Internet DRAFT - draft-gandhi-spring-sr-enhanced-plm
draft-gandhi-spring-sr-enhanced-plm
SPRING Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 10 February 2022 N. Vaghamshi
Reliance
M. Nagarajah
Telstra
R. Foote
Nokia
9 August 2021
Enhanced Performance and Liveness Monitoring in Segment Routing Networks
draft-gandhi-spring-sr-enhanced-plm-05
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. SR is
applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6
(SRv6) data planes. This document defines procedures for Enhanced
Performance and Liveness Monitoring of end-to-end SR paths including
SR Policies for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes, those reduce the
deployment and operational complexities in a network.
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 10 February 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Loopback Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Loopback Mode Enabled with Network Programming
Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Example Provisioning Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. PLM Test Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. PLM Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. PLM for SR-MPLS Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. PLM for SRv6 Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Enhanced PLM Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Enhanced PLM with Timestamp Label for SR-MPLS Policies . 12
6.1.1. Timestamp Label Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1.2. Node Capability for Timestamp Label . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. Enhanced PLM with Timestamp Endpoint Function for SRv6
Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.1. Timestamp Endpoint Function Assignment . . . . . . . 15
6.2.2. Node Capability for Timestamp Endpoint Function . . . 16
7. ECMP Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Example PLM Failure Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm and
greatly simplifies network operations for Software Defined Networks
(SDNs). SR is applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-
MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes [RFC8402]. SR Policies as defined
in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] are used to steer traffic
through a specific, user-defined paths using a stack of Segments.
Built-in Performance Measurement (PM) for delay and packet loss as
well as Liveness Monitoring for Connectivity Verification (CV) are
essential requirements to provide Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in
SR networks.
The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) provides
capabilities for the measurement of various performance metrics in IP
networks [RFC8762] without the use of a control channel to pre-signal
session parameters. The STAMP can be used for performance
measurement for delay and packet loss of SR paths. However, the
STAMP requires protocol support on the Session-Reflector to process
the STAMP test packets as packets are punted from the forwarding fast
path on the Session-Reflector and STAMP reply test packets are
generated. This limits the scale for number of STAMP test sessions
and faster connectivity loss detection interval.
The Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) [RFC7880] can
be used for connectivity verification of SR paths. However, S-BFD
requires protocol support on the BFD-Reflector to process the S-BFD
packets as packets need to be punted from the forwarding fast path
and reply packets are generated. This limits the scale for number
S-BFD sessions and faster connectivity loss detection interval.
Enabling multiple protocols, S-BFD for connectivity verification and
STAMP for performance measurement increases the deployment and
operational complexities in a network. Also, implementing multiple
protocols in a hardware significantly increases the development cost.
This document defines procedures for Enhanced Performance and
Liveness Monitoring of end-to-end SR paths including SR Policies for
both SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes, those reduce the deployment and
operational complexities in a network. The procedures use the
Performance and Liveness Monitoring (PLM) test packet formats defined
in this document. The test packets have the transmit and receive
timestamps at the same locations as the Session-Reflector STAMP test
packets to leverage the existing hardware support for it.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
S-BFD: Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection.
BSID: Binding Segment ID.
ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path.
EB: Endpoint Behaviour.
HMAC: Hashed Message Authentication Code.
MBZ: Must be Zero.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
PLM: Performance and Liveness Monitoring.
PM: Performance Measurement.
PTP: Precision Time Protocol.
SID: Segment ID.
SL: Segment List.
SR: Segment Routing.
SRH: Segment Routing Header.
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.
SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane.
SSID: Sender Session Identifier.
STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol.
TC: Traffic Class.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
TTL: Time To Live.
2.3. Reference Topology
In the reference topology shown below, the Session-Sender S1
initiates a PLM test packet and the Session-Reflector R1 returns the
PLM test packet. The PLM return test packet is transmitted back to
the Session-Sender S1 on the same path (same set of links and nodes)
or a different path in the reverse direction from the path taken
towards the Session-Reflector R1.
The Session-Sender S1 and Session-Reflector R1 are connected via an
SR path [RFC8402]. The SR path may be an SR Policy
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] on node S1 (called head-end)
with destination to node R1 (called tail-end).
T1
/
+-------+ PLM Test Packet +-------+
| | - - - - - - - - - - - | |
| S1 |======================|| R1 |
| |<- - - - - - - - - - - | |
+-------+ Return Test Packet +-------+
\
T4
Session-Sender Session-Reflector
(Simply Forward)
Reference Topology
3. Overview
3.1. Loopback Mode
In loopback mode, the Session-Sender S1 initiates PLM test packets
and the Session-Reflector R1 forwards them just like data packets for
the regular traffic back to the Session-Sender S1. In this mode, the
received PLM test packets are not punted out of the fast path in
forwarding at the Session-Reflector. In other words, the Session-
Reflector does not process them and generate Session-Reflector test
packets. At the Session-Reflector, the loopback function simply
makes the necessary changes to the encapsulation including IP and UDP
headers to return the test packet to the Session-Sender. The
Session-Reflector MUST NOT drop the loopback PLM test packets, for
example, due to a local policy provisioned. No PLM test session is
created on the Session-Reflector.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
The Session-Sender MUST set the Destination UDP port to the UDP port
it is configured to receive the PLM reply test packets. The UDP
ports in the PLM test packets MUST follow the procedure defined in
[RFC8762].
The IPv4 Time To Live (TTL) or IPv6 Hop Limit (HL) in the PLM test
packet is set to 255.
3.2. Loopback Mode Enabled with Network Programming Function
In loopback mode enabled with network programming function, both
transmit (T1) and receive (T2) timestamps in data plane are collected
by the PLM test packets transmitted in loopback mode as shown in
Figure 1. The network programming function optimizes the "operations
of punt and generate the PLM test packet" on the Session-Reflector as
timestamping is implemented in forwarding fast path in hardware.
This helps to achieve higher PLM test session scale and faster
connectivity loss detection.
T1 T2
/ \
+-------+ PLM Test Packet +-------+
| | - - - - - - - - - - - | |
| S1 |======================|| R1 |
| |<- - - - - - - - - - - | |
+-------+ Return Test Packet +-------+
\
T4
Session-Sender Session-Reflector
(Timestamp,
Pop and Forward)
Figure 1: Loopback Mode Enabled with Network Programming Function
The Session-Sender adds transmit timestamp (T1) in the payload of the
PLM test packet and clears the receive (T2) timestamp. The Session-
Reflector adds the receive timestamp (T2) in the payload of the
received PLM test packet in forwarding fast path in hardware without
punting the test packet (e.g. to slow path or control-plane). The
network programming function enables Session-Reflector to add the
receive timestamp (T2) at a specific offset in the payload which is
locally provisioned consistently in the network. The payload of the
PLM test packet is not modified by the intermediate nodes.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
The Session-Reflector only adds the receive timestamp if the source
IP address (in case of SR-MPLS) or destination IP address (in case of
SRv6) in the PLM test packet matches the local node address to ensure
that the PLM test packet reaches the intended Session-Reflector and
the receive timestamp is returned by the intended Session-Reflector.
3.3. Example Provisioning Model
An example provisioning model and typical measurement parameters are
shown in Figure 2:
+------------+
| Controller |
+------------+
PLM Mode / \ Timestamp Label/SRV6 EB
Loopback or Enhanced Mode / \ Timestamp Offset
Timestamp Label/SRv6 EB / \ Timestamp Format
Timestamp Format / \
Missed Packet Count (N) / \
Delay Threshold/Count (T/M) / \
Packet Loss Threshold (XofY)/ \
v v
+-------+ +-------+
| | | |
| S1 |==========| R1 |
| | | |
+-------+ +-------+
Session-Sender Session-Reflector
Figure 2: Example Provisioning Model
Example of a PLM mode is loopback mode and enhanced loopback mode.
The values for Timestamp Label and SRv6 Endpoint Behaviour may be
provisioned as described in Section 6. Example of Timestamp Format
is 64-bit PTPv2 [IEEE1588]. Example of Timestamp Offset is 16 and 32
bytes for the PLM test packet formats defined in this document.
Example threshold values configured for generating notifications are:
Missed Packet Count (N), Delay Exceeded Threshold and Packet Count
(T/M) and Packet Loss Threshold (XofY), as described in this
document.
The mechanisms to provision the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector
are outside the scope of this document.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
4. PLM Test Packet Formats
The PLM test packet formats for unauthenticated and authenticated
modes are defined in this document as shown in Figure 3. They have
the transmit and receive timestamps at the same locations as the
Session-Reflector STAMP test packets to leverage the existing
hardware support for it.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Timestamp (T1) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Error Estimate | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Timestamp (T2) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| MBZ (12 Octets) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Error Estimate | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (4 Octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PLM Test Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Timestamp (T1) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Error Estimate | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Timestamp (T2) |
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| MBZ (32 octets) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Error Estimate | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| MBZ (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| MBZ (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PLM Test Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
Figure 3: PLM Test Packet Formats
Sequence Number is the sequence number of the PLM test packet
according to its transmit order. It starts with zero and is
incremented by one for each subsequent PLM test packet.
SSID (16-bits): PLM Sender Session Identifier. Uses the procedure
for SSID defined in [RFC8762].
Transmit Timestamp and Transmit Error Estimate are the Session-
Sender's transmit timestamp and error estimate for the PLM test
packet, respectively.
Receive Timestamp and Receive Error Estimate are the Session-
Reflector's receive timestamp and error estimate, respectively.
The timestamp and error estimate fields follow the definition and
formats defined in Section 4.1.2 in [RFC8762]. The timestamp format
used by default is 64-bit PTPv2 [IEEE1588].
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
HMAC: The use of the HMAC field is described in Section 4.4 of
[RFC8762].
MBZ: Must be Zero. It MUST be all zeroed on the transmission and
MUST be ignored on receipt.
5. PLM Procedure
For performance and liveness monitoring of an end-to-end SR path
including SR Policy, PLM test packets are transmitted in loopback
mode.
For SR Policy, the PLM test packets are transmitted using the Segment
List (SL) of the Candidate-Path
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. When a Candidate-Path has
more than one Segment Lists, multiple PLM test packets MUST be
transmitted, one using each Segment List.
5.1. PLM for SR-MPLS Policies
The PLM test packets MUST be transmitted using the MPLS header for
each Label Stack of the SR-MPLS Policy Candidate-Path(s) as shown in
Figure 4.
In case of SR-MPLS paths, the SR-MPLS header can contain the MPLS
label stack of the forward path or both forward and the reverse
paths. In the first case, the PLM return test packets are received
by the Session-Sender via IP/UDP [RFC0768] return path and the MPLS
header is removed by the Session-Reflector.
In the second case, the Segment List of the reverse SR path is added
in the PLM test packet header to receive the return test packet on a
specific path, either using the Binding SID
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] or Segment List of the Reverse SR
Policy [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path]. In this case, the MPLS header
is not removed by the Session-Reflector.
In both cases, the Session-Sender MUST set the Destination Address
equal to the Session-Sender address and the Source Address equal to
the Session-Reflector address in the IP header of the test packets.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Session-Sender IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Protocol = UDP .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Session-Sender .
. Destination Port = As chosen by Session-Sender .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload as defined in Figure 3 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Example PLM Test Packet for SR-MPLS
5.2. PLM for SRv6 Policies
The PLM test packets for SRv6 data plane MUST be transmitted using
the Segment Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754] for each Segment List of
the SRv6 Policy Candidate-Path(s) as shown in Figure 5.
In case of SRv6 paths, the SRH can contain the Segment List of the
forward path or both forward and the reverse paths. In the first
case, an inner IPv6 header (after SRH and before UDP header) MUST be
added that contains the Destination Address equal to the Session-
Sender address and the Source Address equal to the Session-Reflector
address as shown in Figure 5. In this case, the SRH is removed by
the Session-Reflector and IP/UDP return path is used.
In the second case, the Segment List of the reverse SR path is added
in the SRH to receive the return test packet on a specific path,
either using the Binding SID [I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] or
Segment List of the Reverse SR Policy [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path].
In this case, the SRH is not removed by the Session-Reflector and an
inner IPv6 header is not required. When the PLM return test packet
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
contains an SRH at the Session-Sender, the procedure defined for
upper-layer header processing for SRv6 SIDs in [RFC8986] MUST be used
to process the UDP header in the received PLM test packets.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Sender IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Destination IPv6 Address .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH as specified in RFC 8754 |
. <Segment List> .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Reflector IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Session-Sender IPv6 Address .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Session-Sender .
. Destination Port = As chosen by Session-Sender .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload as defined in Figure 3 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Example PLM Test Packet for SRv6
6. Enhanced PLM Procedure
For enhanced performance and liveness monitoring of an end-to-end SR
path including SR Policy, PLM test packets are transmitted in
loopback mode enabled with network programming function to timestamp
and forward the packet.
6.1. Enhanced PLM with Timestamp Label for SR-MPLS Policies
In this document, two new Timestamp Labels are defined for SR-MPLS
data plane to enable network programming function for "timestamp, pop
and forward" the received test packet, one for unauthenticated mode
and one for authenticated mode.
In the PLM test packets for SR-MPLS Policies, a Timestamp Label is
added in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 6, to collect "Receive
Timestamp" field in the payload of the PLM test packet. The Label
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
Stack for the reverse SR-MPLS path can be added after the Timestamp
Label to receive the PLM return test packet on a specific path. When
a Session-Reflector receives a packet with Timestamp Label, after
timestamping the packet at a specific offset, the Session-Reflector
pops the Timestamp Label and forwards the packet using the next label
or IP header in the packet (just like the data packets for the
regular traffic).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extension Label (15) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp Label (TBA1 or TBA2) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Session-Sender IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Protocol = UDP .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Session-Sender .
. Destination Port = As chosen by Session-Sender .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload as defined in Figure 3 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Example PLM Test Packet with Timestamp Label for SR-MPLS
6.1.1. Timestamp Label Allocation
The timestamp Labels for unauthenticated and authenticated modes can
be allocated using one of the following methods:
* Labels (values TBA1 and TBA2) assigned by IANA from the "Extended
Special-Purpose MPLS Values" [RFC9017]. For Label (value TBA1),
the timestamp offset is fixed at byte-offset 16 from the start of
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
the payload for the unauthenticated mode, and Label (value TBA2)
at byte-offset 32 from the start of the payload for the
authenticated mode, both using the timestamp format 64-bit PTPv2.
* Labels allocated by a Controller from the global table of the
Session-Reflector. The Controller provisions the labels on both
Session-Sender and Session-Reflector, as well as timestamp offsets
and timestamp formats.
* Labels allocated by the Session-Reflector. The signaling and IGP
flooding extension for the labels (including timestamp offsets and
timestamp formats) are outside the scope of this document.
6.1.2. Node Capability for Timestamp Label
The PLM Session-Sender needs to know if the Session-Reflector can
process the Timestamp Label to avoid dropping PLM test packets. The
signaling extension for this capability exchange is outside the scope
of this document.
6.2. Enhanced PLM with Timestamp Endpoint Function for SRv6 Policies
The [RFC8986] defines SRv6 Endpoint Behaviours (EB) for SRv6 nodes.
In this document, two new Timestamp Endpoint Behaviours are defined
for Segment Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754] to enable "Timestamp and
Forward (TSF)" function for the received test packets, one for
unauthenticated mode and one for authenticated mode.
In the PLM test packets for SRv6 Policies, Timestamp Endpoint
Function (End.TSF) is carried with the target Segment Identifier
(SID) in SRH [RFC8754] as shown in Figure 7, to collect "Receive
Timestamp" field in the payload of the PLM test packet. The Segment
List for the reverse path can be added after the target SID to
receive the PLM return test packet on a specific path. When a
Session-Reflector receives a packet with Timestamp Endpoint (End.TSF)
for the target SID which is local, after timestamping the packet at a
specific offset, the Session-Reflector forwards the packet using the
next SID in the SRH or inner IPv6 header in the packet (just like the
data packets for the regular traffic).
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Sender IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Destination IPv6 Address .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH as specified in RFC 8754 |
. <Segment List> .
. SRv6 Endpoint End.TSF (value TBA3 or TBA4) .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Reflector IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Session-Sender IPv6 Address .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Session-Sender .
. Destination Port = As chosen by Session-Sender .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload as defined in Figure 3 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 7: Example PLM Test Packet with Endpoint Function for SRv6
6.2.1. Timestamp Endpoint Function Assignment
The Timestamp Endpoint Functions for "Timestamp and Forward" can be
signaled using one of the following methods:
* Timestamp Endpoint Functions (values TBA3 and TBA4) assigned by
IANA from the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors Registry". For endpoint
behaviour (value TBA3), the timestamp offset is fixed at byte-
offset 16 from the start of the payload for the unauthenticated
mode, and endpoint behaviour (value TBA4) at byte-offset 32 from
the start of the payload for the authenticated mode, both using
the timestamp format 64-bit PTPv2.
* Timestamp Endpoint Functions assigned by a Controller. The
Controller provisions the values on both Session-Sender and
Session-Reflector, as well as timestamp offsets and timestamp
formats.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
* Timestamp Endpoint Functions assigned by the Session-Reflector.
The signaling and IGP flooding extension for the endpoint
functions (including timestamp offsets and timestamp formats) are
outside the scope of this document.
6.2.2. Node Capability for Timestamp Endpoint Function
The PLM Session-Sender needs to know if the Session-Reflector can
process the Timestamp Endpoint Function to avoid dropping PLM test
packets. The signaling extension for this capability exchange is
outside the scope of this document.
7. ECMP Handling
An SR Policy can have ECMPs between the source and transit nodes,
between transit nodes and between transit and destination nodes. The
PLM test packets SHOULD be transmitted to traverse different ECMP
paths to monitor an end-to-end SR Policy.
Forwarding plane has various hashing functions available to forward
packets on specific ECMP paths.
For SR-MPLS Policy, sweeping of MPLS entropy label [RFC6790] values
can be used in Session-Sender test packets and Session-Reflector test
packets to take advantage of the hashing function in forwarding plane
to influence the ECMP path taken by them.
In IPv4 header of the Session-Sender test packets, sweeping of
Destination Address from the range 127/8 can be used to exercise ECMP
paths. In this case, both the forward and the return paths MUST be
SR-MPLS paths when using the loopback mode.
As specified in [RFC6437], Flow Label field in the outer IPv6 header
can also be used for sweeping to exercise different IPv6 ECMP paths.
8. Example PLM Failure Notifications
In both loopback modes, the timestamps T1 and T4 are used to measure
the round-trip delay. In loopback mode enabled with network
programming function, the timestamps T1 and T2 are used to measure
the one-way delay. The delay metrics for an end-to-end SR path are
notified, for example, when consecutive M number of PLM test packets
have measured delay values exceed user-configured threshold T, where
M (Delay Exceeded Packet Count) and T (Absolute and Percentage Delay
Exceeded Threshold) are also locally provisioned values.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
The round-trip packet loss for an end-to-end SR path is calculated
using the Sequence Number in the PLM test packets. The packet loss
metric is notified when X number of PLM test packets were lost out of
last Y number of PLM test packets transmitted by the Session-Sender,
where Threshold XofY is locally provisioned value.
Connectivity verification success for an end-to-end SR path is
initially notified as soon as one or more PLM return test packets are
received at the Session-Sender.
Connectivity verification failure for an end-to-end SR path is
notified when consecutive N number of PLM return test packets are not
received at the Session-Sender, where N (Missed PLM Packet Count) is
a locally provisioned value.
In both loopback modes, a connectivity verification failure on the
reverse direction path can cause the PLM return test packets to not
reach the Session-Sender. This is also true in the case where the
return test packets are generated by the stateless Session-Reflector.
The stateful Session-Reflector can solve this issue by maintaining
the forwarding direction state and notifying a connectivity
verification failure to the Session-Sender.
9. Security Considerations
The PLM protocol is intended for deployment in limited domains
[RFC8799]. As such, it assumes that a node involved in the PLM
protocol operation has previously verified the integrity of the path
and the identity of the far-end Session-Reflector.
If desired, attacks can be mitigated by performing basic validation
and sanity checks, at the Session-Sender, of the timestamp fields in
received PLM reply test packets. The minimal state associated with
these protocols also limits the extent of disruption that can be
caused by a corrupt or invalid packet to a single test cycle.
The security considerations specified in [RFC8762] also apply to the
procedures defined in this document. Specifically, the message
integrity protection using HMAC, as defined in Section 4.4 of
[RFC8762] also apply to the procedure described in this document.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Values" registry (see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
mpls-label-values/mpls-label-values.xml>). IANA is requested to
allocate Timestamp Label value from the "Extended Special-Purpose
MPLS Label Values" registry:
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
+-------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA1 | Timestamp Label | This document |
| | for offset 16 | |
| | for Unauthenticated Mode | |
+-------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA2 | Timestamp Label | This document |
| | for offset 32 | |
| | for Authenticated Mode | |
+-------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
IANA is requested to allocate, within the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors
Registry" sub-registry belonging to the top-level "Segment Routing
Parameters" registry [RFC8986], the following allocation:
+-------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Endpoint Behavior | Reference |
+-------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA3 | End.TSF (Timestamp and Forward) | This document |
| | for offset 16 | |
| | for Unauthenticated Mode | |
+-------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| TBA4 | End.TSF (Timestamp and Forward) | This document |
| | for offset 32 | |
| | for Authenticated Mode | |
+-------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
11.2. Informative References
[IEEE1588] IEEE, "1588-2008 IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems", March 2008.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.
Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
[RFC9017] Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special-
Purpose Label Terminology", RFC 9017,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9017, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9017>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-policy-13, 28 May 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-policy-13.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Previdi, S.,
and C. L. (editor), "Carrying Binding Label/Segment
Identifier in PCE-based Networks.", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-10, 10
July 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
pce-binding-label-sid-10.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment Routing
(SR) Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pce-sr-bidir-path-07, 12 July 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-
path-07.txt>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Mach Chen, Kireeti
Kompella, and Adrian Farrel for providing the review comments.
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Performance Monitoring in SR August 2021
Navin Vaghamshi
Reliance
Email: Navin.Vaghamshi@ril.com
Moses Nagarajah
Telstra
Email: Moses.Nagarajah@team.telstra.com
Richard Foote
Nokia
Email: footer.foote@nokia.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires 10 February 2022 [Page 21]
