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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

IPPM                                                        T. Zhou, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               G. Fioccola
Intended status: Standards Track                                  ZB. Li
Expires: January 3, 2020                                          Huawei
                                                                  S. Lee
                                                                   LG U+
                                                             M. Cociglio
                                                          Telecom Italia
                                                                  ZQ. Li
                                                            China Mobile
                                                            July 2, 2019


                   Enhanced Alternate Marking Method
             draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-03

Abstract

   This document defines data fields for the alternate marking 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 January 3, 2020.






Zhou, Ed., et al.        Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking              July 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.  Data Fields Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Implementing Multipoint Alternate Marking . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  PBT vs IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] technique is an hybrid performance
   measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement
   methods.  Because this method is based on marking consecutive batches
   of packets.  It can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and
   jitter on live traffic.

   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, i.e, more measurements in addition
   to existing use.

   This document defines data fields for the alternate marking with
   enough space.  More information can be considered within the




Zhou, Ed., et al.        Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking              July 2019


   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.

   PBT-M [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] is an variation of
   Postcard-based Telemetry (PBT) with packet Marking.  One marking bit
   is set in the user packet at the path head node, if its path-
   associated data need to be collected.  At each PBT-aware node, if the
   mark is detected, a postcard (i.e., the dedicated telemetry packet
   triggered by a marked user packet) is generated and sent to a
   collector.  The postcard contains the data requested by the
   management plane.  As an example, the requested data can be
   configured by the management plane through data set templates (as in
   IPFIX [RFC7011]).  This alternate marking bit can choose user packet
   on demand, e.g., periodically or triggered by condition meet, for
   telemetry.

2.  Data Fields Format

   The following figure shows the data fields format for enhanced
   alternate marking.  This data is expected to be encapuslated to
   specific transports.

    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
   +---------------------------------------+-+-+-+-----------------+
   |           FlowID                      |L|D|M|    Reserved     |
   +---------------------------------------+-+-+-+-----------------+

   where:

   o  FlowID - 20 bits unsigned integer.  Flow identifier field is to
      uniquely identify a monitored flow within the measurement 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.

   o  L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321];

   o  D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321];



Zhou, Ed., et al.        Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking              July 2019


   o  M - Marking bit as defined in PBT-M
      [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry];

   o  Reserved - is reserved for further use.  These bits MUST be set to
      zero.

3.  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.

3.1.  PBT vs IOAM

   In theory, both IOAM ([I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) and PBT
   ([I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]) could include the base
   Alternate Marking method.  In practice, PBT-M supports one bit to
   encode the 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.

   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.

4.  Implementation Status

   [Note: This entire section should be removed by RFC Editor before the
   RFC publication.]

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this



Zhou, Ed., et al.        Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking              July 2019


   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.  According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working
   groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit
   of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
   experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
   more mature.  It is up to the individual working groups to use this
   information as they see fit".

   Huawei implemented the proposal described in this document based on
   the NE40E router.  The device can process the data fields in the
   network processor in the fast path.  Together with Huawei NCE
   controller, the solution can provide very high precision per hop
   packet loss detection and delay measurement.  The product is ready
   for MPLS based network and tested with LG U+, China Mobile and China
   Unicom in mobile backhaul.  The IPv6 and SRv6 based demonstration is
   also implemented.  Please contact Tianran Zhou
   (zhoutianran@huawei.com) for the details.

5.  Security Considerations

   TBD

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no request to IANA.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors of this document would like to thank Haoyu Song for the
   PBT-M contribution.

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>.




Zhou, Ed., et al.        Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking              July 2019


   [RFC7011]  Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
              "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
              Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
              RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

   [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.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-02 (work in progress), July 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








Zhou, Ed., et al.        Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking              July 2019


   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


   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








Zhou, Ed., et al.        Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         enhanced-alternate-marking              July 2019


   Zhenqiang Li
   China Mobile
   Beijing
   China

   Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com













































Zhou, Ed., et al.        Expires January 3, 2020                [Page 8]


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