Internet DRAFT - draft-boucadair-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix

draft-boucadair-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix







OPSAWG                                                      M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Standards Track                              T. Reddy.K
Expires: 12 November 2023                                          Nokia
                                                             11 May 2023


Export of UDP Options Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
               draft-boucadair-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-05

Abstract

   This document specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
   Information Elements for UDP options.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Operations and
   Management Area Working Group Working Group mailing list
   (opsawg@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/boucadair/udp-ipfix.

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 12 November 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Boucadair & Reddy.K     Expires 12 November 2023                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          IPFIX IE for UDP Options                May 2023


   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  UDP Options at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  New UDP IPFIX Information Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  udpOptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  udpExpOptionExID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  udpUnsafeExpOptionExID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC7011] is a protocol that is
   widely deployed in operators networks for traffic management
   purposes.  The protocol specifies the encoding of a set of basic data
   types and how the various Information Elements (IEs) are transmitted.
   In order to support the export of new flow-related measurement data,
   new IEs can be defined and registered in a dedicated IANA registry
   [IANA-IPFIX] for interoperability.

   This document specifies new IPFIX Information Elements for UDP
   options (Section 6).  A brief overview of UDP option is provided in
   Section 3.

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   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.




Boucadair & Reddy.K     Expires 12 November 2023                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          IPFIX IE for UDP Options                May 2023


   This document uses the terms defined in Section 3 of
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] and [RFC7011].

3.  UDP Options at a Glance

   UDP [RFC0768] does not support an extension mechanism similar to the
   options supported by other transport protocols, such as TCP
   [RFC9293], SCTP [RFC9260], or DCCP [RFC4340].  Such a mechanism can
   be useful for various applications, e.g., discover a path MTU or
   share timestamps.  To fill that void, [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
   extends UDP with a mechanism to insert extensions in datagrams.  To
   do so, and unlike the conventional approach that relies upon
   transport headers, [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] uses trailers.
   Concretely, UDP options are placed in the surplus area (that is, the
   area of an IP payload that follows a UDP packet).  See Figure 1.  An
   example of the use of UDP options is described in
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud].

                             IP transport payload
                <------------------------------------------------->
      +--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+
      | IP Hdr | UDP Hdr |     UDP user data    |   surplus area   |
      +--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+
                <------------------------------>
                           UDP Length

                           Figure 1: Surplus Area

   Section 4.1 introduces a new IE to export the observed UDP options.

   Options indicated by Kind values in the range 0-191 are called SAFE
   options because they do not alter the UDP data payload.  Such options
   can be silently ignored by receivers without affecting the meaning of
   the UDP user data (Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]).

   Options indicated by Kind values in the range 192-255 are called
   UNSAFE options.  Such options are not safe to ignore (Section 10 of
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]).

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] reserves two options for experiements:
   the Experimental option (EXP, Kind=127) for SAFE options and the
   UNSAFE Experimental option (UEXP, Kind=254).  For both options,
   Experimental ID (ExIDs) are used to differentiate concurrent use of
   these options.  Known ExIDs are expected to be registered within
   IANA.  Section 4.2 specifies a new IPFIX IE to export observed ExIDs
   in the EXP options.  Also, Section 4.3 specifies a new IPFIX to
   export observed ExIDs in the UEXP options.  Only 16-bits ExIDs are
   supported.



Boucadair & Reddy.K     Expires 12 November 2023                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          IPFIX IE for UDP Options                May 2023


   This document does not intend to elaborate operational guidance/
   implications of UDP options.  The document focuses exclusively on
   exporting observed UDP options in datagrams.  The motivation for
   exporting such data is similar to the one for exporting TCP options
   (tcpOptions) or IPv6 Extension Headers (ipv6ExtensionHeaders).

4.  New UDP IPFIX Information Elements

4.1.  udpOptions

   Name:  udpOptions

   ElementID:  TBD1

   Description:  Observed UDP options of a Flow.  The information is
      encoded in a set of bit fields.

      To cover the 0-255 kind range, up to 255 flags can be set in the
      value field.  The encoding specified in Section 6.2 of [RFC7011]
      is followed whenever fewer octets are needed to report observed
      UDP options.  For example, if only option kinds =<32 are observed,
      then the value can be encoded as unsigned32, or if only option
      kinds =<63 are observed, then the value can be encoded as
      unsigned64.

   Abstract Data Type:  unsigned

   Data Type Semantics:  flags

   Additional Information:  See the assigned UDP options in the "UDP
      Option Kind Numbers" registry at URL_IANA_UDP_OPTIONS.

      See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] for more details about UDP
      options.

   Reference:  This-Document

4.2.  udpExpOptionExID

   Name:  udpExpExID

   ElementID:  TBD2

   Description:  Observed Expermients ID (ExIDs) in the Experimental
      option (EXP, Kind=127).

      The information is encoded in a set of 16-bit fields.  Each 16-bit
      field carries the observed ExID in an EXP option.



Boucadair & Reddy.K     Expires 12 November 2023                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          IPFIX IE for UDP Options                May 2023


   Abstract Data Type:  octetArray

   Data Type Semantics:  identifier

   Additional Information:  See the assignments in the "UDP Experimental
      Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs)" registry at
      URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs.

      See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] for more details about ExIDs.

   Reference:  This-Document

4.3.  udpUnsafeExpOptionExID

   Name:  udpUnsafeExpOptionExID

   ElementID:  TBD3

   Description:  Observed Expermients ID (ExIDs) in the UNSAFE
      Experimental option (UEXP, Kind=254).

      The information is encoded in a set of 16-bit fields.  Each 16-bit
      field carries the observed ExID in an UEXP option.

   Abstract Data Type:  octetArray

   Data Type Semantics:  identifier

   Additional Information:  See the assignments in the "UDP Experimental
      Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs)" registry at
      URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs.

      See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] for more details about ExIDs.

   Reference:  This-Document

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce new security considerations other
   than those already discussed in [RFC7012].

   The reader may refer to Section 22 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
   for the security considerations related to UDP options.








Boucadair & Reddy.K     Expires 12 November 2023                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          IPFIX IE for UDP Options                May 2023


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests IANA to add the following new IEs to the IANA
   registry entitled "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities"
   [IANA-IPFIX]:

     +=======+========================+==============================+
     | Value | Name                   | Reference                    |
     +=======+========================+==============================+
     | TBD1  | udpOptions             | Section 4.1 of This-Document |
     +-------+------------------------+------------------------------+
     | TBD2  | udpExpOptionExID       | Section 4.2 of This-Document |
     +-------+------------------------+------------------------------+
     | TBD3  | udpUnsafeExpOptionExID | Section 4.3 of This-Document |
     +-------+------------------------+------------------------------+

                  Table 1: New IPFIX Information Elements

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
              Touch, J. D., "Transport Options for UDP", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-20,
              27 March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-20>.

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc768>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011>.

   [RFC7012]  Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
              for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7012>.




Boucadair & Reddy.K     Expires 12 November 2023                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          IPFIX IE for UDP Options                May 2023


   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud]
              Fairhurst, G. and T. Jones, "Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP
              Options", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-07, 6 April 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
              udp-options-dplpmtud-07>.

   [IANA-IPFIX]
              "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities", n.d.,
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml>.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4340>.

   [RFC9260]  Stewart, R., Tüxen, M., and K. Nielsen, "Stream Control
              Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, DOI 10.17487/RFC9260,
              June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9260>.

   [RFC9293]  Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)",
              STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293>.

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Benoît Claise for the discussion on the ordering of IPFIX
   IEs.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   35000 Rennes
   France
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
   Nokia
   India
   Email: kondtir@gmail.com



Boucadair & Reddy.K     Expires 12 November 2023                [Page 7]