Internet DRAFT - draft-kumar-mpls-mint
draft-kumar-mpls-mint
INTERNET-DRAFT J. Kumar
Intended Status: Standards Track J. Lemon
Y. Peleg
Broadcom Inc.
K. Kompella
Juniper Networks
Expires: September 12, 2019 March 11, 2019
MPLS Inband Network Telemetry
draft-kumar-mpls-mint-00
Abstract
MPLS Inband Network Telemetry (MINT) records flow specific
information from end stations and/or switches across a network. This
document describes the method to collect data on a per hop basis
across a network and perform localized or end to end analytics
operations on the data. This document also describes the use of the
Extension Label, value 15, for specifying extended special purpose
labels for specifying presence of MINT data.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Kumar, et al. [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
Copyright (c) 2018 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Encapsulation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Operational Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. MINT Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 MINT Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 MINT Function Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1 Initiating Function Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2 Transit Function Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3 Terminating Function Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4 Metadata Fragmentation Function . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 MINT Cloning, Truncation, and Drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 MINT Label Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.1 MINT Metadata Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.2 MINT Checksum Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.3 MINT Metadata Fragmentation (MF) Header . . . . . . . . 14
3.5 MINT Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5.1 Global Name Space (GNS) Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5.2 Local Name Space (LNS) Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5.3 Device ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6 MINT Network Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.7 MINT Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.8 MINT Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.8.1 MINT Packet Format with TS Flag Set . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.9 MINT Load Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1. Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values Registry . . . 19
Kumar, et al. [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Kumar, et al. [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
1. Introduction
This document describes MPLS Inband Network Telemetry (MINT), which
is a mechanism to enable the collection of metadata for an analyzed
MPLS flow.
The sequence of per hop metadata in the packet preceded by a MINT
header is referred to as a MINT stack. The presence of a MINT stack
is indicated by an extended special purpose label. The "Extension
Label", value 15, is used to indicate a following label, which will
be the MINT label in this case.
The MINT header and metadata definition are the same as defined in
[I-D.draft-kumar-ippm-ifa-01].
1.1 Terminology
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].
LSP: Label Switched Path
MPLS: Multi Path Label Switching
MINT: MPLS Inband Network Telemetry
MTU: Maximum Transmit Unit
MINT Domain: A set of MPLS nodes within a single administration with
all nodes participating in MINT.
MINT Node: A single node in a MINT domain.
MINT Metadata: Information inserted by a MINT node.
MINT Stack: Ordered collection of per hop metadata.
MINT Label: IANA allocated extended special purpose label. Indicates
the presence of a MINT stack.
MINT Initiator: A MINT node at the beginning edge of a MINT domain
that is responsible for inserting an Extension label, a MINT label,
and the initial MINT metadata.
MINT Transit: A MINT node within the MINT domain, responsible for
Kumar, et al. [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
adding MINT metadata for the current node.
MINT Terminator: A MINT node at the ending edge of a MINT domain that
is responsible for removing the Extension label, the MINT label, and
the MINT Stack and exporting the MINT Stack to a collector.
1.2 Scope
This document describes MINT deployment, header definitions, packet
format, and data path functions.
MINT deployment involves defining a MINT Domain and understanding the
requirements in terms of traffic overhead and points of data
collection. Given that MINT inserts two extra labels in the label
stack, consideration MUST be given to network devices' capability to
parse the depth of the label stack. The scope of MINT is from an end
station and/or ToR, through any/all nodes in the MPLS path, and
terminating in a network switch and/or an end station. In case of a
service provider network, the scope of MINT MAY encompass one carrier
to another carrier. Special care MUST be taken for leaking the MINT
stack across a MINT domain for security reasons.
MINT can create a synthetic stream of MPLS traffic and use it to
collect metadata along the path. This sampled stream is later
discarded. MINT can also insert metadata on a per packet basis in
live traffic.
This draft defines an identification mechanism using a extended
special purpose label for MINT packets.
1.3 Applicability
MINT is capable of providing traffic analysis for a given LSP. The
LSP may be tunneled in another LSP in part of the MINT domain. In
such cases more then one MINT stack MAY be present in the MINT
packet.
A very important requirement of MINT traffic is preserving the same
path for the flow. Since inserting a MINT label will change the
label stack and possibly keys to load balancing functions, a MINT
domain SHOULD use an entropy label as defined in [RFC 6790] to
preserve the flow path.
Inserting additional an label and metadata will increase the packet
size and may impact path MTU. MINT provides a metadata fragmentation
function to keep the packet size below path MTU.
Kumar, et al. [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
1.4 Motivation
The main motivation for MINT is to collect analyzed metadata from
packets within a flow for a given application.
Each hop in the flow path MAY insert metadata in the packet or MAY
export metadata to a collector.
2. Requirements
MINT requirements are the same as IFA requirements and are defined
with operational efficiency, performance of the network, and cost of
hardware in mind.
2.1 Encapsulation Requirements
MINT packets MUST be clearly marked and identifiable so that a
networking element in the flow path can insert metadata or perform
other MINT operations.
MINT packets need to be easily identified for performance reasons. A
new extended special purpose label is requested for MINT.
MINT encapsulation MAY support the ability to fragment metadata.
MINT encapsulation MAY support direct export of metadata instead of
inserting it into the packet.
2.2 Operational Requirements
MINT MUST preserve the flow path across the network. This can be
done either by using specific key fields for load balancing functions
or by using an entropy label.
MINT MUST support cloning, live traffic, checksum, fragmentation,
global name spaces, and local name spaces using the MINT header
definitions.
3. MINT Domains
MINT performs flow analysis, and possible actions on the flow data,
in-band. Once a flow is enabled for analysis, a MINT node with the
role of "Initiator" makes a copy of the flow or samples the live
traffic flow, or tags a live traffic flow for analysis and data
Kumar, et al. [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
collection. Copying of a flow is done by sampling or cloning the
flow. These new packets are representative packets of the original
flow and possess the exact same characteristics as the original flow.
This means that MINT packets traverse the same path in the network
and same queues in the networking element as the original packet
would. Figure 1 shows the MINT based Telemetry Framework. The
terminating node is responsible for terminating the MINT flow by
summarizing the metadata of the entire path and sending it to a
collector.
+----------+
| |
|Collector |--------------+
| | |
+----------+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+--------------+ +------------+ +----+-----------+
|Initiator Node| |Transit Node| |Terminating Node|
| +------+ | | +------+ | | +------+ |
| | MINT | |------->| | MINT | |------->| | MINT | |
| +------+ |MINTflow| +------+ |MINTflow| +------+ |
+--------------+ +------------+ +----------------+
Figure 1 MINT Domain Framework without fragmentation
Kumar, et al. [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
+----------+
| |
|Collector |<-------------+
+----->| | |
| +----------+ |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+--------------+ | +------------+ +----+----------+
|Initiator Node| | |Transit Node| |Fragmenter Node|
| +------+ | | | +------+ | | +------+ |
| | MINT | |------->| | MINT | |------->| | MINT | |
| +------+ |MINTflow| +------+ |MINTflow| +------+ |
+--------------+ | +------------+ +---------------+
| |MINT
| |flow
| v
| +---------------+ +------+-----+
| |Terminator Node| |Transit Node|
+--| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | MINT | |<-------| | MINT | |
| +------+ |MINTflow| +------+ |
+---------------+ +------------+
Figure 2 MINT Domain Framework with metadata fragmentation
3.1 MINT Domain
A MINT Domain is the domain of interest where MINT monitoring is
enabled. A MINT Domain MUST have designated MINT function nodes.
Initiating and Terminating function MINT nodes are always at the edge
of the MINT domain. Internal nodes in the MINT Domain are always
Transit function nodes.
3.2 MINT Function Nodes
There are three types of MINT functional nodes with respect to a
specific set of flows. Each node MAY perform metadata fragmentation
function as well.
3.2.1 Initiating Function Node
An end station, a switch, or any other middleware can perform the
MINT initiating function. It is advantageous to keep this role
closest to the application to maximize flow visibility. A MINT
Kumar, et al. [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
initiating function node performs the following functions for a flow:
- Samples the flow traffic of interest based on a configuration.
- Converts the traffic into a MINT flow by adding a MINT header to
each sample.
- Updates the packet with initiating function node metadata.
- MAY mandate a specific template ID metadata by all networking
elements.
- MAY mandate tail stamping of metadata by all networking elements.
3.2.2 Transit Function Node
A MINT transit node is responsible for inserting transit node
metadata in the MINT packets in the specified flow.
3.2.3 Terminating Function Node
A MINT terminating node is responsible for the following for a flow:
- Inserts terminating node metadata in a MINT packet.
- Performs a local analytics function on one or more segments of
metadata, e.g., threshold breach for residence time, congestion
notifications, and so on.
- Filters a MINT flow in case of cloned traffic.
- Sends a copy or report of the packet to a collector.
- Removes the MINT headers and forwards the packet in case of live
traffic.
3.2.4 Metadata Fragmentation Function
There are cases where the size of metadata may grow too big for link
MTU or path MTU, or where it imposes excessive overhead for the
terminating function node to remove it. This is especially true in
networks with a large number of hops between the initiator function
node and the terminating function node. This is also true where the
size of per hop metadata itself is large. For such cases, MINT
defines a metadata fragmentation function. The metadata
fragmentation function allows removal of metadata from the packet and
the sending of a copy/report of the packet to the collector.
Correlation of metadata fragments and recreation of metadata stack
for the entire flow path is done by the collector.
There is no dedicated node performing the metadata fragmentation
function. As a MINT packet traverses the hops in a MINT Domain, any
node MAY detect the need to fragment the packet's metadata stack and
perform metadata fragmentation.
Metadata fragmentation is done if the MINT header in the packet has
"MDF" bit set and the current length of the metadata would exceed the
maximum length after the addition of metadata by the current node. A
Kumar, et al. [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
node MAY create a copy of the packet or create a MINT report, remove
the existing metadata stack from the packet, insert its own metadata,
and finally forward the packet. A node MAY also update the MINT MDF
(Meta Data Fragment) header, fragment identifier, and current length.
The maximum length in a MINT header, if set to 0, MAY trigger the
metadata fragmentation special function. This mechanism can be used
to generate MINT reports at each hop and never insert metadata in the
packet. If the maximum length is set to 0, a node MAY NOT insert
MINT metadata, SHOULD create a MINT report or copy of the packet
including its own metadata, and MUST increment the MINT MDF header
fragment identifier field.
3.3 MINT Cloning, Truncation, and Drop
MINT allows cloning of live traffic. It is expected that cloned
traffic will have the same network path characterization as the
original traffic, i.e., follow the same network path, use the same
queues, etc.
Cloned traffic can be truncated to accommodate the MTU of the MINT
Domain.
Cloned traffic MUST be dropped by the terminating function node of
the MINT Domain.
3.4 MINT Label Stack
The MINT label stack is described below. An extended special-purpose
label (ESPL) is used to identify a MINT packet in the MPLS label
stack at the level to be measured.
Kumar, et al. [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
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
ESPL:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label = 15 (ESPL) |0 0 0|0| TTL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MINT Extension Label:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label = 16 (MINTi) |0 0 0|1| TTL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MINT Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver=2 | GNS |NextHdr = IP_xx|R|R|R|M|T|I|T|C| Max Length |
| | | | | | |F|S| |A| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 MINT Label Headers Format
ESPL:
A label value of 15 identifies an extended special-purpose label
(ESPL), which indicates that the following label is an extension
label. The EXP bits SHOULD be set to 0. The S bit MUST be set to 0
to indicate that more labels follow. The TTL for the ESPL MUST be
zero to ensure that it is not used inadvertently for forwarding.
MINT Extension Label:
A label value of 16 identifies an MINT extension label, which
indicates that header following this label is a MINT header. The EXP
bits SHOULD be set to 0. The S bit MUST be set to 1 to indicate that
no more labels follow. The TTL for the MINT extension label MUST be
zero to ensure that it is not used inadvertently for forwarding.
MINT Header:
(1) Version (4 bits). Specifies the version of MINT header. The
version MUST be set to 2 for this.
(2) GNS (4 bits) - Global Name Space. Specifies the MINT Domain
scoped name space for the MINT metadata.
(3) Protocol Type (8 bits) - IP Header protocol type. This indicates
what protocol follows MINT.
(4) Flags (8 bits)
0: R - Reserved. MUST be initialized to 0 on transmission and
Kumar, et al. [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
ignored on receipt.
1: R - Reserved. MUST be initialized to 0 on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
2: R - Reserved. MUST be initialized to 0 on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
3: MF - Metadata Fragment. Indicates the presence of the
optional metadata fragment header. This header is inserted and
initialized by the initiator node. If the MF bit is set, nodes
in the path MAY perform fragmentation of metadata stack if the
current length exceeds the maximum length.
4: TS - Tail Stamp. Indicates the MINT Domain is requiring tail
stamping of metadata.
5: I - Inband. Indicates this is live traffic. Strip and
forward MUST be performed by the terminator node if this bit is
set.
6: TA - Turn Around. Indicates that the MINT packet needs to be
turned around at the terminating node of the MINT Domain and
sent back to the source if a return path is known. This bit MAY
be used for probe packets where probes are collection
bidirectional information in the network. This is analogous to
an echo request and echo reply. A packet with the TA bit set
collects metadata in one direction, and after it is turned
around by the terminating function node, collects metadata in
the reverse direction.
7: C - Checksum. Indicates the presence of the optional
checksum header. The checksum MUST be computed and updated for
the MINT header and metadata at each node that modifies the
header and/or metadata. A node MAY perform checksum validation
before updating the checksum.
(5) Max Length (8 bits). Specifies the maximum allowed length of the
metadata stack in multiples of 4 octets. This field is initialized
by the initiator node. Each node in the path MUST compare the
current length with the max length, and if the current length equals
or exceeds the max length, the transit nodes MUST stop inserting
metadata.
3.4.1 MINT Metadata Header
The MINT metadata header is always present.
Kumar, et al. [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request Vector| Action Vector | Hop Limit | Current Length|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 MINT Metadata Header Format
Request Vector (8 bits) - This vector specifies the presence of
fields as specified by GNS. Fields are always 4-octet aligned. This
field can be made extensible by defining a new GNS for a MINT Domain.
Action Vector (8 bits) - This vector specifies node-local or end-to-
end action on the MINT packets.
Hop Limit (8 bits) - Specifies the maximum allowed hops in a MINT
Domain. This field is initialized by the initiator node. The hop
limit MUST be decremented at each hop. If the incoming hop limit is
0, current nodes MUST NOT insert metadata. A value of 0xFF means
that the Hop limit check MUST be ignored.
Current Length (8 bits) - Specifies the current length of the
metadata in multiples of 4 octets.
3.4.2 MINT Checksum Header
The MINT checksum header is optional. Presence of the checksum
header is indicated by the C bit in the flags field of the MINT
header.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Checksum | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 MINT Checksum Header Format
Checksum (16 bits) - The checksum covers the MINT header and metadata
stack. An initiator function node MAY compute the full checksum
including MINT header and metadata. Other nodes MAY compute delta
checksum for the inserted/deleted metadata.
Reserved (16 bits) - Reserved. MUST be initialized to 0 on
transmission and ignored on receipt.
Kumar, et al. [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
3.4.3 MINT Metadata Fragmentation (MF) Header
The MINT metadata fragmentation (MF) header is optional. Presence of
the fragmentation header is indicated by the MF bit in the flags
field of the MINT header.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet ID | MF ID |L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 MINT MF Header Format
Packet ID (26 bits) - Packet identification value generated by the
initiator node. This value is node scoped.
Metadata Fragment ID (5 bits) - The initiator MUST initialize this
value to 0. A node performing metadata fragmentation function MUST
increment the value by 1.
L (1 bit) - This bit is set by the node creating the last metadata
fragment. This will ALWAYS be the terminating function node. If
incoming hop limit is 0, the terminating function node will still
generate a copy/report of the packet and MUST set the L bit. A
collector MUST implement mechanism to recover from lost
packets/reports with L bit set.
The MF header is a fixed overhead of 4 octets per packet. A network
operator MUST identify the need for using MINT metadata
fragmentation. The following network conditions can be considered:
- If a MINT packet may exceed the link or path MTU of the flow path
- If there are large number of hops in a flow path that could trigger
link or path MTU breach
- If the length of metadata creates excessive overhead for
terminating function node to delete the metadata
- If each hop needs to generate its own MINT report (postcard
mechanism)
With 26 bits of packet id, a maximum datagram lifetime (MDL) of 3
seconds, and an average Internet mix (IMIX) packet size of 512 bytes,
Kumar, et al. [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
we get 183.25 Gbps of MINT traffic bit rate per node before the
packet identifier wraps around. The collector can use [device id,
packet id, MF id, L] to rebuild the fragmented packet.
5 bits of MF id will support 32 metadata fragments.
3.5 MINT Metadata
The MINT metadata is the information inserted by each hop after the
MINT header. The MINT metadata can be inserted at the following
offsets:
- Payload Stamping: Immediately after the layer 4 header. This is
the default setting.
- Tail Stamping: After the end of the packet, but before the FCS.
This is controlled by the TS bit in the flags field of the MINT
header.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LNS | Device ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
~ LNS/GNS defined metadata (contd) ~
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7 MINT Metadata Format
The MINT metadata header contains a set fields as defined by the name
space identifier. Two types of name space identifiers are proposed.
3.5.1 Global Name Space (GNS) Identifier
A Global Name Space (GNS) is specified in the MINT header by the
initiator node. The scope of a GNS is a MINT Domain. All networking
elements in a MINT Domain MUST insert metadata as per the GNS ID
specified in the MINT header. This is defined as the "Uniform Mode"
of deployment.
A GNS value of 0xF indicates that metadata in a MINT Domain is
defined by the LNS of each hop.
The advantage of using the uniform mode is having a simple and
uniform metadata stack. This means less load on a collector for
Kumar, et al. [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
parsing.
The disadvantage is that metadata fields are supported based on the
least capable networking element in the MINT Domain.
3.5.2 Local Name Space (LNS) Identifier
A Local Name Space (LNS) is specified in the metadata header. A GNS
value of 0xF in the MINT header indicates the presence of an LNS.
This is defined as the "Non-uniform Mode" of deployment.
A switch pipeline MUST parse the GNS field in the MINT header. The
parsing result will dictate the name space ID that the hop needs to
comply with.
The advantage of using the non-uniform mode is having a flexible
metadata stack. This allows each hop to include the most relevant
data for that hop.
The disadvantage is more complex parsing by a collector.
3.5.3 Device ID
A 28-bit unique identifier for the device inserting the metadata. If
a GNS other than 0xF is present, then the device ID can be expanded
to a 32 bit value. This is to support including an IPv4 loopback
address as a Device ID.
3.6 MINT Network Overhead
A common problem associated with inserting metadata on a per packet
per flow basis is the amount of traffic overhead on the network.
MINT is defined to minimize the overhead on the network.
MINT Base Header : 4 octets
MINT Metadata Header : 4 octets
MINT Checksum Header : 4 octets
MINT Fragmentation Header : 4 octets
Minimum Overhead:
MINT header : 4 octets
MINT Metadata Header : 4 octets
Total Min Overhead : 8 octets per packet
3.7 MINT Analytics
Kumar, et al. [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
There are two kinds of actions considered in this proposal.
(1) Action Bit MAP in MINT Header - This is encoded in the MINT
header. Each node in the path MAY use the action bitmap to insert or
not insert the metadata based on exceeding a locally-specified
threshold. Not inserting the metadata is indicated by setting the
field value to -1 (all 1s).
(2) Terminating Node Actions - A terminating node may decide to
perform threshold or other actions on the set of metadata in the
packet. This information is not encoded in the MINT header.
3.8 MINT Packet Format
The MINT header is treated as a layer 3 extension header. MINT
header and metadata stack length is reflected in IP total length
field. IPv6 extension headers are ordered. The MINT header MUST be
the last extension header in the IPv6 extension header chain.
Similarly in case of IPv4 AH/ESP/WESP extension headers, MINT header
MUST be the last extension header.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| MPLS Label Stack |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ESPL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MINT Extension Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MINT Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| MINT Metadata Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| MINT Metadata Stack |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| Payload |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FCS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8 MINT Packet Format
3.8.1 MINT Packet Format with TS Flag Set
Kumar, et al. [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
In case the Tail Stamp flag is set in the MINT header, the MINT
metadata header and metadata stack are inserted at the end of the
packet just before the FCS. Each node inserts metadata at the bottom
of MINT metadata stack.
One of the key advantages of using TS is to support legacy devices
and/or appliances that need to look at the layer 5 data. The IP
length and IP header checksum are updated at each hop inserting
metadata. This is the same as without the TS flag.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| MPLS Label Stack |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ESPL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MINT Extension Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MINT Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| Payload |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| MINT Metadata Stack |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| MINT Metadata Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FCS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9 MINT Packet Format with TS
3.9 MINT Load Balancing
As stated in [RFC7325], regarding use of MPLS fields in multipath
load balancing:
Special-purpose labels (label values 0-15) MUST NOT be used.
Extended special-purpose labels (any label following label 15) MUST
NOT be used.
Accordingly, the addition of an ESPL and a MINT Extension Label will
not cause a different multipath computation from that which is
calculated in absence of these labels.
Kumar, et al. [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
4. IANA Considerations
This document requests the following IANA Actions.
4.1. Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values Registry
This registry defines a new code point to be added to the Extended
Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values Registry to identify that a MINT
extension label is present.
The following new code point is defined in this draft:
16 MINT Extension Label
5. Security Considerations
A successful attack on an OAM protocol can prevent the detection of
failures or anomalies, or create a false illusion of nonexistent
ones.
The metadata elements of MINT can be used by attackers to collect
information about the network hops.
Adding MINT headers or adding to MINT metadata can be used to consume
resources within the path being monitored or by a collector.
Adding MINT headers or adding to MINT metadata can be used to force
exceeding the MTU for the path being monitored resulting in
fragmentation and/or packet drops.
MINT is expected to be deployed within controlled network domains,
containing attacks to that controlled domain. Limiting or preventing
monitoring or attacks using IFA requires limiting or preventing
unauthorized access to the domain in which MINT is to be used, and
preventing leaking IFA metadata beyond the controlled domain.
6. References
6.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
6.2 Informative References
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS
Forwarding", RFC 6790, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-
Kumar, et al. [Page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT IFA March 11, 2019
editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7274] Kompella, K., "Allocating and Retiring Special-Purpose
MPLS Labels", RFC 7274, June 2014, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7274>.
[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and
Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, August 2014, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7325>.
[I-D.draft-kumar-ippm-ifa-01] Kumar, J., "Inband Flow Analyzer",
March 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumar-ippm-ifa-01>
(work in progress).
Authors' Addresses
Jai Kumar
Broadcom Inc.
Email: jai.kumar@broadcom.com
John Lemon
Broadcom Inc.
Email: john.lemon@broadcom.com
Yoav Peleg
Broadcom Inc.
Email: yoav.peleg@broadcom.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Kumar, et al. [Page 20]
