Internet DRAFT - draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark
draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark
SPRING Working Group G. Fioccola, Ed.
Internet-Draft Telecom Italia
Intended status: Standards Track G. Van de Velde, Ed.
Expires: April 29, 2018 Nokia
M. Cociglio
Telecom Italia
P. Muley
Nokia
October 26, 2017
Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Performance Measurement with Alternate
Marking Method in Segment Routing
draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01
Abstract
[RFC6294] makes a survey of Proposed Use Cases for the IPv6 Flow
Label. The IPv6 protocol includes a flow label in every packet
header, but this field is, according to [RFC6294], not used in
practice. This document describes how the alternate marking method
can be used as the passive performance measurement method in a IPv6
domain.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 April 29, 2018.
Fioccola, et al. Expires April 29, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Flow Label PM with AMM in SR October 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. IPv6 Flow Labels and Alternate Marking . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IPv6 Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. SRv6 Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Alternate Marking Method Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Single Mark Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Double Mark Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The IPv6 Header Format defined in [RFC2460] introduces the
availability of an 20-bit flow label in the base IPv6 Header.
The flow label is an immutable field recommended to contain a pseudo-
random value [RFC6437]. However, in most packets it has the default
value of zero, although some TCP/IP stacks do set it according to
[RFC6437].
[RFC6436] and [RFC6437] open the door for IPv6 Flow Label to be used
in controlled environment, e.g. for IPv6 tunnelled packets or SRv6
policies (see following Sections for more details). For example
[RFC6438] describes the use of the IPv6 Flow Label field for load
distribution purpose, especially across Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP)
and/or Link Aggregation Group (LAG) paths.
Fioccola, et al. Expires April 29, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Flow Label PM with AMM in SR October 2017
But, a specific goal presented in [RFC6437] is to enable and
encourage the use of the flow label. In fact it is important to
underline two aspects from this specification:
o It encourages non-zero flow label values to be used and clearly
defines how to set a non-zero value.
o It retains the rule that the flow label must not be changed en
route but allows routers to set the label on behalf of hosts that
do not do so.
Based on these considerations, it is allowed to use the flow label
field in a managed domain, assuming when a packet leaves the domain,
the original flow label value MUST be restored.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] describes passive performance measurement
method, which can be used to measure packet loss, latency and jitter
on live traffic. Because this method is based on marking consecutive
batches of packets the method often referred as Alternate Marking
Method.
This document defines how the alternate marking method can be used to
measure packet loss and delay metrics of IPv6 tunneled packets or
SRv6 policies.
2. IPv6 Flow Labels and Alternate Marking
The application of the Alternate Marking method in a managed and
controlled domain is realised with two fundamental assumptions:
o The original flow-label reconstructed when leaving SP controlled
domain.
o The usage of IPv6 tunnels (IPv6inIPv6, IPSec, IPv6 UDP, etc..) or
SRv6 policies.
2.1. IPv6 Tunnel
The ingress router is the "source" of the IPv6 tunnel and impose the
OUTER IPv6 header, so Ingress router can control the Flow-label of
OUTER IPv6 header. The Egress router removes OUTER IPv6 header,
restoring ORIGINAL payload and payload headers (IPv6, IPv4, L2
traffic, MBH, etc...).
Fioccola, et al. Expires April 29, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Flow Label PM with AMM in SR October 2017
2.2. SRv6 Policy
When IPv6 SRv6 Encapsulation is used, the outer SRv6 header uses 2
bits (Mark Field) from 20 bit flow-label field. Outer SRv6 header
will be removed when exiting the SP domain and the original Flow-
label is restored at egress.
As described in [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion], when
IPv6 SRv6 EH insertion is used, there is the insertion of IPv6
Extension Headers. However in [RFC8200] it was ruled against
insertion of EHs and it is recommended that Extension Headers are not
processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along the path, until the
packet from source node reaches the destination node.
3. Alternate Marking Method Operation
The Figure 1 displays format of the Mark field (2 bits from 20 bit
IPv6 flow-label field).
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow Label | MF|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mark Field (MF) is:
0
0 1
+-+-+-+-+
| S | D |
+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Mark field format
where:
o S - Single mark method;
o D - Double mark method.
The use of the other 18 bits is not specified in this document
because is out of scope here. But it should follow [RFC6437]. If
the domain is using flow-label based load balancing, ECMP or LAG
internally, there are two possibilities. The methodology SHOULD be
used within a controlled domain where the load-balancing based on
flow label is disabled. Otherwise, the network element MUST mask the
Fioccola, et al. Expires April 29, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Flow Label PM with AMM in SR October 2017
Mark Field (MF), so it will not change hashing calculation for the
same flow because only 18 bits + 2 zeros are used for the entropy.
3.1. Single Mark Measurement
As explained in the [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark], marking can be applied
to delineate blocks of packets based either on equal number of
packets in a block or based on equal time interval. The latter
method offers better control as it allows better account for
capabilities of downstream nodes to report statistics related to
batches of packets and, at the same time, time resolution that
affects defect detection interval.
If the Single Mark measurement used, then the D flag MUST be set to
zero on transmit and ignored by monitoring point.
The S flag is used to create alternate flows to measure the packet
loss by switching value of the S flag. Delay metrics MAY be
calculated with the alternate flow using any of the following
methods:
o First/Last Batch Packet Delay calculation: timestamps are
collected based on order of arrival so this method is sensitive to
packet loss and re-ordering.
o Average Packet Delay calculation: an average delay is calculated
by considering the average arrival time of the packets within a
single block. This method only provides single metric for the
duration of the block and it doesn't give information about the
delay distribution.
3.2. Double Mark Measurement
Double Mark method allows more detailed measurement of delays for the
monitored flow but it requires more nodal and network resources. If
the Double Mark method used, then the S flag MUST be used to create
the alternate flow. The D flag MUST be used to mark single packets
to measure delay jitter.
The first marking (S flag alternation) is needed for packet loss and
also for average delay measurement. The second marking (D flag is
put to one) creates a new set of marked packets that are fully
identified and dedicated for delay. This method is useful to have
not only the average delay but also to know more about the statistic
distribution of delay values.
Fioccola, et al. Expires April 29, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Flow Label PM with AMM in SR October 2017
4. Security Considerations
tbc
5. Acknowledgements
tbc
6. IANA Considerations
7. References
7.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L.,
Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid
performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-13 (work
in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion]
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d.,
Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Salsano, S.,
Cianfrani, A., Lebrun, D., Bonaventure, O., Jonnalagadda,
P., Sharif, M., Elmalky, H., Abdelsalam, A., Raszuk, R.,
Ayyangar, A., Steinberg, D., and W. Henderickx, "Insertion
of IPv6 Segment Routing Headers in a Controlled Domain",
draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-01 (work in
progress), September 2017.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC6294] Hu, Q. and B. Carpenter, "Survey of Proposed Use Cases for
the IPv6 Flow Label", RFC 6294, DOI 10.17487/RFC6294, June
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6294>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires April 29, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Flow Label PM with AMM in SR October 2017
[RFC6436] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., and S. Jiang, "Rationale for
Update to the IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6436,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6436, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6436>.
[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>.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe Fioccola (editor)
Telecom Italia
Torino
Italy
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it
Gunter Van de Velde (editor)
Nokia
Antwerp
BE
Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com
Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia
Torino
Italy
Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
Fioccola, et al. Expires April 29, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Flow Label PM with AMM in SR October 2017
Praveen Muley
Nokia
Mountain View
USA
Email: praveen.muley@nokia.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires April 29, 2018 [Page 8]
