[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Interdomain Routing Working Group                                 M. Liu
Internet-Draft                                                   Y. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: September 24, 2020                                      R. Pang
                                                            China Unicom
                                                          March 23, 2020


  BGP Flow Specification Extensions to Enable In-situ Flow Information
                            Telemetry (IFIT)
                     draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04

Abstract

   BGP Flowspec mechanism propogates both traffic Flow Specifications
   and Traffic Filtering Actions by making use of the Border Gateway
   Protocol Network Layer Reachability Information (BGP NLRI) and the
   BGP Extended Community encoding formats.  In order to address the
   automatic deployment of IPv4 unicast and VPNv4 unicast on-path flow
   telemetry as well as IPv6 families, this document specifies a new BGP
   Extended Community named IFIT Action Specific Extended Community to
   distribute In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) actions.

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 September 24, 2020.






Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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.  Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IFIT Action Specific Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option sub-type  . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  IOAM Incremental Trace Option sub-type  . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  IOAM DEX Option sub-type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option sub-type . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.5.  Enhanced Alternate Marking Option sub-type  . . . . . . .   8
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   At present, a family of on-path flow telemetry techniques referred in
   [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework] are emerging, including In-situ OAM
   (IOAM) [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], Postcard-Based Telemetry (PBT)
   [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry], IOAM Direct Export (DEX)
   [I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export], Enhanced Alternate Marking
   (EAM) [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking]. we categorize these
   on-path telemetry echniques as the hybrid OAM type I according to the
   classification defined in [RFC7799].  These techniques provide flow
   information on the entire forwarding path on a per-packet basis in
   real time, which are useful for application-aware network operations
   not only in data center and enterprise networks but also in carrier
   networks which may cross multiple domains.  The data provided by on-



Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


   path telemetry are especially useful for network operations in
   aspects of SLA compliance, service path enforcement, fault diagnosis,
   and network resource optimization, etc.  In IFIT reflection-loop
   architecture [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework], an IFIT functionality
   needs to choose a suite of telemetry tecchniques and enable initial
   techniques to the data plane in accordance to the monitoring and
   measurement requirements.  Then the IFIT head nodes need to determine
   the target flows and packets to apply the IFIT-specific functions and
   the telemetry data sets.

   However, enabling only a single underlying on-path telemetry
   technique may lead to defective result.  A comprehensive solution
   needs the flexibility to switch between different underlying
   techniques and enable different IFIT option types to adapt to
   different network conditions and different application requirements.
   It's useful for application-aware network operations to enable
   desired IFIT option types to the target flows dynamically.

   As we know, Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
   [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] provides a protocol extension for
   propagation of traffic flow information for the purpose of rate
   limiting, filtering, shaping, classifying or redirecting.  And BGP
   extended community encoding formats can be used to propagate traffic
   filtering actions along with the flow specification NLRI.  Those
   traffic filtering actions encode actions a routing system can take if
   the packet matches the flow specifications.  And the other document
   [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6] extends BGP Flowspec
   [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] and to make it also usable and applicable
   to IPv6 data packets.

   From an operational perspective, the utilization of BGP Flowspec as
   the carrier for the specific flow information allows a network
   service provider to reuse BGP route distribute infrastructure.
   Therefore, this document defines the IFIT Action Specific Extended
   Community to enable the application of IPv4 unicast and VPNv4 unicast
   on-path flow telemetry as well as IPv6 families.

2.  Terminologies

   IFIT: In-situ Flow Information Telemetry

   NLRI: Network Layer Reachability Information

3.  Motivation

   The IFIT functionality, which enables the future autonomous network
   operation, will pick one of proper In-situ Flow Information Telemetry
   techniques and apply a flow, packet, and data selection policy to



Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


   monitor the specific traffic flow for application-aware network
   operation.  In current deployments, there have been relatively static
   methods, ACL-like CLI and NETCONF with YANG model to configure the
   specific flows or packets to be monitored on the relevant IFIT-
   capable nodes.  However, with the evolution of Intent-based and
   autonomous network operation, and the trends of network
   virtualization, network convergence, and packet-optical integration,
   the future data plane telemetry will support an on-demand and
   interactive fashion.  Flexibility and extensibility of telemetry data
   defining and acquiring must be considered.  Therefore, flexible
   deployment of IFIT option types based on the real-time telemetry data
   analysis results and telemetry requirements of different applications
   is needed.

   BGP Flowspec mechanism is preferred in the reflective-loop network
   telemetry system.  This document defines IFIT Action Specific
   Extended Community to enable IFIT functionality for the relevant
   flows that match the Traffic Flow Specifications along with the BGP
   NLRI defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] and
   [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6].  The IFIT Action Specific Extended
   Community instructs a routing system to add the IFIT-Option-Types
   into packets of flows and update relevant IFIT-Data-Fields in packets
   that traverse.

4.  IFIT Action Specific Extended Community

   This section defines a new BGP Extended Community and different sub-
   types in accordance with different IFIT option types.

   Traffic Filtering Actions that are standardized as BGP Extended
   Community, which is encoded as an 8-octet quantity containing Type
   field and Value field [RFC4360].  The Types are to be assigned by
   IANA registry.  The Value field contains Traffic Filtering Action
   values.

   In the IFIT framework architecture, there are a few of available
   option types for the specified traffic flow, e.g.  IOAM pre-
   allocated/incremental trace [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], IOM Edge-to-
   Edge [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], IOAM Direct Export (DEX)
   [I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export], Enhanced Alternate Marking
   (EAM) [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking], etc.  As different
   IFIT option types have different formats of parameters, following
   defines the Type and various sub-types of Extended Communities in
   accordance with different IFIT option types.

   o  Type tt: IFIT Action

   o  Sub-type ss1: IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option



Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


   o  Sub-type ss2: IOAM Incremental Trace Option

   o  Sub-type ss3: IOAM DEX Option

   o  Sub-type ss4: IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option

   o  Sub-type ss5: Enhanced Alternate Marking Option

   IFIT Action do not interfere with other BGP Flow Specification
   Traffic Filtering Action defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] and
   [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6].

   In the following sections, the different IFIT Action Specific Extened
   Communities encoding formats are presented.

4.1.  IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option sub-type

   The IOAM tracing data is expected to be collected at every node that
   a packet traverses to ensure visibility into the entire path a packet
   takes within an IOAM domain.  The pre-allocated tracing option will
   create pre-allocated space for each node to populate its information.

   The format of IOAM pre-allocated trace option Extended Community 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     |    Sub-type   |      NamespaceID              |
       +---------------------------------------------------------------+
       | Flags |          IOAM-Trace-Type                      |  Rsvd |
       +---------------------------------------------------------------+

    Fig. 1 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Extended Community Encoding

   Where:

   Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace.  The
   definition is the same as described in section 4.4
   of[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] .

   Flags: A 4-bit field.  The definition is the same as described in [I-
   D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags] and section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].




Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


   IOAM-Trace-Type: A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data types
   are used in the node data list.  The definition is the same as
   described in section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   Rsvd: A 4-bit field reserved for further usage.  It should be set to
   zero and must be ignored during decoding.

4.2.  IOAM Incremental Trace Option sub-type

   The incremental tracing option contains a variable node data fields
   where each node allocates and pushes its node data immediately
   following the option header.

   The format of IOAM incremental trace option Extended Community 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     |    Sub-type   |      NamespaceID              |
       +---------------------------------------------------------------+
       | Flags |          IOAM-Trace-Type                      |  Rsvd |
       +---------------------------------------------------------------+

     Fig. 2 IOAM Incremental Trace Option Extended Community Encoding

   Where:

   Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.

   All the other fields definistion is the same as the pre-allocated
   trace option Extended Community in section 3.2.1.

4.3.  IOAM DEX Option sub-type

   The DEX option is used as a trigger to export IOAM data to a
   collector.  Moreover, IOAM nodes may send exported data for all
   traversing packets that carry the DEX option, or may selectively
   export data only for a subset of these packets.  The DEX option
   specifies which data fields should be exported to the collector, as
   specified in Section 3.2 of [I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export].

   The format of IOAM DEX option Extended Community is defined as
   follows:





Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


           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     |    Sub-type   |      NamespaceID              |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+
      |             IOAM-Trace-Type                   |     Flags     |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+

            Fig. 3 IOAM DEX Option Extended Community Encoding

   Where:

   Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Namespace-ID: a 16-bit identifier of the IOAM namespace, as defined
   in section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   IOAM-Trace-Type: a 24-bit identifier which specifies which data
   fields should be exported.  The format of this field is as defined in
   section 4.4 of[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   Flags: A 8-bit field, comprised of 8 one-bit subfields.  Flags are
   allocated by IANA.

4.4.  IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option sub-type

   The IOAM edge to edge option is to carry data that is added by the
   IOAM encapsulating node and interpreted by IOAM decapsulating node.

   The format of IOAM edge-to-edge option Extended Community 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     |    Sub-type   |              Rsvd             |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+
      |          NamespaceID          |      IOAM-E2E-Type            |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+


        Fig. 4 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Extended Community Encoding

   Where:




Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


   Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace.  The
   definition is the same as described in section 4.6
   of[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   IOAM-E2E-Type: A 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types
   are used in the E2E option data.  The definition is the same as
   described in section 4.6 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   Rsvd: A 16-bit field reserved for further usage.  It should be set to
   zero.

4.5.  Enhanced Alternate Marking Option sub-type

   The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] technique is an hybrid performance
   measurement method and can be used to measure packet loss, latency,
   and jitter on live traffic because it is based on marking consecutive
   batches of packets.

   The Enhanced Alternate Marking (EAM)
   [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking] defines data fields for
   the alternate marking with enough space, in particular for Postcard-
   based Telemetry.  More information can be considered within the
   alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and ease the
   deployment.

   The format of EAM Option Extended Community 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     |    Sub-type   |          Rsvd                 |
        +---------------+---------------+-------+---------------+-------+
        |              FlowMonID                |     Period    |  Rsvd |
        +---------------------------------------+---------------+-------+


   Fig. 5 Enhanced Alternate Marking Option Extended Community Encoding

   Where:

   Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.




Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


   FlowMonID: A 20-bit identifier to uniquely identify a monitored flow
   within the measurement domain.  The definition is the same as
   described in section 2 of [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking].

   Period: A 8-bit field.  Time interval between two alternate marking
   period.  The unit is second.

   Rsvd: A 4-bit field reserved for further usage.  It should be set to
   zero.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests a new Transitive Extended Community Type and
   five new registery sub-types.  The new Transitive Extended Community
   Type name shall be "IFIT Action Extended Community (Sub-Types are
   defined in the "IFIT Action Extended Community Sub-Type" registery)".


                 Type Value                    Name
                 ---------                     ----------
                 TBD                           IFIT Action


      Sub-type Value                 Name
      --------------                 ----------
      TBD                            IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option
      TBD                            IOAM Incremental Trace Option
      TBD                            IOAM DEX Option
      TBD                            IOAM E2E Option
      TBD                            Enhanced Alternate Marking



6.  Security Considerations

   No new security issues are introduced to the BGP Flow Specifications
   and Traffic Filtering Action in [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6] and
   [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis].

7.  Acknowledgements

   TBD.

8.  References







Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


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>.

   [RFC4360]  "BGP Extended Communities Attribute",
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>.

   [RFC7799]  "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types
              In-Between)", <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.

   [RFC8321]  "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
              Performance Monitoring",
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6]
              "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flow-
              spec-v6/>.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis]
              "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-
              rfc5575bis/>.

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
              "Data Fields for In-situ OAM",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
              data/>.

   [I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
              "In-situ OAM Direct Exporting",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ioamteam-ippm-
              ioam-direct-export/>.

   [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
              "Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-ippm-
              postcard-based-telemetry/>.

   [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]
              "In-situ Flow Information Telemetry Framework",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-
              framework/>.



Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04           March 2020


   [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking]
              "Enhanced Alternate Marking Method",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-ippm-
              enhanced-alternate-marking/>.

Authors' Addresses

   Min Liu
   Huawei
   156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
   Beijing
   China

   Email: lucy_liumin@huawei.com


   Yali Wang
   Huawei
   156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
   Beijing
   China

   Email: wangyali11@huawei.com


   Ran Pang
   China Unicom
   9 Shouti South Rd., Haidian District
   Beijing
   China

   Email: pangran@chinaunicom.cn



















Liu, et al.            Expires September 24, 2020              [Page 11]


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