Internet DRAFT - draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment
draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment
IPPM G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Informational Huawei
Expires: 25 April 2024 T. Graf
Swisscom
F. Milan
M. Nilo
Telecom Italia
K. Zhu
Huawei
L. Zhang
China Mobile
23 October 2023
Alternate Marking Deployment Framework
draft-fz-ippm-alt-mark-deployment-01
Abstract
This document provides a framework for Alternate Marking deployment
and includes considerations and guidance for the deployment of the
methodology.
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.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft enhanced-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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Alternate Marking Deployment Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Alternate Marking Measurement Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Type of Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Data Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. IPFIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. YANG Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Encapsulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. BIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.4. MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.5. SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.6. NVO3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.7. Enhanced capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Implementation Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Multipoint Alternate Marking
[RFC9342] define the Alternate Marking technique that is a hybrid
performance measurement method, per [RFC7799] classification of
measurement methods. This method is based on marking consecutive
batches of packets and it can be used to measure packet loss,
latency, and jitter on live traffic.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
The first experiments on Alternate-Marking are described in [RFC8321]
and [RFC8889].
According to the definitions of [RFC7799], the Alternate-Marking
Method can be classified as Hybrid Type I. Indeed, Alternate Marking
can be implemented by using reserved bits in the protocol header, and
the change in value of these marking bits at the source node is
formally considered a modification of the stream of interest.
This document complements [RFC9341] and [RFC9342] as it explains the
mechanisms that can be used to manage and deploy the 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.
1.2. Terminology
Abbreviations used in this document:
AltMark: Alternate-Marking
NMS: Network Management System
IPv6: Internet Protocol version 6
SRv6: Segment Routing over IPv6 dataplane
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication
MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
SFC: Service Function Chaining
NVO3: Network Virtualization Overlays
IPFIX: IP Flow Information Export
YANG: Yet Another Next Generation
PCEP: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
BGP: Border Gateway Protocol
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
2. Alternate Marking Deployment Domain
The Alternate Marking Method MUST be deployed in a controlled domain
for security and compatibility reasons. In this regard, [RFC8799]
reports further examples of specific limited domain solutions. It is
not common that the user traffic originates and terminates within the
controlled domain. For this reason, it will typically only be
applicable in an overlay network, where user traffic is encapsulated
at one domain border, decapsulated at the other domain border and the
encapsulation incorporates the relevant extension header for
Alternate Marking. This requirement also implies that an
implementation MUST filter packets that carry Alternate Marking data
and are entering or leaving the controlled domain.
A controlled domain is a managed network where it is required to
select, monitor and control the access to the network by enforcing
policies at the domain boundaries in order to discard undesired
external packets entering the domain and check the internal packets
leaving the domain. It does not necessarily mean that a controlled
domain is a single administrative domain or a single organization. A
controlled domain can correspond to a single administrative domain or
can be composed by multiple administrative domains under a defined
network management. Indeed, some scenarios may imply that the
Alternate Marking Method involves more than one domain, but in these
cases, it is RECOMMENDED that the multiple domains create a whole
controlled domain while traversing the external domain by employing
IPsec authentication and encryption or other VPN technology that
provides full packet confidentiality and integrity protection. In a
few words, it must be possible to control the domain boundaries and
eventually use specific precautions if the traffic traverse the
Internet.
The Alternate Marking measurement domain can overlap with the
controlled domain or may be a subset of the controlled domain. The
typical scenarios for the application of the Alternate Marking Method
depend on the controlled domain boundaries, in particular:
the user equipment can be the starting or ending node, only in
case it is fully managed and if it belongs to the controlled
domain. In this case the user generated packets contain the
Alternate Marking data. But, in practice, this is not common due
to the fact that the user equipment cannot be totally secured in
the majority of cases.
the CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) or the PE (Provider Edge)
routers are most likely to be the starting or ending nodes since
they can be border routers of the controlled domain. For
instance, the CPE, which connects the user's premises with the
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
service provider's network, belongs to a controlled domain only if
it is managed by the service provider and if additional security
measures are taken to keep it trustworthy. Typically the CPE or
the PE can encapsulate a received packet in an outer header which
contains the Alternate Marking data. They can also be able to
filter and drop packets from outside of the domain with
inconsistent fields to make effective the relevant security rules
at the domain boundaries, for example a simple security check can
be to insert the Alternate Marking data if and only if the
destination is within the controlled domain.
3. Alternate Marking Measurement Nodes
An Alternate-Marking Domain consists of marking nodes, unmarking
nodes, and transit nodes.
A marking node, also called encapsulating node, incorporates the
AltMark Data Fields into packets in order to enable Alternate-
Marking. If the Alternate-Marking method is enabled for a
selected flow of the traffic, the encapsulating node is
responsible for applying the AltMark functionality to the selected
flow and to take initial timestamps and packet counters.
A transit node only reads AltMark Data Fields in order to take
timestamps and packet counters.
An unmarking node, also called decapsulating node, reads AltMark
Data Fields in order to take final timestamps and packet counters
and then removes any AltMark Option from packets.
Configuration Configuration Configuration Configuration
and and and and
Export of Export of Export of Export of
AltMark data AltMark data AltMark data AltMark data
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
User +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+
packets |Marking | | Transit | | Transit | |Unmarking|
-------->|Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>|Node |-->
| | | A | | B | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Figure 1: Roles of Alternate-Marking Nodes
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
4. Type of Measurements
The methodology described in the previous sections can be applied to
various performance measurement problems. The only requirement is to
select and mark the flow to be monitored; in this way, packets are
batched by the sender, and each batch is alternately marked such that
it can be easily recognized by the receiver.
Either one or two flag bits might be available for marking in
different deployments:
One flag: packet loss measurement MUST be done as described in
Section 3.1 of [RFC9341], while delay measurement MUST be done
according to the single-marking method described in Section 3.2.1
of [RFC9341]. Mean delay (Section 3.2.1.1 of [RFC9341]) MAY also
be used but it could imply more computational load.
Two flags: packet loss measurement MUST be done as described in
Section 3.1 of [RFC9341], while delay measurement MUST be done
according to double-marking method Section 3.2.2 of [RFC9341]. In
this case single-marking MAY also be used in combination with
double-marking and the two approaches provide slightly different
pieces of information that can be combined to have a more robust
data set.
There are some operational guidelines to consider for the purpose of
deciding to follow the recommendations above and use one or two
flags.
The Alternate-Marking method utilizes specific flags in the packet
header, so an important factor is the number of flags available
for the implementation. Indeed, if there is only one flag
available there is no other way, while if two flags are available
the option with two flags is certainly more complete.
The duration of the Alternate-Marking period affects the frequency
of the measurement and this is a parameter that can be decided on
the basis of the required temporal sampling. But it cannot be
freely chosen, as explained in Section 5 of [RFC9341].
The Alternate-Marking methodologies enable packet loss, delay and
delay variation calculation, but in accordance with the method
used (e.g. single-marking or double-marking), there is different
kind of information that can be derived. For example, to get more
statistics of extent data, the option with two flags is desirable.
For this reason, the type of data needed in the specific scenario
is an additional element to take into account.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
The Alternate-Marking methods imply different computational load
depending on the method employed. Therefore, the available
computational resources on the measurement points can also
influence the choice. As an example, mean delay calculation may
require more processing and it may not be the best option to
minimize the computational load.
A deployment of the Alternate-Marking Method should also take into
account how to handle and recognize marked and unmarked traffic.
Since Alternate-Marking normally employs a marking field which is
dedicated, reserved, and included in a protocol extension, the
measurement points can learn whether the measurement is activated or
not by checking if the specific extension is included or not within
the packets.
5. Configuration
The YANG model can be used for the definition of the AltMark data
sent over network management protocols such as the NETCONF and
RESTCONF. They can be used for configuring Alternate-Marking in
network nodes that support it. An example of the Alternate-Marking
YANG model is defined in [I-D.gfz-ippm-alt-mark-yang] and
[I-D.wang-ippm-alt-mark-yang].
There are also other control plane mechanisms to advertise and
activate AltMark capabilities, using PCEP or BGP:
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit], [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities],
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-ifit].
These mechanisms can be used to signal and configure the parameters
to identify the flow to monitor both in case of point-to-point flow
and multipoint-to-multipoint flow. Indeed, the selection of the
identification fields directly affects the type of paths that the
flow would follow in the network. As an example, for IPv6 the
setting of the Flow Monitoring Identification (FlowMonID) is used in
combination with source and destination addresses to identify a flow,
as described in Section 5.3 of [RFC9343], and it can be
algorithmically generated by the source node or assigned by the
central controller.
Additionally, other parameters are essential for the activation of
the AltMark methodology: the choice between end-to-end or hop-by-hop
measurement, the choice between the methods with one flag or two
flags and the duration of the Alternate-Marking period which affects
the measurement frequency (longer the duration of the block, the less
frequently the measurement can be taken).
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
6. Data Export
Each packet marked for Alternate-Marking, as for example the AltMark
IPv6 option type defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC9343] or the Segment
Routing TLV Type as defined in Section 3.1 of
[I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark] MUST be copied to the IPFIX or YANG
push metering process depending which Network Telemetry [RFC9232]
protocol is used to export the data.
+----------------+
+---------------+ |
| Network | |
| Configuration | |
| and | |
| Data | |
| Collection |-+
+---------------+
|
|
|
|
+---------------+-------+-------+---------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
User +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ +----+----+
packets |Marking | | Transit | | Transit | |Unmarking|
-------->|Node |====>| Node |====>| Node |====>|Node |-->
| | | A | | B | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
Figure 2: Alternate-Marking Framework with Configuration and Data
Export
When data is collected packet counts and timestamps are reported to
the collector, but a certain synchronization mechanism is required to
ensure that the collected data is correlated. Therefore, the Period
Number (PN) can be used to help to determine the packet counts
related to the same block of markers, or the timestamps related to
the same marked packet. The PN is generated each time a node reads
the packet counts or timestamps, and is associated with each packet
count and timestamp reported. The assumption is that the nodes are
time synchronized as described in [RFC9341] and [RFC9342]. The PN
can be calculated as the modulo of the local time (when the counts or
timestamps are read) and the interval of the marking time period.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
6.1. IPFIX
The new Information Elements (IEs) to export Alternate Marking
measurement data are specified in [I-D.gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark].
For IPFIX [RFC7011], the data decomposition can be achieved on the
Alternate-Marking-aware node exporting the data or on the data
collection. When decomposed at the data collection, the headers, 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].
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].
FlowMonID, Loss and Delay flag are Flow Key fields. The IPFIX
entities, which are of interest to describe the relationship to the
forwarding topology and the control-plane are further described in
[I-D.gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark].
To calculate loss, the packet count can be done with
octetDeltaCount(IE1) or packetDeltaCount(IE2). And 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).
6.2. YANG Push
For YANG Push [RFC8639], periodical subscription as defined in
Section 3.1 of [RFC8641] is used to subscribe data. Decomposition is
done on the Alternate-Marking-aware node publishing the data. The
YANG module contains FlowMonID as key, Loss and Delay flag, ingress
and egress interface ifIndex [RFC2863], octet delta count describing
the amount of observed packets within a flow to measure loss, and
flow start timestamp describing the first packet observed for
measuring delay as leafes.
Since the amount of observed data could overwhelm a route processor
on a network node, publishing data from network processors as
specified in [I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif] is advised.
7. Encapsulations
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
7.1. IPv6
Alternate-Marking encapsulation for IPv6 is defined in [RFC9343],
which also discusses deployment considerations for IPv6 networks.
The IPv6 AltMark Option [RFC9343] applies the Alternate Marking
Method to IPv6, and defines an Extension Header Option to encode the
Alternate Marking Method for both the Hop-by-Hop Options Header and
the Destination Options Header.
7.2. SRv6
Alternate-Marking encapsulation for SRv6 is discussed in IPv6 AltMark
Option [RFC9343] and [I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark].
7.3. BIER
Alternate-Marking encapsulation for BIER is introduced in
[I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam].
7.4. MPLS
Alternate-Marking encapsulation for MPLS is introduced in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl].
7.5. SFC
Alternate-Marking encapsulation for SFC is introduced in
[I-D.mfm-ippm-sfc-nsh-pmamm].
7.6. NVO3
Alternate-Marking encapsulation for NVO3 is introduced in
[I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark].
7.7. Enhanced capabilities
[I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking] defines extended data
fields for the AltMark Option and provides enhanced capabilities to
overcome some challenges and enable future proof applications.
It is worth mentioning that the enhanced capabilities are intended
for further use and are optional.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
8. Implementation Observations
In a controlled domain, the nodes may support the AltMark specific
encapsulation and this also depends on the implementation. If a node
is configured to read the AltMark option, the measurement is done on
that node, otherwise it is simply not considered in the measurement.
Assuming that the measurement domain overlaps with the controlled
domain, the procedure for AltMark data encapsulation can be
summarized as follows:
* Ingress Node: the Ingress Node of a controlled domain that
supports the Alternate Marking Method adds the AltMark data in the
the data packets.
* Intermediate Node: if an Intermediate Node is not capable of
processing the AltMark data, it simply ignores it. If an
Intermediate Node is capable of processing the AltMark data, it
processes it.
* Egress SR Node: The Egress Node is the last node of the controlled
domain. The processing if the AltMark data is similar to the
processing at the Intermediate Nodes. The only difference is that
it needs to remove the AltMark data from the the data packets.
9. 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].
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no request to IANA.
11. Acknowledgements
TBD
12. References
12.1. Normative References
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 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>.
[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>.
[RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9342>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9343>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Performance
Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking in Network
Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-fmm-nvo3-pm-alt-mark-03, 23 October
2018, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fmm-
nvo3-pm-alt-mark-03>.
[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, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-07>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
[I-D.gfz-ippm-alt-mark-yang]
Graf, T., Fioccola, G., and T. Zhou, "A YANG Data Model
for the Alternate Marking Method", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-gfz-ippm-alt-mark-yang-01, 23
October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
gfz-ippm-alt-mark-yang/>.
[I-D.gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark]
Graf, T., Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Milan, F., and M. Nilo,
"IPFIX Alternate-Marking Information", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00, 23
October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark/>.
[I-D.ietf-bier-pmmm-oam]
Mirsky, G., Zheng, L., Chen, M., and G. Fioccola,
"Performance Measurement (PM) with Marking Method in Bit
Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Layer", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-14, 10
July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-bier-pmmm-oam-14>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities]
Fioccola, G., Pang, R., Wang, S., Decraene, B., Zhuang,
S., and H. Wang, "Advertising In-situ Flow Information
Telemetry (IFIT) Capabilities in BGP", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-03,
10 July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-03>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit]
Qin, F., Yuan, H., Yang, S., Zhou, T., and G. Fioccola,
"BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-
06, 26 April 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-06>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl]
Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Chen, M., Fioccola, G., and G.
Mirsky, "RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-10,
5 March 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-10>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
[I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif]
Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., Graf, T., and P. Francois,
"Subscription to Distributed Notifications", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-
notif-08, 6 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
distributed-notif-08>.
[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,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-
ipfix-srv6-srh-14>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-ifit]
Yuan, H., 王雪荣, Yang, P., Li, W., and G. Fioccola, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions to Enable IFIT", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ifit-03, 7 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-ifit-03>.
[I-D.mfm-ippm-sfc-nsh-pmamm]
Mirsky, G., Fioccola, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Performance
Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service
Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)
Domain", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mfm-ippm-
sfc-nsh-pmamm-00, 1 April 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mfm-ippm-sfc-
nsh-pmamm-00>.
[I-D.wang-ippm-alt-mark-yang]
Wang, M., Han, L., Min, X., Jun, G., and M. Nilo, "A YANG
Data Model for Alternate Marking Method", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-wang-ippm-alt-mark-yang-
03, 6 August 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-wang-ippm-alt-mark-yang-03>.
[I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking]
Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., Liu, Y., Cociglio, M., Lee, S.,
and W. Li, "Enhanced Alternate Marking Method", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-
alternate-marking-12, 1 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-zhou-ippm-
enhanced-alternate-marking-12>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7015>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7133>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications",
RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8639>.
[RFC8641] Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications
for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10.17487/RFC8641,
September 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8641>.
[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>.
[RFC8889] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto,
"Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and
Hybrid Performance Monitoring", RFC 8889,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8889, August 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8889>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
[RFC9232] Song, H., Qin, F., Martinez-Julia, P., Ciavaglia, L., and
A. Wang, "Network Telemetry Framework", RFC 9232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9232, May 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9232>.
Authors' Addresses
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
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binzring 17
CH-8045 Zurich
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Fabrizio Milan
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
10148 Torino
Italy
Email: fabrizio.milan@telecomitalia.it
Massimo Nilo
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
10148 Torino
Italy
Email: massimo.nilo@telecomitalia.it
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft enhanced-alternate-marking October 2023
Keyi Zhu
Huawei
Email: zhukeyi@huawei.com
Lin Zhang
China Mobile
Email: zhanglin1@cmdi.chinamobile.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 17]
