< draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-01.txt   draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-02.txt >
IPPM T. Zhou, Ed. IPPM T. Zhou, Ed.
Internet-Draft H. Song Internet-Draft G. Fioccola
Intended status: Standards Track ZB. Li Intended status: Standards Track ZB. Li
Expires: October 22, 2019 Huawei Expires: December 22, 2019 Huawei
S. Lee
LG U+
M. Cociglio
Telecom Italia
ZQ. Li ZQ. Li
China Mobile China Mobile
April 20, 2019 June 20, 2019
Enhanced Alternate Marking Method Enhanced Alternate Marking Method
draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-01 draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-02
Abstract Abstract
This document proposes several ways to encapsulate the alternate This document proposes several ways to encapsulate the alternate
marking field with enough space. More information can be considered marking field with enough space. More information can be considered
within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and
ease the deployment. ease the deployment.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
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 October 22, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2019.
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
2. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Encapsulation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Use the IOAM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Use the IOAM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Use the PostCard based Telemetry Header . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Use the PostCard based Telemetry Header . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly . . . . . . . . 4
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry . . . . . . 4 3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Implementing Multipoint Alternate Marking . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. IOAM vs PBT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] technique is an hybrid performance The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] technique is an hybrid performance
measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement
methods. It can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter methods. It can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter
on live traffic. Because this method is based on marking consecutive on live traffic. Because this method is based on marking consecutive
batches of packets. batches of packets.
For the basic Alternate Marking method, bits are needed to record the For the basic Alternate Marking method, bits are needed to record the
skipping to change at page 3, line 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
marking field with enough space. More information can be considered marking field with enough space. More information can be considered
within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and
ease the deployment. Specifically, the flow identifier is applied as ease the deployment. Specifically, the flow identifier is applied as
an enhancement for the basic Alternate Marking when determining an enhancement for the basic Alternate Marking when determining
packet loss and packet delay measurement. The flow identifier helps packet loss and packet delay measurement. The flow identifier helps
the data plane to identify the specific flow, hence to do the the data plane to identify the specific flow, hence to do the
processing with respect to the Alternate Marking. It also simplifies processing with respect to the Alternate Marking. It also simplifies
the export by directly being encapsulated as the index for the the export by directly being encapsulated as the index for the
associated metrics. associated metrics.
2. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field 2. Encapsulation Considerations
2.1. Use the IOAM Data 2.1. Use the IOAM Data
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) defines a generic meta data structure to [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) defines a generic meta data structure to
records OAM information within user packets while the packets records OAM information within user packets while the packets
traverse a network. The data types and data formats for IOAM data traverse a network. The data types and data formats for IOAM data
records have been defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The IOAM records have been defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. The IOAM
data can be embedded in many protocol encapsulations such as Network data can be embedded in many protocol encapsulations such as Network
Services Header, Segment Routing, and IPv6 Services Header, Segment Routing, and IPv6
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 13
deployment of alternate marking method. deployment of alternate marking method.
2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly 2.3. Encapsulate within the Transport Directly
In addition to the previous ways which carry the alternate marking In addition to the previous ways which carry the alternate marking
filed within the existing generic OAM header. The alternate marking filed within the existing generic OAM header. The alternate marking
field can also be encapsulate within the transport protocol directly field can also be encapsulate within the transport protocol directly
as an extension header or so. This may vary according to the as an extension header or so. This may vary according to the
transport protocol. transport protocol.
3. Examples 3. Encapsulating Alternate Marking Field
3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM 3.1. Encapsulate with the End to End IOAM
The IOAM-E2E-Type filed within the IOAM edge-to-edge option header is The IOAM-E2E-Type filed within the IOAM edge-to-edge option header is
a 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types are used in the a 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types are used in the
E2E option data. The IOAM-E2E-Type value is a bit field, in which E2E option data. The IOAM-E2E-Type value is a bit field, in which
bit 0-3 are currently defined by [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. So one bit 0-3 are currently defined by [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. So one
bit from bit 4-15 can be used to indicate the presence of data used bit from bit 4-15 can be used to indicate the presence of data used
for alternate marking. for alternate marking.
skipping to change at page 4, line 42 skipping to change at page 4, line 50
o FlowID - 6-octet unsigned integer. Flow identifier field is to o FlowID - 6-octet unsigned integer. Flow identifier field is to
uniquely identify a monitored flow within the in-situ OAM domain. uniquely identify a monitored flow within the in-situ OAM domain.
The field is set at the engress node. The FlowID can be uniformly The field is set at the engress node. The FlowID can be uniformly
assigned by the central controller or algorithmically generated by assigned by the central controller or algorithmically generated by
the engress node. The latter approach cannot guarantee the the engress node. The latter approach cannot guarantee the
uniqueness of FlowID, yet the conflict probability is small due to uniqueness of FlowID, yet the conflict probability is small due to
the large FlowID space. the large FlowID space.
3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry 3.2. Encapsulate with the PostCard Base Telemetry
The following figures shows a proposed change to the Telemetry The following figures sho ws a proposed change to the Telemetry
Information Header (TIH) [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]. Information Header (TIH) [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry].
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
+---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+ +---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+
| Next Header | TIH Length | Reserved |L|D| Hop Count | | Next Header | TIH Length | Reserved |L|D| Hop Count |
+---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+ +---------------+---------------+-----------+-+-+---------------+
This proposes to use the two bits from the Reserved field from the This proposes to use the two bits from the Reserved field from the
Telemetry Information Header. Telemetry Information Header.
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 25
o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321]; o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321];
o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321]. o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321].
The Data Element Bitmap defined in the TIH is an 31-bit bitmap The Data Element Bitmap defined in the TIH is an 31-bit bitmap
indicating the list of required data elements. One not used bit from indicating the list of required data elements. One not used bit from
the Data Element Bitmap can be used to indicate the presence of the the Data Element Bitmap can be used to indicate the presence of the
marking bits, and trigger the statistic process. marking bits, and trigger the statistic process.
4. Security Considerations 4. 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.
4.1. IOAM vs PBT
Both IOAM and PBT can easily include the base 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.
5. Security Considerations
TBD TBD
5. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
TBD TBD
6. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
TBD TBD
7. References 8. References
7.1. Normative References 8.1. 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>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>. May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, [RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>. January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
7.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport] [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes,
D., Lapukhov, P., and R. Chang, "Encapsulations for In- D., Lapukhov, P., and R. Chang, "Encapsulations for In-
situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-05 situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-05
(work in progress), July 2017. (work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov, Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon, P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
"Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam- "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
data-05 (work in progress), March 2019. 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-01 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., and J. Shin, "Postcard-based Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Shin, J., and K. Lee,
In-band Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song-ippm-postcard- "Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song-
based-telemetry-02 (work in progress), March 2019. ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-04 (work in progress), June
2019.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Tianran Zhou Tianran Zhou
Huawei Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Haoyu Song Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Huawei
2330 Central Expressway Riesstrasse, 25
Santa Clara Munich 80992
United States of America Germany
Email: haoyu.song@huawei.com Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li Zhenbin Li
Huawei Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com 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
Zhenqiang Li Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile China Mobile
Beijing Beijing
China China
Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
32 lines changed or deleted 93 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/