Internet DRAFT - draft-bryant-mpls-flow-ident
draft-bryant-mpls-flow-ident
MPLS S. Bryant
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational S. Bryant
Expires: May 5, 2016 Independent
C. Pignataro
Cisco Systems
M. Chen
Z. Li
Huawei
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
November 2, 2015
MPLS Flow Identification Considerations
draft-bryant-mpls-flow-ident-03
Abstract
This memo discusses the desired capabilities for MPLS flow
identification. The key application that needs this is in-band
performance monitoring of user data packets.
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 http://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 5, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Loss Measurement Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Delay Measurement Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Units of identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Types of LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Network Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Dataplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
This memo discusses the desired capabilities for MPLS flow
identification. The key application that needs this is in-band
performance monitoring of user data packets.
There is a need to identify flows in MPLS networks for applications
such as packet loss and packet delay measurement. A method of loss
and delay measurement in MPLS networks was defined in [RFC6374].
When used to measure packet loss [RFC6374] depends on the use of the
injected Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) packets to
designate the beginning and the end of the packet group over which
packet loss is being measured. Where the misordering of packets from
one group relative to the following group, or misordering of one of
the packets being counted relative to the [RFC6374] packet occurs,
then an error will occur in the packet loss measurement. In
addition, this packet performance measurement system needs to be
extended to deal with different granularities of flow and to address
a number of the multi-point cases in which two or more ingress Label
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
Switching Routers (LSRs) could send packets to one or more
destinations.
Improvements in link and transmission technologies mean that it may
be difficult to assess packet loss using active performance
measurement methods with synthetic traffic, due to the very low loss
rate in normal operation. That, together with more demanding service
level requirements, mean that network operators need to be able to
measure the loss of the actual user data traffic by using passive
performance measurement methods. Any technique deployed needs to be
transparent to the end user, and it needs to be assumed that they
will not take any active part in the measurement process. Indeed it
is important that any flow identification technique be invisible to
them and that no remnant of the identification of measurement process
leak into their network.
Additionally where there are multiple traffic sources, such as in
multi-point to point and multi-point to multi-point network
environments there needs to be a method whereby the sink can
distinguish between packets from the various sources, that is to say,
that a multi-point to multi-point measurement model needs to be
developed.
2. 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].
3. Loss Measurement Considerations
Modern networks, if not oversubscribed, normally drop very few
packets, thus packet loss measurement is highly sensitive to counter
errors. Without some form of coloring or batch marking such as that
proposed in [I-D.tempia-ippm-p3m] it may not be possible to achieve
the required accuracy in the loss measurement of customer data
traffic. Thus where accuracy better than the data link loss
performance of a modern optical network is required, it may be
economically advantageous, or even a technical requirement, to
include some form of marking in the packets to assign each packet to
a particular counter.
Where this level of accuracy is required and the traffic between a
source-destination pair is subject to Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) a
demarcation mechanism is needed to group the packets into batches.
Once a batch is correlated at both ingress and egress, the packet
accounting mechanism is then able to operate on the batch of packets
which can be accounted for at both the packet ingress and the packet
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
egress. Errors in the accounting are particularly acute in Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) subjected to ECMP because the network transit
time will be different for the various ECMP paths since:
a. The packets may traverse different sets of LSRs.
b. The packets may depart from different interfaces on different
line cards on LSRs
c. The packets may arrive at different interfaces on different line
cards on LSRs.
A consideration in modifying the identity label (the MPLS label
ordinarily used to identify the LSP, Virtual Private Network,
Pseudowire etc) to indicate the batch is the impact that this has on
the path chosen by the ECMP mechanism. When the member of the ECMP
path set is chosen by deep packet inspection a change of batch
represented by a change of identity label will have no impact on the
ECMP path. Where the path member is chosen by reference to an
entropy label [RFC6790] then changing the batch identifier will not
result in a change to the chosen ECMP path. ECMP is so pervasive in
multi-point to (multi-) point networks that some method of avoiding
accounting errors introduced by ECMP needs to be supported.
4. Delay Measurement Considerations
Most of the existing delay measurement methods are active measurement
that depend on the extra injected test packet to evaluate the delay
of a path. With the active measurement method, the rate, numbers and
interval between the injected packets may affect the accuracy of the
results. Also, for injected test packets, these may not be co-routed
with the data traffic due to ECMP. Thus there exists a requirement
to measure the delay of the real traffic.
For combined loss-delay measurements, both the loss and the delay
considerations apply.
5. Units of identification
The most basic unit of identification is the identity of the node
that processed the packet on its entry to the MPLS network. However,
the required unit of identification may vary depending on the use
case for accounting, performance measurement or other types of packet
observations. In particular note that there may be a need to impose
identify at several different layers of the MPLS label stack.
This document considers following units of identifications:
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
o Per source LSR - everything from one source is aggregated.
o Per group of LSPs chosen by an ingress LSR - an ingress LSP
aggregates group of LSPs (ex: all LSPs of a tunnel).
o Per LSP - the basic form.
o Per flow [RFC6790] within an LSP - fine graining method.
Note that a fine grained identity resolution is needed when there is
a need to perform these operations on a flow not readily identified
by some other element in the label stack. Such fine grained
resolution may be possible by deep packet inspection, but this may
not always be possible, or it may be desired to minimise processing
costs by doing this only in entry to the network, and adding a
suitable identifier to the packet for reference by other network
elements. An example of such a fine grained case might be traffic
from a specific application, or from a specific application from a
specific source, particularly if matters related to service level
agreement or application performance were being investigated.
We can thus characterize the identification requirement in the
following broad terms:
o There needs to be some way for an egress LSR to identify the
ingress LSR with an appropriate degree of scope. This concept is
discussed further in Section 7.
o There needs to be a way to identify a specific LSP at the egress
node. This allows for the case of instrumenting multiple LSPs
operate between the same pair of nodes. In such cases the
identity of the ingress LSR is insufficient.
o In order to conserve resources such as labels, counters and/or
compute cycles it may be desirable to identify an LSP group so
that a operation can be performed on the group as an aggregate.
o There needs to be a way to identify a flow within an LSP. This is
necessary when investigating a specific flow that has been
aggregated into an LSP.
The unit of identification and the method of determining which
packets constitute a flow will be application or use-case specific
and is out of scope of this memo.
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
6. Types of LSP
We need to consider a number of types of LSP. The two simplest types
to monitor are point to point LSPs and point to multi-point LSPs.
The ingress LSR for a point to point LSP, such as those created using
the Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
[RFC5420] signalling protocol, or those that conform to the MPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [RFC5654] may be identified by inspection
of the top label in the stack, since at any provider-edge (PE) or
provider (P) router on the path this is unique to the ingress-egress
pair at every hop at a given layer in the LSP hierarchy. Provided
that penultimate hop popping is disabled, the identity of the ingress
LSR of a point to point LSP is available at the egress LSR and thus
determining the identity of the ingress LSR must be regarded as a
solved problem. Note however that the identity of a flow cannot to
be determined without further information being carried in the
packet, or gleaned from some aspect of the packet payload.
In the case of a point to multi-point LSP, and in the absence of
Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) the identity of the ingress LSR may
also be inferred from the top label. However, it may not possible to
adequately identify the flow from the top label alone, and thus
further information may need to be carried in the packet, or gleaned
from some aspect of the packet payload. In designing any solution it
is desirable that a common flow identity solution be used for both
point to point and point to multi-point LSP types. Similarly it is
desirable that a common method of LSP group identification be used.
In the above cases, a context label [RFC5331] needs to be used to
provide the required identity information. This is widely supported
MPLS feature.
A more interesting case is the case of a multi-point to point LSP.
In this case the same label is normally used by multiple ingress or
upstream LSRs and hence source identification is not possible by
inspection of the top label by the egress LSRs. It is therefore
necessary for a packet to be able to explicitly convey any of the
identity types described in Section 5.
Similarly, in the case of a multi-point to multi-point LSP the same
label is normally used by multiple ingress or upstream LSRs and hence
source identification is not possible by inspection of the top label
by egress LSRs. The various types of identity described in Section 5
are again needed. Note however, that the scope of the identity may
be constrained to be unique within the set of multi-point to multi-
point LSPs terminating on any common node.
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
7. Network Scope
The scope of identification can be constrained to the set of flows
that are uniquely identifiable at an ingress LSR, or some aggregation
thereof. There is no question of an ingress LSR seeking assistance
from outside the MPLS protocol domain.
In any solution that constrains itself to carrying the required
identity in the MPLS label stack rather than in some different
associated data structure, constraints on the label stack size imply
that the scope of identity reside within that MPLS domain. For
similar reasons the identity scope of a component of an LSP should be
constrained to the scope of that LSP.
8. Backwards Compatibility
In any network it is unlikely that all LSRs will have the same
capability to support the methods of identification discussed in this
memo. It is therefore an important constraint on any flow identity
solution that it is backwards compatible with deployed MPLS equipment
to the extent that deploying the new feature will not disable
anything that currently works on a legacy equipment.
This is particularly the case when the deployment is incremental or
when the feature is not required for all LSRs or all LSPs. Thus in
broad the flow identification design MUST support the co-existence of
both LSRs that can, and cannot, identify the traffic components
described in Section 5. In addition the identification of the
traffic components described in Section 5 MUST be an optional feature
that is disabled by default. As a design simplification, a solution
MAY require that all egress LSRs of a point to multipoint or a multi-
point to multipoint LSP support the identification type in use so
that a single packet can be correctly processed by all egress
devices. The corollary of this last point is that either all egress
LSRs are enabled to support the required identity type, or none of
them are.
9. Dataplane
There is a huge installed base of MPLS equipment, typically this type
of equipment remains in service for an extended period of time, and
in many cases hardware constraints mean that it is not possible to
upgrade its dataplane functionality. Changes to the MPLS data plane
are therefore expensive to implement, add complexity to the network,
and may significantly impact the deployability of a solution that
requires such changes. For these reasons, the MPLS designers have
set a very high bar to changes to the MPLS data plane, and only a
very small number have been adopted. Hence, it is important that the
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
method of identification must minimize changes to the MPLS data
plane. Ideally method(s) of identification that require no changes
to the MPLS data plane should be given preferential consideration.
If a method of identification makes a change to the data plane is
chosen it will need to have a significant advantage over any method
that makes no change, and the advantage of the approach will need to
be carefully evaluated and documented. If a change is necessary to
the MPLS data plane proves necessary, it should be (a) be as small a
change as possible and (b) be a general purpose method so as to
maximise its use for future applications. It is imperative that, as
far as can be foreseen, any necessary change made to the MPLS data
plane does not impose any foreseeable future limitation on the MPLS
data plane.
Stack size is an issue with many MPLS implementations both as a
result of hardware limitations, and due to the impact on networks and
applications where a large number of small payloads need to be
transported In particular one MPLS payload may be carried inside
another. For example one LSP may be carried over another LSP, or a
PW or similar multiplexing construct may be carried over an LSP and
identification may be required at both layers. Of particular concern
is the implementation of low cost edge LSRs that for cost reasons
have a significant limit on the number of Label Stack Elements (LSEs)
that they can impose or dispose. Therefore, any method of identity
MUST NOT consume an excessive number of unique labels, and MUST NOT
result in an excessive increase in the size of the label stack.
The MPLS data plane design provides two types of special purpose
labels: the original 16 reserved labels and the much larger set of
special purpose labels defined in [RFC7274]. The original reserved
labels need one LSE, and the newer [RFC7274] special purpose labels
need two LSEs. Given the tiny number of original reserved labels, it
is core to the MPLS design philosophy that this scarce resource is
only used when it is absolutely necessary. Using a single LSE
reserved or special purpose label to encode flow identity thus
requires two stack entries, one for the reserved label and one for
the flow identity. The larger set of [RFC7274] labels requires two
labels stack entries for the special purpose label itself and hence a
total of three label stack entries to encode the flow identity.
The use of special purpose labels (SPL) [RFC7274] as part of a method
to encode the identity information therefore has a number of
undesirable implications for the data plane and hence whilst a
solution may use SPL(s), methods that do not require SPLs need to be
carefully considered.
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
10. Control Plane
Any flow identity design should both seek to minimise the complexity
of the control plane and should minimise the amount of label co-
ordination needed amongst LSRs.
11. Privacy Considerations
The inclusion of originating and/or flow information in a packet
provides more identity information and hence potentially degrades the
privacy of the communication. Recent IETF concerns on pervasive
monitoring [RFC7258] would lead it to prefer a solution that does not
degrade the privacy of user traffic below that of an MPLS network not
implementing the flow identification feature. The minimizing the
scope of the identity indication can be useful in minimizing the
observability of the flow characteristics.
12. Security Considerations
Any solution to the flow identification needs must not degrade the
security of the MPLS network below that of an equivalent network not
deploying the specified identity solution. Propagation of
identification information outside the MPLS network imposing it must
be disabled by default. Any solution should provide for the
restriction of the identity information to those components of the
network that need to know it. It is thus desirable to limit the
knowledge of the identify of an endpoint to only those LSRs that need
to participate in traffic flow.
13. IANA Considerations
This memo has no IANA considerations.
14. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Nobo Akiya (nobo@cisco.com), Nagendra Kumar Nainar
(naikumar@cisco.com) and George Swallow (swallow@cisco.com) for their
comments.
15. References
15.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
15.2. Informative References
[I-D.tempia-ippm-p3m]
Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Fioccola, G., Castaldelli, L.,
and A. Bonda, "A packet based method for passive
performance monitoring", draft-tempia-ippm-p3m-02 (work in
progress), October 2015.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5331>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
[RFC7274] Kompella, K., Andersson, L., and A. Farrel, "Allocating
and Retiring Special-Purpose MPLS Labels", RFC 7274,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7274, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7274>.
Authors' Addresses
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI November 2015
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems
Email: stbryant@cisco.com
Stewart Bryant
Independent
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Mach Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Gregory Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
Bryant, et al. Expires May 5, 2016 [Page 11]
