IPPM T. Zhou, Ed. Internet-Draft G. Fioccola, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track ZB. Li Expires: May 3, 2020 Huawei S. Lee LG U+ M. Cociglio Telecom Italia October 31, 2019 Enhanced Alternate Marking Method draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking-04 Abstract This document defines data fields for the alternate marking with enough space. The main idea is that more information can be considered within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and ease the deployment. The definition aims to be general, even if for some protocols there can be dedicated solutions. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 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 May 3, 2020. Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 1] Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 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 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 2. Data Fields Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Implementing Multipoint Alternate Marking . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction The Alternate Marking [RFC8321] technique is an hybrid performance measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of measurement methods. Because this method is based on marking consecutive batches of packets. It can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter on live traffic. For the basic Alternate Marking method, bits are needed to record the mark. For some protocols (e.g. MPLS, BIER, SFC, NVO3) dedicated solutions have been presented ([I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl], [I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam], [I-D.mirsky-sfc-pmamm], [I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark]), but there are ongoing discussions on this matter. However, in most of the protocols, no additional bit can be used or proposed, and that blocks the wide deployment of the alternate Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 2] Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019 marking technique. In addition, the basic Alternate Marking method is limited with the scalability issue for further extension, i.e, more measurements in addition to existing use. This document defines data fields for the alternate marking with enough space, in particular for PBT (Postcard-based Telemetry). More information can be considered within the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and ease the deployment. Specifically, the flow identifier is applied as an enhancement for the basic Alternate Marking when determining packet loss and packet delay measurement. The flow identifier helps the data plane to identify the specific flow, hence to do the processing with respect to the Alternate Marking. It also simplifies the export by directly being encapsulated as the index for the associated metrics. PBT-M [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] is an variation of PBT with packet Marking. One marking bit is set in the user packet at the path head node, if its path-associated data need to be collected. At each PBT-aware node, if the mark is detected, a postcard (i.e., the dedicated telemetry packet triggered by a marked user packet) is generated and sent to a collector. The postcard contains the data requested by the management plane. As an example, the requested data can be configured by the management plane through data set templates (as in IPFIX [RFC7011]). This alternate marking bit can choose user packet on demand, e.g., periodically or triggered by condition meet, for telemetry. 2. Data Fields Format The following figure shows the data fields format for enhanced alternate marking. This data is expected to be encapsulated to specific transports. 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 +---------------------------------------+-+-+-+-----------------+ | FlowMonID |L|D|M| Reserved | +---------------------------------------+-+-+-+-----------------+ where: o FlowMonID - 20 bits unsigned integer. The FlowMon identifier field is to uniquely identify a monitored flow within the measurement domain. The field is set at the ingress node. The FlowMonID can be uniformly assigned by the central controller or algorithmically generated by the ingress node. The latter approach cannot guarantee the uniqueness of FlowMonID but it may Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 3] Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019 be preferred for local or private network, where the conflict probability is small due to the large FlowMonID space. o L - Loss flag as defined in [RFC8321]; o D - Delay flag as defined in [RFC8321]; o M - Marking bit as defined in PBT-M [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]; o Reserved - is reserved for further use. These bits MUST be set to zero. 3. Deployment Considerations The previous section introduces the AltMark Data Fields, based on the deployment experience and gives a practice to apply alternate marking. The introduction of the flow identification is important for some reasons: Firstly, it helps to reduce the per node configuration. Otherwise, each node needs to configure the ACLs for all the monitored flows. And, with Flow ID, there may be different granularity for flow definition. Secondly, it simplifies the counters handling, because hardware is hard to pull out and match the flow tuples defined by ACLs, especially in tunnels. Thirdly, it eases the data export encapsulation and correlation for the collectors. The deployment practice gives the motivation for this document. It aims to do general deployment considerations and tries to avoid the relation to specific protocols. Anyway it is important to mention that, even for specific protocols where a dedicated solution exits, the considerations of this document are always valid. In some circumstances, the conclusion is to build a separate header that is light-weighted but can address the existing requirement in carrier network performance measurement. While the AltMark Data Fields can take more information than the only marking bits, it is important to consider how to carry it in the encapsulation protocol. This enhanced proposal supports more Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 4] Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019 interesting and powerful use cases and address the in-band performance measurement approach. In IPv6 ([I-D.fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]), the way to mitigate the compatibility with non-capable devices is considered. AltMark Data Fields could be encapsulated in the DOH or SRH, so that the intermediate node will not drop packets. 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. So, the more general implementation of Multipoint Alternate Marking needs an intelligent and flexible Alternate Marking algorithm. For this purpose, [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework] introduces a telemetry framework and describes the closed loop between Nodes, Telemetry Data Collector and Network Management. 5. Implementation Status [Note: This entire section should be removed by RFC Editor before the RFC publication.] This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist. According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 5] Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019 experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit". Huawei implemented the proposal described in this document based on the NE40E router. The device can process the data fields in the network processor in the fast path. Together with Huawei NCE controller, the solution can provide very high precision per hop packet loss detection and delay measurement. The product is ready for MPLS based network and tested with LG U+, China Mobile and China Unicom in mobile backhaul. The IPv6 and SRv6 based demonstration is also implemented. Please contact Tianran Zhou (zhoutianran@huawei.com) for the details. 6. Security Considerations TBD 7. IANA Considerations This document has no request to IANA. 8. Contributors List of Contributors: Zhenqiang Li, China Mobile, lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com 9. Acknowledgements The authors of this document would like to thank Haoyu Song for the PBT-M contribution. 10. References 10.1. 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, . [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, . Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 6] Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019 [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, May 2016, . [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, . [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, . 10.2. Informative References [I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark] Fioccola, G., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Performance Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking in Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)", draft-fmm-nvo3-pm-alt- mark-03 (work in progress), October 2018. [I-D.fz-6man-ipv6-alt-mark] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., and M. Cociglio, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method", draft-fz-6man-ipv6-alt- mark-00 (work in progress), July 2019. [I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam] Mirsky, G., Zheng, L., Chen, M., and G. Fioccola, "Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer", draft-ietf-bier- pmmm-oam-06 (work in progress), July 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-02 (work in progress), July 2019. [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl] Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., Mirsky, G., and G. Fioccola, "RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels", draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-04 (work in progress), July 2019. Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 7] Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019 [I-D.mirsky-sfc-pmamm] Mirsky, G., Fioccola, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Performance Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service Function Chaining (SFC) Domain", draft-mirsky-sfc-pmamm-08 (work in progress), June 2019. [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Shin, J., and K. Lee, "Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song- ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-06 (work in progress), October 2019. [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework] Song, H., Li, Z., Zhou, T., Qin, F., Chen, H., Jin, J., and J. Shin, "In-situ Flow Information Telemetry", draft- song-opsawg-ifit-framework-06 (work in progress), October 2019. Authors' Addresses Tianran Zhou (editor) Huawei 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Giuseppe Fioccola (editor) Huawei Riesstrasse, 25 Munich 80992 Germany Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com Zhenbin Li Huawei 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 8] Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2019 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 Zhou, et al. Expires May 3, 2020 [Page 9]