Internet DRAFT - draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm
draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm
MPLS Working Group W. Cheng
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track X. Min
Expires: 26 September 2023 ZTE Corp.
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
25 March 2023
MNA for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-01
Abstract
MPLS Network Action (MNA) is used to indicate action for Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) and/or MPLS packets and to transfer data needed
for the action.
This document defines MNA encoding for MPLS performance measurement
with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss,
delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS 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 26 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Cheng, et al. Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. MPLS Network Action for Flow-based PM . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
MPLS Network Action (MNA) is used to indicate action for Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) and/or MPLS packets and to transfer data needed
for the action.
To addressing the MNA requirements [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements]
and by following the MNA framework [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk],
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] defines the MNA sub-stack solution for
carrying Network Actions and Ancillary Data in the label stack.
As specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation], Flow-ID
Label, L bit and D bit are used for MPLS flow identification and
flow-based performance measurement with alternate marking method,
which can be an applicable MNA usecase [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases].
This document defines MNA encoding for MPLS performance measurement
with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss,
delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS live traffic. The proposed
MNA encoding is compliant with the MNA sub-stack solution specified
in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] and reuses the data fields specified in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation].
Cheng, et al. Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 2023
1.1. Terminology
This document makes use of the terms defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] and [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].
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. MPLS Network Action for Flow-based PM
The MNA format for performance measurement with alternate marking
method is illustrated as below:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Opcode=PMAMM | Flow-ID |S|FID|L|D| NAL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: MNA for Alternate Marking
The description of MNA for Alternate Marking is as follows:
* Name: Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
(PMAMM) Action.
* Network Action Indication: The PMAMM Action indication is Opcode
TBA1. LSE Format C defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] is used
here.
* Scope: The PMAMM Action is valid in all scopes.
* In-Stack Data: The PMAMM Action carries 20 bits of ancillary data.
The most significant 18 bits of ancillary data is the Flow-ID
Value, immediately followed by L bit and D bit. The three fields
Flow-ID Value, L bit and D bit have semantics consistent with the
Flow-ID Label, L bit and D bit defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation], except that the Flow-ID
Value is an 18-bit value while the Flow-ID Label is a 20-bit
value. While the Flow-ID Label has some restrictions to avoid
collisions with the reserved label space (0-15) [RFC3032], those
restrictions are not necessary for the Flow-ID Value and do not
apply. The forwarding node in the scope of PMAMM Action SHOULD
execute the flow-based performance measurement by using the Flow-
ID Value, L bit and D bit.
Cheng, et al. Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 2023
* Post-Stack Data: None.
3. Security Considerations
Security issues discussed in [I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation]
and [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] apply to this document.
4. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA allocates a codepoint (TBA1) from
the MPLS "HBH and Select In-Stack MPLS Network Action Indicator
Opcodes" from the "IETF Review" range and the same codepoint from the
MPLS "I2E In-Stack MPLS Network Action Indicator Opcodes" from the
"IETF Review" range for the Performance Measurement with Alternate
Marking Method Action. Note that both the "HBH and Select In-Stack
MPLS Network Action Indicator Opcodes" and the "I2E In-Stack MPLS
Network Action Indicator Opcodes" will be created based on the
request from [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. Specifically, this document
requests the following allocation from IANA.
MNA Opcode Description Scope
---------- -------------------------------- -------------------
TBA1 PM with Alternate Marking Method HBH, Select, or I2E
5. Acknowledgements
To be added.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation]
Cheng, W., Min, X., Zhou, T., Dong, X., and Y. Peleg,
"Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with
Alternate Marking Method", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-05, 12
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-05>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K.
Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-
01, 8 March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-01>.
Cheng, et al. Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 2023
[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/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[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/info/rfc8174>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS
Network Actions Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-03, 11 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-fwk-03>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements]
Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "Requirements for
MPLS Network Actions", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-04, 13 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-requirements-04>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]
Saad, T., Makhijani, K., Song, H., and G. Mirsky, "Use
Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS
Ancillary Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-02, 13 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-usecases-02>.
Authors' Addresses
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Cheng, et al. Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 2023
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Cheng, et al. Expires 26 September 2023 [Page 6]
