Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag
IPPM Z. Li
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track T. Zhou
Expires: 13 June 2024 Huawei
J. Guo
ZTE Corp.
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
R. Gandhi
Cisco
11 December 2023
Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
Measurement on LAG
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06
Abstract
This document extends Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(STAMP) to implement performance measurement on every member link of
a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). Knowing the measured metrics of each
member link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a performance based
traffic steering policy across the member links.
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.
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."
Li, et al. Expires 13 June 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG December 2023
This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 June 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 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
2. Micro Session on LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Member Link Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Micro-session ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides
mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical
link. This logical link offers higher bandwidth and better
resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the
aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the
remaining operational physical member links.
Usually, when forwarding traffic over LAG, a hash-based mechanism is
used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links. The
link delay might vary between member links because of different
transport paths, especially when LAG is used in wide area network.
To provide low latency service for time sensitive traffic, we need to
explicitly steer the traffic across the LAG member links based on the
link delay, loss and so on. That requires a solution to measure the
Li, et al. Expires 13 June 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG December 2023
performance metrics of each member link of a LAG. Hence, the
measured performance metrics can work together with layer 2 bundle
member link attributes advertisement [RFC8668] for traffic steering.
According to the classifications in [RFC7799], Simple Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is an active measurement
method, and it can complement passive and hybrid methods. It
provides a mechanism to measure both one-way and round-trip
performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the performance of a
member link with fixed five tuples. Or it can measure an average of
some/all member links of the LAG by varying the five tuples.
However, without the knowledge of each member link, a STAMP test
session cannot measure the performance of every physical member link.
This document extends STAMP to implement performance measurement on
every member link of a LAG. It can provide the same metrics as OWAMP
[RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357] can measure, such as delay, jitter, and
packet loss.
2. Micro Session on LAG
This document addresses the scenario where a LAG directly connects
two nodes. An example of this is in Figure 1, where the LAG
consisting of four links connects nodes A and B. The goal is to
measure the performance of each link of the LAG.
+---+ +---+
| |-----------------------| |
| A |-----------------------| B |
| |-----------------------| |
| |-----------------------| |
+---+ +---+
Figure 1: Performance Measurement on LAG
To measure the performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
established between the two end points that are connected by the LAG.
These sessions are called micro sessions in the remainder of this
document. Although micro sessions are in fact STAMP sessions
established on member links of a LAG, test packets of micro sessions
MUST carry member link information for validation.
Li, et al. Expires 13 June 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG December 2023
All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
Receiver IP Address of the LAG. As for the UDP Port, the micro
sessions may share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or
each micro session is configured with a different Sender Port and
Receiver Port pair. But from the operational point of view, the
former is simpler and is RECOMMENDED.
Test packets of a micro session MUST carry the member link
information for validation check. For example, when a micro STAMP
Session-Sender receives a reflected test packet, it checks whether
the test packet is from the expected member link. The member link
information is encoded in the Micro-session ID TLV introduced in
Section 3 of this document, and the detailed description about the
member link validation is also in this section.
A micro STAMP Session-Sender MAY include the Follow-Up Telemetry TLV
[RFC8972] to request information from the micro Session-Reflector.
This timestamp might be important for the micro Session-Sender, as it
improves the accuracy of network delay measurement by minimizing the
impact of egress queuing delays on the measurement.
3. Member Link Validation
Test packets MUST carry member link information in Micro-session ID
TLV introduced in this section for validation check. The micro
Session-Sender verifies whether the test packet is received from the
expected member link. It also verifies whether the packet is sent
from the expected member link at the Reflector side. The micro
Session-Reflector verifies whether the test packet is received from
the expected member link.
3.1. Micro-session ID TLV
STAMP TLV [RFC8972] mechanism extends STAMP test packets with one or
more optional TLVs. This document defines the TLV Type (value TBA1)
for the Micro-session ID TLV that carries the micro STAMP Session-
Sender member link identifier and Session-Reflector member link
identifier in Sender Micro-session ID field and Reflector Micro-
session ID field respectively. The format of the Micro-session ID
TLV is shown as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type = TBA1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Micro-session ID | Reflector Micro-session ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Li, et al. Expires 13 June 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG December 2023
Figure 2: Micro-session ID TLV
* Type (one-octet in length): It is defined to indicate this TLV is
a Micro-session ID TLV. Value TBA1 is allocated by IANA
(Section 5).
* Length (2-octets in length): It is defined to carry the length of
the Value field in octets. The Length field value MUST be 4.
* Sender Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): It is now defined to
carry the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side. In the
future, it may be used generically to cover use-cases beyond LAG.
The value of this field MUST be unique within a STAMP session at
the Session-Sender.
* Reflector Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): It is now defined
to carry the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector side. In
the future, it may be used generically to cover use-cases beyond
LAG. The value of this field MUST be unique within a STAMP
session at the Session-Reflector.
3.2. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures
The micro STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of
STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions.
The micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro STAMP-Test packets
over the member link with which the session is associated. The
mapping between a micro STAMP session and the Sender/Reflector member
link identifiers can be configured by augmenting the STAMP YANG
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]. The detailed augmentation is not in the
scope of this document.
When sending a test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST set
the Sender Micro-session ID field with the member link identifier
associated with the micro STAMP session. If the Session-Sender knows
the Reflector member link identifier, the Reflector Micro-session ID
field MUST be set. Otherwise, the Reflector Micro-session ID field
MUST be zero. The Reflector member link identifier can be obtained
from pre-configuration or learned from data plane (e.g., the
reflected test packet). This document does not specify the way to
obtain the Reflector member link identifier.
When the micro STAMP Session-Reflector receives a test packet, if the
Reflector Micro-session ID is not zero, the micro STAMP Session-
Reflector MUST use the Reflector member link identifier to check
whether it is associated with the micro STAMP session. If the
validation fails, the test packet MUST be discarded. If the
Li, et al. Expires 13 June 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG December 2023
Reflector Micro-session ID is zero, it will not be verified. If all
validations passed, the Session-Reflector sends a reflected test
packet to the Session-Sender. The micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST
put the Sender and Reflector member link identifiers that are
associated with the micro STAMP session in the Sender Micro-session
ID and Reflector Micro-session ID fields respectively. The Sender
member link identifier is copied from the received test packet.
When receiving a reflected test packet, the micro Session-Sender MUST
use the Sender Micro-session ID to validate whether the reflected
test packet is correctly received from the expected member link. If
the validation fails, the test packet MUST be discarded. The micro
Session-Sender MUST use the Reflector Micro-session ID to validate
the Reflector's behavior. If the validation fails, the test packet
MUST be discarded.
Two modes of the STAMP Session-Reflector, stateless and stateful,
characterize the expected behavior, as described in Section 4 of
STAMP [RFC8762]. The micro STAMP-Test also supports both stateless
and stateful modes. However, the micro STAMP-Test does not introduce
any additional state to STAMP, i.e, any procedure with regard to the
Micro-session ID is stateless.
4. Applicability
The micro STAMP Session-Sender sends micro Session-Sender packets
with the Micro-session ID TLV. The micro Session-Reflector checks
whether a test packet is received from the member link associated
with the correct micro STAMP session, if the Reflector Micro-session
ID field is set. When reflecting, the micro STAMP Session-Reflector
copies the Sender Micro-session ID from the received micro Session-
Sender packet to the micro Session-Reflector packet, and sets the
Reflector Micro-session ID field with the member link identifier that
is associated with the micro STAMP session. When receiving the micro
Session-Reflector packet, the micro Session-Sender uses the Sender
Micro-session ID to check whether the packet is received from the
member link associated with the correct micro STAMP session. The
micro Session-Sender also use the Reflector Micro-session ID to
validate the Reflector's behavior.
5. IANA Considerations
In the "STAMP TLV Types" registry created for [RFC8972], a new STAMP
TLV Type for Micro-session ID TLV is requested from IANA as follows:
Li, et al. Expires 13 June 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG December 2023
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
| STAMP TLV Type | Description | Semantics | Reference |
| Value | | Definition | |
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
| TBA1 | Micro-session | Section 3 | This |
| | ID TLV | | Document |
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
Figure 3: New STAMP TLV Type
6. Security Considerations
The STAMP extension defined in this document is intended for
deployment in LAG scenario where Session-Sender and Session-Reflector
are directly connected. As such, it's assumed that a node involved
in STAMP protocol operation has previously verified the integrity of
the LAG connection and the identity of its one-hop-away peer node.
This document does not introduce any additional security issues and
the security mechanisms defined in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] apply in
this document.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mach Chen, Min Xiao, Fang Xin, Marcus
Ihlar, Richard Foote for the valuable comments to this work.
8. References
8.1. 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Li, et al. Expires 13 June 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG December 2023
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]
Mirsky, G., Min, X., Luo, W. S., and R. Gandhi, "Simple
Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
yang-12, 5 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
stamp-yang-12>.
[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
2008.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[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>.
[RFC8668] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri,
M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link
Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668>.
Authors' Addresses
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
No. 29 Finance Avenue, Xicheng District
Beijing
China
Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
Li, et al. Expires 13 June 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG December 2023
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Jun Guo
ZTE Corp.
China
Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Li, et al. Expires 13 June 2024 [Page 9]
