MPLS Working Group W. Cheng Internet-Draft China Mobile Intended status: Standards Track X. Min Expires: September 11, 2019 ZTE T. Zhou Huawei X. Dong FiberHome March 10, 2019 Encapsulation For MPLS Inband Performance Measurement draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-00 Abstract This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS inband performance measurement, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic, by using the alternate-marking method. 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 September 11, 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 Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS Inband PM March 2019 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 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Flow-based Inband PM Encapsulation in MPLS . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID and Nested Flow-ID . . . . 4 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation . . . 7 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction [RFC8321] describes an alternate-marking (coloring) technique, and generally by which how to achieve hop-by-hop packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements, specifically, section 5 of [RFC8321] mentions the alternate-marking method application of MPLS performance measurement, but it fails to define the encapsulation for MPLS inband performance measurement using alternate-marking method. As mentioned in section 5 of [RFC8321], [RFC8372] discusses the desired capabilities for MPLS flow identification in order to perform a better MPLS inband performance measurement, and Synonymous Flow Label (SFL) introduced in [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework] is identified as a method of accomplishing MPLS flow identification. This document employs a method other than SFL to accomplish MPLS flow identification. This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS inband performance measurement, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic, by using the alternate-marking method. 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS Inband PM March 2019 1.1.1. Terminology LSP: Label Switched Path MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching NMS: Network Management System PM: Performance Measurement PW: PseudoWire SFL: Synonymous Flow Label TC: Traffic Class TTL: Time to Live VC: Virtual Channel VPN: Virtual Private Network 1.1.2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2. Flow-based Inband PM Encapsulation in MPLS Flow-based MPLS inband performance measurement encapsulation has the following format: Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS Inband PM March 2019 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Inband PM Indicator Label (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flow-ID |L|D|R|S| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ Payload ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Flow-based Inband PM Encapsulation in MPLS Where Inband PM Indicator Label is defined in this document as value TBA1, and the other fields related to the encapsulation of Inband PM are defined as follows: o Flow-ID - an MPLS label value used as MPLS flow identification [RFC8372], it should be unique within the administrative domain. Flow-ID values can be allocated by an external NMS or a controller based on service object such as LSP and PW, and the specific method on how to allocate the Flow-ID values is outside the scope of this draft. Note that Flow-ID can be placed either at the bottom of the MPLS label stack or not, and the Flow-ID can be nested, which means more than one Flow-ID can be present within an MPLS label stack. Section 2.1 of this document provides several examples to illustrate how to apply Flow-ID and nested Flow-ID. 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 alternate-marking method defined in [RFC8321]. 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 be set to zero. 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID and Nested Flow-ID Several examples of different Flow-ID label (4 octets) layout are illustrated as follows: (1) Flow-ID label layout when applied to MPLS LSP. Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS Inband PM March 2019 +----------------------+ | | | LSP | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | Inband PM Indicator | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | VPN | | Label | +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack | | | Payload | | | +----------------------+ Figure 2: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS LSP (2) Flow-ID label layout when applied to MPLS VPN traffic. Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS Inband PM March 2019 +----------------------+ | | | LSP | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | VPN | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | Inband PM Indicator | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack | | | Payload | | | +----------------------+ Figure 3: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS VPN (3) Flow-ID label layout when applied to both MPLS LSP and MPLS VPN traffic. Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS Inband PM March 2019 +----------------------+ | | | LSP | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | Inband PM Indicator | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | VPN | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | Inband PM Indicator | | Label | +----------------------+ | | | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack | | | Payload | | | +----------------------+ 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, and it's also called VC label as defined in [RFC4026]. 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation The procedures for Flow-ID label encapsulation, look-up and decapsulation are summarized as follows: o The ingress node inserts the Inband PM Indicator Label alongside with the Flow-ID label in the MPLS label stack. At the same time, the ingress node sets the L bit and D bit as needed by alternate- marking technique, and sets the Flow-ID value as defined in this document. Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS Inband PM March 2019 o The transit nodes look up the Flow-ID label with the help of the Inband PM Indicator Label, and transmit the collected information to an external NMS or a controller, which includes the values of the block counters and the timestamps of the marked packets along with the value of the Flow-ID, referring to the procedures defined in [RFC8321]. o The egress node pops the Inband PM Indicator Label alongside with the Flow-ID label from the MPLS label stack. This document doesn't introduce any new procedure regarding to the process of the decapsulated packet. 4. Security Considerations This document does not introduce additional security requirements and mechanisms. 5. IANA Considerations In the Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry defined in [SP-MPLS-Label], a new Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Inband PM Indicator is requested from IANA as follows: +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ | Special-Purpose | Description | Semantics | Reference | | MPLS Label Value | | Definition | | +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ | TBA1 | Inband PM | Section 2 | This | | | Indicator Label | | Document | +---------------------+-----------------+---------------+-----------+ Table 1: New Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Inband PM Indicator 6. Acknowledgements To be added. 7. References 7.1. 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, . Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS Inband PM March 2019 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [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, . [SP-MPLS-Label] "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values", 2014, . 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework] Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., and G. Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", draft- ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04 (work in progress), December 2018. [RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005, . [RFC8372] Bryant, S., Pignataro, C., Chen, M., Li, Z., and G. Mirsky, "MPLS Flow Identification Considerations", RFC 8372, DOI 10.17487/RFC8372, May 2018, . Authors' Addresses Weiqiang Cheng China Mobile Beijing China Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS Inband PM March 2019 Xiao Min ZTE Nanjing China Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Tianran Zhou Huawei Beijing China Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Ximing Dong FiberHome China Email: dxm@fiberhome.com Cheng, et al. Expires September 11, 2019 [Page 10]