--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-01.txt 2016-08-25 05:17:45.895023877 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02.txt 2016-08-25 05:17:47.071053567 -0700 @@ -1,24 +1,23 @@ -MPLS S. Bryant -Internet-Draft Independent -Intended status: Informational C. Pignataro -Expires: December 12, 2016 Cisco Systems - M. Chen - Z. Li - Huawei +MPLS Working Group S. Bryant +Internet-Draft M. Chen +Intended status: Informational Z. Li +Expires: February 26, 2017 Huawei + C. Pignataro + Cisco Systems G. Mirsky Ericsson - June 10, 2016 + August 25, 2016 MPLS Flow Identification Considerations - draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-01 + draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-02 Abstract This memo discusses the desired capabilities for MPLS flow identification. The key application that needs this is in-band performance monitoring of user data packets. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the @@ -27,21 +26,21 @@ 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 http://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 December 12, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on February 26, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -111,21 +110,21 @@ multi-point to point and multi-point to multi-point network environments there needs to be a method whereby the sink can distinguish between packets from the various sources, that is to say, that a multi-point to multi-point measurement model needs to be developed. 2. 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 [RFC2119]. + document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. 3. Loss Measurement Considerations Modern networks, if not oversubscribed, normally drop very few packets, thus packet loss measurement is highly sensitive to counter errors. Without some form of coloring or batch marking such as that proposed in [I-D.tempia-ippm-p3m] it may not be possible to achieve the required accuracy in the loss measurement of customer data traffic. Thus where accuracy better than the data link loss performance of a modern optical network is required, it may be @@ -136,26 +135,26 @@ Where this level of accuracy is required and the traffic between a source-destination pair is subject to Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) a demarcation mechanism is needed to group the packets into batches. Once a batch is correlated at both ingress and egress, the packet accounting mechanism is then able to operate on the batch of packets which can be accounted for at both the packet ingress and the packet egress. Errors in the accounting are particularly acute in Label Switched Paths (LSPs) subjected to ECMP because the network transit time will be different for the various ECMP paths since: - a. The packets may traverse different sets of LSRs. + 1. The packets may traverse different sets of LSRs. - b. The packets may depart from different interfaces on different + 2. The packets may depart from different interfaces on different line cards on LSRs - c. The packets may arrive at different interfaces on different line + 3. The packets may arrive at different interfaces on different line cards on LSRs. A consideration in modifying the identity label (the MPLS label ordinarily used to identify the LSP, Virtual Private Network, Pseudowire etc) to indicate the batch is the impact that this has on the path chosen by the ECMP mechanism. When the member of the ECMP path set is chosen by deep packet inspection a change of batch represented by a change of identity label will have no impact on the ECMP path. Where the path member is chosen by reference to an entropy label [RFC6790] then changing the batch identifier will not @@ -459,32 +458,32 @@ 2014, . [RFC7274] Kompella, K., Andersson, L., and A. Farrel, "Allocating and Retiring Special-Purpose MPLS Labels", RFC 7274, DOI 10.17487/RFC7274, June 2014, . Authors' Addresses Stewart Bryant - Independent + Huawei Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com - Carlos Pignataro - Cisco Systems - - Email: cpignata@cisco.com - Mach Chen Huawei Email: mach.chen@huawei.com + Zhenbin Li Huawei Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com + Carlos Pignataro + Cisco Systems + + Email: cpignata@cisco.com Gregory Mirsky Ericsson - Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com + Email: gregory.mirsky@eicsson.com