IPPM T. Graf Internet-Draft Swisscom Intended status: Informational G. Fioccola Expires: 25 April 2024 T. Zhou Huawei F. Milan M. Nilo Telecom Italia 23 October 2023 IPFIX Alternate-Marking Information draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Abstract This document introduces new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements (IEs) to export Alternate Marking measurement data. 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 25 April 2024. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Graf, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking October 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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. AltMark IPFIX Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Flow Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Flow Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.4. Flow Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction Alternate-Marking Method [RFC9341] [RFC9342] is a technique used to measure packet loss, delay, and jitter on in-flight packets. [I-D.fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] provides a framework for Alternate Marking deployments and includes considerations and guidance for application and methodology. The IPFIX protocol is considered for data export. [RFC7012] defines the data types and management policy for the information model of the IPFIX protocol [RFC7011]. This document defines the new IPFIX Information Elements (IEs) for the Alternate Marking Method. 1.1. 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. Graf, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking October 2023 2. AltMark IPFIX Information Elements This section describes existing IEs of [IANA-IPFIX] that are relevant for the Alternate Marking application and also introduces new IEs. 2.1. Flow Decomposition For IPFIX [RFC7011] the data decomposition can be achieved on the Alternate-Marking-aware node where IPFIX is exported or on the IPFIX data collection. The ipPayloadPacketSection(IE314) Information Element carries a series of n octets from the IP payload, starting sectionOffset(IE409) octets into the IP payload. When decomposed at the data collection, the packet header sections, as example the IPv6 options type header described in Section 3.1 of [RFC9343] or the Segment Routing header TLV as described in Section 3.1 of [I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark] containing the FlowMonID, Loss and Delay flag are being exposed as part of ipPayloadPacketSection(IE314), defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC7133]. The IPv4 payload is that part of the packet that follows the IPv4 header and any options. The IPv6 payload is the rest of the packet following the 40-octet IPv6 header. Note that any extension headers present are considered part of the payload. The sectionExportedOctets(IE410) expresses how much data was observed, while the remainder is padding. 2.2. Flow Aggregation An Aggregated Flow is simply an IPFIX Flow generated from Original Flows by an Intermediate Aggregation Process. When being decomposed on the Alternate-Marking-aware node, new IPFIX entities for FlowMonID, Loss and Delay flag are needed so that the data can now be aggregated according to section 5 of [RFC7015]. According to section 4 of [RFC7015] new Flow Keys may be derived from existing Flow Keys or "promoted" from specific non-key fields. Therefore FlowMonID, Loss and Delay flag are considered Flow Key fields. 2.3. Flow Correlation The following IPFIX entities are of interest to describe the relationship to the forwarding topology and the control-plane. Graf, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking October 2023 * Hostname, ingressInterface(IE10) and egressInterface(IE14) describes on which node which logical ingress and egress interfaces have been used to forward the packet. * Hostname and egressPhysicalInterface(IE253) describes on which node which physical egress interfaces have been used to forward the packet. * Hostname and ipNextHopIPv4Address(IE15) or ipNextHopIPv6Address(IE62), describes the forwarding path to which next-hop IP address the packets are forwarded to. * Hostname and mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(IE47) or srhActiveSegmentIPv6 from [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh] describes the forwarding path to which MPLS top label IPv4 address or SRv6 active segment the packets are forwarded to. * BGP communities are often used for setting a path priority or service selection. bgpDestinationExtendedCommunityList(IE488) or bgpDestinationCommunityList(IE485) or bgpDestinationLargeCommunityList(IE491) describes which group of prefixes have been used to forward the packet. * Hostname and destinationIPv4Address(IE13), destinationTransportPort(IE11), protocolIdentifier(IE4) and sourceIPv4Address(IE8) describes the forwarding path on each node from each IPv4 source address to a specific application in the network. 2.4. Flow Measurements To calculate loss, the packet count can be done with octetDeltaCount(IE1) or packetDeltaCount(IE2). While, to calculate delay, either flowStartSeconds(IE150), flowStartMilliseconds(IE152), flowStartMicroseconds(IE154) or flowStartNanoseconds(IE156), can be used depending on timestamp granularity requirements. It is also possible to use flowEndSeconds(IE151), flowEndMilliseconds(IE153), flowEndMicroseconds(IE155) or flowEndNanoseconds(IE157). It is also defined the PeriodID, which is needed for Alternate- Marking measurement correlation as per [I-D.fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment]. Graf, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking October 2023 3. IANA Considerations This document requests IANA to create a new subregistry called "IPFIX Alternate-Marking" under the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry [RFC7012] available at [IANA-IPFIX]. The allocation policy of this new subregistry is Expert Review (Section 4.5 of [RFC8126]). The designated experts for this registry should be familiar with Alternate-Marking. The guidelines that are being followed by the designated experts for the IPFIX registry should be followed for this subregistry. In particular, criteria that should be applied by the designated experts include determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing entries and whether the registration description is clear and fits the purpose of this registry. Within the review period, the designated experts will either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to IANA. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful. Initial values in the registry are defined in Table 1. +-------+---------------------+----------------------------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+---------------------+----------------------------------+ | TBD1 | FlowMonID | [RFC-to-be], | | | | RFC9341, RFC9342, RFC9343 | +-------+---------------------+----------------------------------+ | TBD2 | L flag | [RFC-to-be], | | | | RFC9341, RFC9342, RFC9343 | +-------+---------------------+----------------------------------+ | TBD3 | D flag | [RFC-to-be], | | | | RFC9341, RFC9342, RFC9343 | +-------+---------------------+----------------------------------+ | TBD4 | PeriodID | [RFC-to-be], | | | | [I-D.fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment]| +-------+---------------------+----------------------------------+ Table 1: "IPFIX Alternate-Marking" subregistry Graf, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking October 2023 4. Security Considerations Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Multipoint Alternate Marking [RFC9342] analyze different security concerns and related solutions. These aspects are valid and applicable also to this document. In particular the fundamental security requirement is that Alternate Marking MUST only be applied in a specific limited domain, as also mentioned in [RFC8799]. 5. Acknowledgements TBD 6. References 6.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh] Graf, T., Claise, B., and P. Francois, "Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-14, 25 May 2023, . [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, . [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, . [RFC7015] Trammell, B., Wagner, A., and B. Claise, "Flow Aggregation for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol", RFC 7015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7015, September 2013, . Graf, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking October 2023 [RFC7133] Kashima, S., Kobayashi, A., Ed., and P. Aitken, "Information Elements for Data Link Layer Traffic Measurement", RFC 7133, DOI 10.17487/RFC7133, May 2014, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341, DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022, . [RFC9342] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and T. Zhou, "Clustered Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9342, DOI 10.17487/RFC9342, December 2022, . [RFC9343] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R. Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9343, DOI 10.17487/RFC9343, December 2022, . 6.2. Informative References [I-D.fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Milan, F., and M. Nilo, "Alternate Marking Deployment Framework", Work in Progress, Internet- Draft, draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-00, 7 July 2023, . [I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Mishra, G. S., wang, X., and G. Zhang, "Application of the Alternate Marking Method to the Segment Routing Header", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-07, 22 September 2023, . [IANA-IPFIX] "IANA, IPFIX", . Graf, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking October 2023 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, . [RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020, . Authors' Addresses Thomas Graf Swisscom Binzring 17 CH-8045 Zurich Switzerland Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com Giuseppe Fioccola Huawei Palazzo Verrocchio, Centro Direzionale Milano 2 20054 Segrate (Milan) Italy Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com Tianran Zhou Huawei 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Fabrizio Milan Telecom Italia Via Reiss Romoli, 274 10148 Torino Italy Email: fabrizio.milan@telecomitalia.it Graf, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ipfix-alternate-marking October 2023 Massimo Nilo Telecom Italia Via Reiss Romoli, 274 10148 Torino Italy Email: massimo.nilo@telecomitalia.it Graf, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 9]