< draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-00.txt   draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-01.txt >
MPLS Working Group W. Cheng MPLS Working Group W. Cheng
Internet-Draft China Mobile Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track X. Min Intended status: Standards Track X. Min
Expires: September 11, 2019 ZTE Expires: January 8, 2020 ZTE
T. Zhou T. Zhou
Huawei Huawei
X. Dong X. Dong
FiberHome FiberHome
March 10, 2019 Y. Peleg
Broadcom
July 7, 2019
Encapsulation For MPLS Inband Performance Measurement Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking
draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-00 Method
draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-01
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS inband performance This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance
measurement, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based
measurements on live traffic, by using the alternate-marking method. packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Flow-based Inband PM Encapsulation in MPLS . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID and Nested Flow-ID . . . . 4 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID in a label stack . . . . . 4
3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation . . . 7 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC8321] describes an alternate-marking (coloring) technique, and [I-D.fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark] describes how the alternate
generally by which how to achieve hop-by-hop packet loss, delay, and marking method can be used as the passive performance measurement
jitter measurements, specifically, section 5 of [RFC8321] mentions method in an IPv6 domain, actually the alternate marking method can
the alternate-marking method application of MPLS performance also be applied to an MPLS domain, and what's missed is the
measurement, but it fails to define the encapsulation for MPLS inband encapsulation for MPLS performance measurement with alternate marking
performance measurement using alternate-marking method. method.
As mentioned in section 5 of [RFC8321], [RFC8372] discusses the [RFC8372] discusses the desired capabilities for MPLS flow
desired capabilities for MPLS flow identification in order to perform identification, in order to perform a better in-band performance
a better MPLS inband performance measurement, and Synonymous Flow monitoring of user data packets. Synonymous Flow Label (SFL), which
Label (SFL) introduced in [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework] is identified is introduced in [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework], is identified as a
as a method of accomplishing MPLS flow identification. This document method of accomplishing MPLS flow identification. This document
employs a method other than SFL to accomplish MPLS flow employs a method, other than SFL, to accomplish MPLS flow
identification. identification. The method described in this document is simple and
flexible, furthermore, it complies with the current MPLS forwarding
paradigm.
This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS inband performance This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance
measurement, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based
measurements on live traffic, by using the alternate-marking method. packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
1.1.1. Terminology 1.1.1. Terminology
LSP: Label Switched Path LSP: Label Switched Path
MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
NMS: Network Management System NMS: Network Management System
PM: Performance Measurement PM: Performance Measurement
skipping to change at page 3, line 34 skipping to change at page 3, line 37
VPN: Virtual Private Network VPN: Virtual Private Network
1.1.2. Requirements Language 1.1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Flow-based Inband PM Encapsulation in MPLS 2. Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS
Flow-based MPLS inband performance measurement encapsulation has the Flow-based MPLS performance measurement encapsulation with alternate
following format: marking method has the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Inband PM Indicator Label (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL | | Flow-ID Indicator Label (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow-ID |L|D|R|S| Reserved | | Flow-ID |L|D|R|S| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Payload ~ ~ Payload ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Flow-based Inband PM Encapsulation in MPLS Figure 1: Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS
Where Inband PM Indicator Label is defined in this document as value Where Flow-ID Indicator Label is defined in this document as value
TBA1, and the other fields related to the encapsulation of Inband PM TBA1, and the other fields related to the Flow-based PM encapsulation
are defined as follows: are defined as follows:
o Flow-ID - an MPLS label value used as MPLS flow identification o Flow-ID - an MPLS label value used as MPLS flow identification
[RFC8372], it should be unique within the administrative domain. [RFC8372], it should be unique within the administrative domain.
Flow-ID values can be allocated by an external NMS or a controller Flow-ID values can be allocated by an external NMS or a
based on service object such as LSP and PW, and the specific controller, based on measurement object instance such as LSP and
method on how to allocate the Flow-ID values is outside the scope PW. There is a one-to-one mapping between Flow-ID and flow. The
of this draft. Note that Flow-ID can be placed either at the specific method on how to allocate the Flow-ID values is outside
bottom of the MPLS label stack or not, and the Flow-ID can be the scope of this draft. Note that the Flow-ID Label can be
nested, which means more than one Flow-ID can be present within an placed either at the bottom of the MPLS label stack or not, and
the Flow-ID Indicator Label MAY appear multiple times in a label
stack, which means more than one Flow-ID can be present within an
MPLS label stack. Section 2.1 of this document provides several MPLS label stack. Section 2.1 of this document provides several
examples to illustrate how to apply Flow-ID and nested Flow-ID. examples to illustrate how to apply Flow-ID in a label stack.
o L and D - L(oss) bit and D(elay) bit are used for coloring the o L and D - L(oss) bit and D(elay) bit are used for coloring the
packets (called double-marking methodology), which is required by packets (called double-marking methodology), which is required by
alternate-marking method defined in [RFC8321]. the alternate marking method.
o R - R bit is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero. o R - R bit is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.
o Reserved - one octet long field reserved for future use and MUST o Reserved - one octet long field reserved for future use and MUST
be set to zero. be set to zero.
2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID and Nested Flow-ID 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID in a label stack
Several examples of different Flow-ID label (4 octets) layout are Three examples on different layout of Flow-ID label (4 octets) are
illustrated as follows: illustrated as follows:
(1) Flow-ID label layout when applied to MPLS LSP. (1) Layout of Flow-ID label when applied to MPLS LSP.
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| LSP | | LSP |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| Inband PM Indicator | | Flow-ID Indicator |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| Flow-ID | | Flow-ID |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| VPN | | VPN |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack
| | | |
| Payload | | Payload |
| | | |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
Figure 2: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS LSP Figure 2: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS LSP
(2) Flow-ID label layout when applied to MPLS VPN traffic. (2) Layout of Flow-ID label when applied to MPLS VPN traffic.
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| LSP | | LSP |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| VPN | | VPN |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| Inband PM Indicator | | Flow-ID Indicator |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| Flow-ID | | Flow-ID |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack
| | | |
| Payload | | Payload |
| | | |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
Figure 3: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS VPN Figure 3: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS VPN
(3) Flow-ID label layout when applied to both MPLS LSP and MPLS VPN (3) Layout of Flow-ID label when applied to both MPLS LSP and MPLS
traffic. VPN traffic.
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| LSP | | LSP |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| Inband PM Indicator | | Flow-ID Indicator |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| Flow-ID | | Flow-ID |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| VPN | | VPN |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| Inband PM Indicator | | Flow-ID Indicator |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| Flow-ID | | Flow-ID |
| Label | | Label |
+----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack
| | | |
| Payload | | Payload |
| | | |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
Figure 4: Applying Flow-ID to both MPLS LSP and MPLS VPN Figure 4: Applying Flow-ID to both MPLS LSP and MPLS VPN
Note that here VPN label can be MPLS PW label or MPLS IP VPN label, Note that here VPN label can be MPLS PW label, MPLS Ethernet VPN
and it's also called VC label as defined in [RFC4026]. label or MPLS IP VPN label, and it's also called VC label as defined
in [RFC4026].
Also note that for this example the two Flow-ID values appearing in a
label stack MUST be different, that is to say, Flow-ID applied to
MPLS LSP and Flow-ID applied to MPLS VPN share the same value space.
3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation
The procedures for Flow-ID label encapsulation, look-up and The procedures for Flow-ID label encapsulation, look-up and
decapsulation are summarized as follows: decapsulation are summarized as follows:
o The ingress node inserts the Inband PM Indicator Label alongside o The ingress node inserts the Flow-ID Indicator Label, alongside
with the Flow-ID label in the MPLS label stack. At the same time, with the Flow-ID label, into the MPLS label stack. At the same
the ingress node sets the L bit and D bit as needed by alternate- time, the ingress node sets the L bit and D bit, as needed by
marking technique, and sets the Flow-ID value as defined in this alternate-marking technique, and sets the Flow-ID value, as
document. defined in this document.
o The transit nodes look up the Flow-ID label with the help of the o The transit nodes look up the Flow-ID label with the help of the
Inband PM Indicator Label, and transmit the collected information Flow-ID Indicator Label, and transmit the collected information to
to an external NMS or a controller, which includes the values of an external NMS or a controller, which includes the values of the
the block counters and the timestamps of the marked packets along block counters and the timestamps of the marked packets, along
with the value of the Flow-ID, referring to the procedures defined with the value of the Flow-ID, referring to the procedures of
in [RFC8321]. alternate marking method.
o The egress node pops the Inband PM Indicator Label alongside with o The egress node pops the Flow-ID Indicator Label, alongside with
the Flow-ID label from the MPLS label stack. This document the Flow-ID label, from the MPLS label stack. This document
doesn't introduce any new procedure regarding to the process of doesn't introduce any new procedure regarding to the process of
the decapsulated packet. the decapsulated packet.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce additional security requirements and This document does not introduce additional security requirements and
mechanisms. mechanisms.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
In the Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry defined in In the Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry defined in
[SP-MPLS-Label], a new Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Inband PM [SP-MPLS-Label], a new Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Flow-ID
Indicator is requested from IANA as follows: Indicator is requested from IANA as follows:
+---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+
| Special-Purpose | Description | Semantics | Reference | | Special-Purpose | Description | Semantics | Reference |
| MPLS Label Value | | Definition | | | MPLS Label Value | | Definition | |
+---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+
| TBA1 | Inband PM | Section 2 | This | | TBA1 | Flow-ID | Section 2 | This |
| | Indicator Label | | Document | | | Indicator Label | | Document |
+---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+
Table 1: New Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Inband PM Indicator Table 1: New Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Flow-ID Indicator
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
To be added. The authors would like to acknowledge Greg Mirsky, Aihua Liu,
Shuangping Zhan and Ming Ke for their careful review and very helpful
comments.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
skipping to change at page 9, line 9 skipping to change at page 9, line 15
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
[SP-MPLS-Label] [SP-MPLS-Label]
"Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values", 2014, "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values", 2014,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values/ <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-label-values/
mpls-label-values.xml>. mpls-label-values.xml>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Velde, G., Cociglio, M., and P. Muley,
"Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Performance Measurement
with Alternate Marking Method in Segment Routing", draft-
fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01 (work in progress),
October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework] [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework]
Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S.,
and G. Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", draft- and G. Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", draft-
ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04 (work in progress), December ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04 (work in progress), December
2018. 2018.
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual [RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 27
Tianran Zhou Tianran Zhou
Huawei Huawei
Beijing Beijing
China China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Ximing Dong Ximing Dong
FiberHome FiberHome
Wuhan
China China
Email: dxm@fiberhome.com Email: dxm@fiberhome.com
Yoav Peleg
Broadcom
USA
Email: yoav.peleg@broadcom.com
 End of changes. 42 change blocks. 
78 lines changed or deleted 94 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/