--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-04.txt 2017-07-27 04:13:26.701237384 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-05.txt 2017-07-27 04:13:26.733238149 -0700 @@ -1,24 +1,24 @@ MPLS Working Group S. Bryant Internet-Draft Huawei Intended status: Informational C. Pignataro -Expires: August 28, 2017 Cisco Systems +Expires: January 28, 2018 Cisco Systems M. Chen Z. Li Huawei G. Mirsky ZTE Corp. - February 24, 2017 + July 27, 2017 MPLS Flow Identification Considerations - draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-04 + draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident-05 Abstract This memo discusses the aspects that must be considered when developing a solution for MPLS flow identification. The key application that needs this is in-band performance monitoring of user data packets. Status of This Memo @@ -28,21 +28,21 @@ 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 August 28, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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 @@ -62,23 +62,23 @@ 6. Types of LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Network Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Dataplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction This memo discusses the aspects that must be considered when developing a solution for MPLS flow identification. The key application that needs this is in-band performance monitoring of user data packets. There is a need to identify flows in MPLS networks for applications such as packet loss and packet delay measurement. A method of loss @@ -122,26 +122,26 @@ 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 [RFC2119]. 3. Loss Measurement Considerations Modern networks, if not oversubscribed, potentially drop relatively few packets, thus packet loss measurement is highly sensitive to the common demarcation of the exact set of packets to be measured for loss. 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 accurate measurement of packet loss is required, - it may be economically advantageous, or even a technical requirement, - to include some form of marking in the packets to assign each packet - to a particular counter for loss measurement purposes. + proposed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] it may not be possible to + achieve the required accuracy in the loss measurement of customer + data traffic. Thus where accurate measurement of packet loss is + required, it may be economically advantageous, or even a technical + requirement, to include some form of marking in the packets to assign + each packet to a particular counter for loss measurement purposes. 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: @@ -402,44 +402,47 @@ deploying the specified identity solution. Propagation of identification information outside the MPLS network imposing it must be disabled by default. Any solution should provide for the restriction of the identity information to those components of the network that need to know it. It is thus desirable to limit the knowledge of the identify of an endpoint to only those LSRs that need to participate in traffic flow. 13. IANA Considerations - This memo has no IANA considerations. + This memo has no IANA requests. + + (At the discression of the RFC Editor this section may be removed + after publication) 14. Acknowledgements The authors thank Nobo Akiya (nobo@cisco.com), Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar@cisco.com) and George Swallow (swallow@cisco.com) for their comments. 15. References - 15.1. 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, . 15.2. Informative References - [I-D.tempia-ippm-p3m] - Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Fioccola, G., Castaldelli, L., - and A. Bonda, "A packet based method for passive - performance monitoring", draft-tempia-ippm-p3m-03 (work in - progress), March 2016. + [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] + Fioccola, G., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., + Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, + "Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid + performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-06 (work + in progress), July 2017. [RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008, . [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,