MPLS Working Group W. Cheng Internet-Draft China Mobile Intended status: Standards Track X. Min Expires: September 8, 2020 ZTE T. Zhou Huawei X. Dong FiberHome Y. Peleg Broadcom March 7, 2020 Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method draft-cheng-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-03 Abstract This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic. 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 8, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID Label in a label stack . . 5 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation . . . 7 4. Procedures of Flow-ID allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction [RFC8321] describes a passive performance measurement method, which can be used to measure packet loss, delay, and jitter on live traffic. Since this method is based on marking consecutive batches of packets, the method is often referred to as Alternate Marking Method. [RFC8372] discusses the desired capabilities for MPLS flow identification, in order to perform a better in-band performance monitoring of user data packets. Synonymous Flow Label (SFL), which is 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. The method described in this document is simple and flexible, furthermore, it complies with the current MPLS forwarding paradigm. On one hand, the method described in this document is complementary to the SFL method [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework] [I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control], the former targets at hop-by-hop performance measurement, and the latter targets at end-to-end performance measurement, furthermore, the former supports the Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 application scenario where Flow-ID is applied to MPLS LSP and MPLS VPN synchronously, and the latter doesn't support this kind of application scenario. On the other hand, the method described in this document is complementary to the In-situ OAM method [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export], the former doesn't introduce any new header but the latter introduces a new In-situ OAM header, furthermore, the former allows the network nodes to report the refined data (e.g. calculated performance metrics) associated with a specified flow, nevertheless the latter requests the network nodes to report the data (e.g. ingress interface and egress interface) associated with a specified packet. This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic. 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 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. Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 2. Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS Flow-based MPLS performance measurement encapsulation with alternate marking method has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Label (15) | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flow-ID Label Indicator (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flow-ID Label | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS Flow-ID Label Indicator is an Extended Special Purpose Label (eSPL), which is combined with the Extension Label (XL, value 15) to form a Composite Special Purpose Label (cSPL), as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-spl-terminology]. Flow-ID Label Indicator is defined in this document as value TBA1. Analogous to Entropy Label Indicator [RFC6790], the TC and TTL for the Extension Label and the Flow-ID Label Indicator SHOULD follow the same field values of that label immediately preceding the Extension Label, otherwise, the TC and TTL for the Extension Label and the Flow-ID Label Indicator MAY be different values if it is known that the Extension Label will not be exposed as the top label at any point along the LSP. The S bit for the Extension Label and the Flow-ID Label Indicator MUST be zero. Flow-ID Label is used as MPLS flow identification [RFC8372], its value should be unique within the administrative domain. Flow-ID values can be allocated by an external NMS or a controller, based on measurement object instance such as LSP or PW. There is a one-to-one mapping between Flow-ID and flow. The specific method on how to allocate the Flow-ID values is described in Section 4. Analogous to Entropy Label [RFC6790], the Flow-ID Label can be placed at either the bottom or the middle of the MPLS label stack, and the Flow-ID Label MAY appear multiple times in a label stack. Section 2.1 of this document provides several examples to illustrate how to apply Flow-ID Label in a label stack. Again analogous to Entropy Label, the TTL for the Flow-ID Label MUST be zero to ensure that it is not used inadvertently for forwarding, the TC for the Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 Flow-ID Label may be any value, the S bit for the Flow-ID Label depends on whether or not there are more labels in the label stack. Besides flow identification, a color-marking field is also necessary for alternate marking method. To achieve the purpose of coloring the MPLS traffic, it's RECOMMENDED to reuse the Flow-ID Label's TC, i.e., using TC's highest order two bits (called double-marking methodology [RFC8321]) as color-marking bits. Alternatively, one more specific MPLS color-marking label may be placed immediately following the Flow-ID label. 2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID Label in a label stack Three examples on different layout of Flow-ID Label (4 octets) are illustrated as follows: (1) Layout of Flow-ID Label when applied to MPLS LSP. +----------------------+ | LSP | | Label | +----------------------+ | Extension | <--+ | Label | | +----------------------+ |--- cSPL | Flow-ID Label | | | Indicator | <--+ +----------------------+ | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ | VPN | | Label | +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack | | | Payload | | | +----------------------+ Figure 2: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS LSP (2) Layout of Flow-ID Label when applied to MPLS VPN traffic. Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 +----------------------+ | LSP | | Label | +----------------------+ | VPN | | Label | +----------------------+ | Extension | <--+ | Label | | +----------------------+ |--- cSPL | Flow-ID Label | | | Indicator | <--+ +----------------------+ | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack | | | Payload | | | +----------------------+ Figure 3: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS VPN (3) Layout of Flow-ID Label when applied to both MPLS LSP and MPLS VPN traffic. Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 +----------------------+ | LSP | | Label | +----------------------+ | Extension | <--+ | Label | | +----------------------+ |--- cSPL | Flow-ID Label | | | Indicator | <--+ +----------------------+ | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ | VPN | | Label | +----------------------+ | Extension | <--+ | Label | | +----------------------+ |--- cSPL | Flow-ID Label | | | Indicator | <--+ +----------------------+ | 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, MPLS Ethernet VPN 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 Label applied to MPLS LSP and Flow-ID Label applied to MPLS VPN share the same value space. 3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation The procedures for Flow-ID label encapsulation, look-up and decapsulation are summarized as follows: Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 o The ingress node inserts the Extension Label, the Flow-ID Label Indicator, alongside with the Flow-ID label, into the MPLS label stack. At the same time, the ingress node sets the color-marking field, as needed by alternate-marking technique, and sets the Flow-ID value, as defined in this document. o The transit nodes look up the Flow-ID label with the help of the Extension Label and the Flow-ID Label Indicator, 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 of alternate marking method. o The egress node pops the Extension Label and the Flow-ID Label Indicator, 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. Procedures of Flow-ID allocation There are two ways of allocating Flow-ID, one way is to allocate Flow-ID by manual trigger from the network operator, and the other way is to allocate Flow-ID by automatic trigger from the ingress node, details are as follows: o In the case of manual trigger, the network operator would manually input the characteristics (e.g. IP five tuples and IP DSCP) of the measured IP traffic flow, then the NMS or the controller would generate one or two Flow-IDs based on the input from the network operator, and provision the ingress node with the characteristics of the measured IP traffic flow and the corresponding allocated Flow-ID(s). o In the case of automatic trigger, the ingress node would identify the IP traffic flow entering the measured path, export the characteristics of the identified IP traffic flow to the NMS or the controller by IPFIX [RFC7011], then the NMS or the controller would generate one or two Flow-IDs based on the export from the ingress node, and provision the ingress node with the characteristics of the identified IP traffic flow and the corresponding allocated Flow-ID(s). The policy pre-configured at the NMS or the controller decides whether one Flow-ID or two Flow-IDs would be generated. If the performance measurement on VPN traffic is enabled, then one Flow-ID applied to MPLS VPN would be generated; if the performance measurement on LSP tunnel is enabled, then one Flow-ID applied to MPLS LSP would be generated; if both of them are enabled, then two Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 Flow-IDs respectively applied to MPLS VPN and MPLS LSP would be generated. Whether using manual trigger or using automatic trigger, the NMS or the controller MUST guarantee every generated Flow-ID is unique within the administrative domain. 5. Security Considerations This document introduces the performance measurement domain that is the scope of a Flow-ID Label. The Flow-ID Label Indicator and Flow- ID Label MUST NOT be signaled and distributed outside one performance measurement domain. Improper configuration so that the Flow-ID Label being passed from one domain to another would likely result in potential Flow-ID conflicts. To prevent packets carrying Flow-ID Label from leaking from one domain to another, the domain boundary nodes SHOULD deploy some policies (e.g., ACL) to filter out the packets. Specifically, in the sending end, the domain boundary node SHOULD filter out the packets that carry the Flow-ID Label Indicator and are sent to other domain; in the receiving end, the domain boundary node SHOULD drop the packets that carry the Flow-ID Label Indicator and are from other domains. 6. IANA Considerations In the Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry defined in [SP-MPLS-Label], a new Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Flow-ID Label Indicator is requested from IANA as follows: +-----------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------+ | Extended Special- | Description | Semantics | Reference | | Purpose MPLS Label | | Definition | | | Value | | | | +-----------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------+ | TBA1 | Flow-ID Label | Section 2 | This | | | Indicator | | Document | +-----------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------+ Table 1: New Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Flow-ID Label Indicator 7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Loa Andersson, Tarek Saad, Stewart Bryant, Rakesh Gandhi, Greg Mirsky, Aihua Liu, Shuangping Zhan and Ming Ke for their careful review and very helpful comments. Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 8. References 8.1. 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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [SP-MPLS-Label] "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values", 2019, . 8.2. Informative References [I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., and S. Sivabalan, "A Simple Control Protocol for MPLS SFLs", draft-bryant-mpls-sfl- control-06 (work in progress), January 2020. [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov, P., remy@barefootnetworks.com, r., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon, "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft- ietf-ippm-ioam-data-08 (work in progress), October 2019. [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct- export-00 (work in progress), February 2020. [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-06 (work in progress), October 2019. [I-D.ietf-mpls-spl-terminology] Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special Purpose Label terminology", draft-ietf-mpls-spl- terminology-01 (work in progress), November 2019. Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 [RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005, . [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, . [RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013, . [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, . [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 Xiao Min ZTE Nanjing China Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Encap For MPLS PM with AMM March 2020 Tianran Zhou Huawei Beijing China Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Ximing Dong FiberHome Wuhan China Email: dxm@fiberhome.com Yoav Peleg Broadcom USA Email: yoav.peleg@broadcom.com Cheng, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 12]