nodes L050, L060 and L070 on the other side.
   The round trip times per measurement loop are assumed to exhibit
   unique delays.


      +---+   +----+     +----+
      |PMS|   |L100|-----|L050|
      +---+   +----+\   /+----+
        |    /    \  \_/_____
        |   /      \  /      \+----+
     +----+/        \/_  +----|L060|
     |L300|         /  |/     +----+
     +----+\       /   /\_
            \     /   /   \
             \+----+ /   +----+
              |L200|-----|L070|
              +----+     +----+

   Connectivity verification with a PMS

                                 Figure 1





Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


   The SID values are picked for convenient reading only.  Node-SID: 100
   identifies L100, Node-SID: 300 identifies L300 and so on.  Adj-SID
   10050: Adjacency L100 to L050, Adj-SID 10060: Adjacency L100 to L060,
   Adj-SID 60200: Adjacency L60 to L200

   This requires 6 measurement paths, each of which has the following
   properties:

   o  It follows a single round trip from one Ln00 to one L0m0 (e.g.,
      between L100 and L050).

   o  It passes two more links between that Ln00 one more L0m0 and the
      other Ln00 (e.g., between L100 and L060 and then L060 to L200)

   o  Every link is passed by a single round trip per measurement loop
      only once and only once unidirectional by two other loops, and the
      latter two pass along opposing directions (that's three loops
      passing each single link, e.g., one having a round trip L100 to
      L050 and back, a second passing L100 to L050 only and a third loop
      passing L050 to L100 only).

   This results in 6 measurement loops for the given example (the start
   and end of each measurement loop is PMS to L300 to L100 or L200 and a
   similar sub-path on the return leg.  It is ommitted here for
   brevity):

   1.  L100 -> L050 -> L100 -> L060 -> L200

   2.  L100 -> L060 -> L100 -> L070 -> L200

   3.  L100 -> L070 -> L100 -> L050 -> L200

   4.  L200 -> L050 -> L200 -> L060 -> L100

   5.  L200 -> L060 -> L200 -> L070 -> L100

   6.  L200 -> L070 -> L200 -> L050 -> L100

   The measurement loops set up as shown have the following properties:

   o  Any single complete loss of connectivity caused by a failing
      single link briefly between any Ln00 and any L0m0 node disturbs
      (and changes the measured delay) of three loops.

   o  Whereas any congested single interface between any Ln00 and any
      L0m0 node only impacts the measured delay of two measurement
      loops.




Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


   A closer look reveals that each single event of interest for the
   proposed metric, which are a loss of connectivity or a case of
   congestion, uniquely only impacts a single a-priori determinable set
   of measurement loops.  If, e.g., connectivity is lost between L200
   and L050, measurement loops (3), (4) and (6) indicate a change in the
   measured delay.

   As a second example, if the interface L070 to L100 is congested,
   measurement loops (3) and (5) indicate a change in the measured
   delay.  Without listing all events, all cases of single losses of
   connectivity or single events of congestion influence only delay
   measurements of a unique set of measurement loops.

3.  Singleton Definition for Type-P-Path-Connectivity-and-Congestion

3.1.  Metric Name

   Type-P-Path-Connectivity-and-Congestion

3.2.  Metric Parameters

   o  Src, the IP address of a source host

   o  Dst, the IP address of a destination host if IP routing is
      applicable; in the case of MPLS routing, a diagnostic address as
      specified by [RFC8029]

   o  T, a time

   o  lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds

   o  L, a packet length in bits.  The packets of a Type P packet stream
      from which the sample Path-Connectivity-and-Congestion metric is
      taken MUST all be of the same length.

   o  MLA, a Monitoring Loop Address information ensuring that a
      singleton passes a single sub-path_a to be monitored
      bidirectional, a sub-path_b to be monitored unidirectional and a
      sub-path_c to be monitored unidirectional, where sub-path_a, -_b
      and -_c MUST NOT be identical.

   o  P, the specification of the packet type, over and above the source
      and destination addresses

   o  DS, a constant time interval between two type-P packets






Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


3.3.  Metric Units

   A sequence of consecutive time values.

3.4.  Defintion

   A moving average of AV time values per measurement path is compared
   by a change point detection algorithm.  The temporal packet spacing
   value DS represents the smallest period within which a change in
   connectivity or congestion may be detected.

   A single loss of connectivity of a sub-path between two nodes affects
   three different measurement paths.  Depending on the value chosen for
   DS, packet loss might occur (note that the moving average evaluation
   needs to span a longer period than convergence time; alternatively,
   packet-loss visible along the three measurement paths may serve as an
   evaluation criterium).  After routing convergence the type-p packets
   along the three measurement paths show a change in delay.

   A congestion of a single interface of a sub-path connecting two nodes
   affects two different measurement paths.  The the type-p packets
   along the two congested measurement paths show an additional change
   in delay.

3.5.  Discussion

   Detection of a multiple losses of monitored sub-path connectivity or
   congestion of a multiple monitored sub-paths may be possible.  These
   cases have not been investigated, but may occur in the case of Shared
   Risk Link Groups.  Monitoring Shared Risk LinkGroups and sub-paths
   with multiple failures abd congestion is not within scope of this
   document.

3.6.  Methodologies

   For the given type-p, the methodology is as follows:

   o  The set of measurement paths MUST be routed in a way that each
      single loss of connectivity and each case of single interface
      congestion of one of the sub-paths passed by a type-p packet
      creates a unique pattern of type-p packets belonging to a subset
      of all configured measurement paths indicate a change in the
      measured delay.  As a minimum, each sub-path to be monitored MUST
      be passed

   o





Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


      *  by one measurement_path_1 and its type-p packet in
         bidirectional direction

      *  by one measurement_path_2 and its type-p packet in "downlink"
         direction

      *  by one measurement_path_3 and its type-p packet in "uplink"
         direction

   o  "Uplink" and "Downlink" have no architectural relevance.  The
      terms are chosen to express, that the packets of
      measurement_path_2 and measuremnt_path_3 pass the monitored sub-
      path unidirectional in opposing direction.  Measuremnt_path_1,
      measurement_path_2 and measurement_path_3 MUST NOT be identical.

   o  All measurement paths SHOULD terminate between identical sender
      and receiver interfaces.  It is recommended to connect the sender
      and receiver as closely to the paths to be monitored as possible.
      Each intermediate sub-path between sender and receiver one one
      hand and sub-paths to be monitored is an additional source of
      errors requiring separate monitoring.

   o  Segment Routed domains supporting Node- and Adj-SIDs should enable
      the monitoring path set-up as specified.  Other routing protocols
      may be used as well, but the monitoring path set up might be
      complex or impossible.

   o  Pre-compute how the two and three measurement path delay changes
      correlate to sub-path connectivity and congestion patterns.
      Absolute change valaues aren't required, a simultaneous change of
      two or three particular measurement paths is.

   o  Ensure that the temporal resolution of the measurement clock
      allows to reliably capture a unique delay value for each
      configured measurement path while sub-path connectivity is
      complete and no congestion is present.

   o  Synchronised clocks are not strictly required, as the metric is
      evaluating differences in delay.  Changes in clock synchronisation
      SHOULD NOT be close to the time interval within which changes in
      connectivity or congestion should be monitored.

   o  At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and address
      information to route the type-p packet along one of the configured
      measurement path.  Form a test packet of Type-P with these
      addresses.

   o  Configure the Dst host access to receive the packet.



Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


   o  At the Src host, place a timestamp, a sequence number and a unique
      identifier of the measurement path in the prepared Type-P packet,
      and send it towards Dst.

   o  Capture the one-way delay and determine packet-loss by the metrics
      specified by [RFC7679] and [RFC7680] respectively and store the
      result for the path.

   o  If two or three subpaths indicate a change in delay, report a
      change in connectivity or congestion status as pre-computed above.

   o  If two or three sub paths indicate a change in delay, report a
      change in connectivity or congestion status as pre-computed above.

   Note that monitoring 6 sub paths requires setting up 6 monitoring
   paths as shown in the figure above.

3.7.  Errors and Uncertainties

   Sources of error are:

   o  Measurement paths whose delays don't indicate a change after sub-
      path connectivity changed.

   o  A timestamps whose resolution is missing or inacurrate at the
      delays measured for the different monitoring paths.

   o  Multiple occurrences of sub path connectivity and congestion.

   o  Loss of connectivity and congestion along sub-paths connecting the
      measurement device(s) with the sub-paths to be monitored.

3.8.  Reporting the Metric

   The metric reports loss of connectivity of monitored sub-path or
   congestion of an interface and identifies the sub-path and the
   direction of traffic in the case of congestion.

4.  IANA Considerations

   If standardised, the metric will require an entry in the IPPM metric
   registry.

5.  Security Considerations

   This draft specifies how to use methods specified or described within
   [RFC8402] and [RFC8403].  It does not introduce new or additional SR




Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


   features.  The security considerations of both references apply here
   too.

6.  References

6.1.  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>.

   [RFC7679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
              Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
              (IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.

   [RFC7680]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
              Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics
              (IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>.

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
              "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.

   [RFC8403]  Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N.
              Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane
              Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>.







Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                 March 2019


Author's Address

   Ruediger Geib (editor)
   Deutsche Telekom
   Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7
   Darmstadt  64295
   Germany

   Phone: +49 6151 5812747
   Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de









































Geib                   Expires September 12, 2019              [Page 11]


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