Internet DRAFT - draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag
draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag
IPPM Z. Li
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track T. Zhou
Expires: 1 March 2023 Huawei
J. Guo
ZTE Corp.
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
R. Gandhi
Cisco
28 August 2022
Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-stamp-on-lag-03
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
[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 1 March 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG August 2022
This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 March 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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.
Li, et al. Expires 1 March 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG August 2022
Usually, when forwarding traffic over LAG, the hash-based mechanism
is used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links.
Link delay of each member link varies because of different transport
paths. 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 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.
Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is an
active measurement method according to the classification given in
[RFC7799], which 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.
Running a single STAMP test session over the aggregation without the
knowledge of each member link would make it impossible to measure the
performance of a given physical member link. The measured metrics
can only reflect the performance of one member link or an average of
some/all member links of the LAG.
This document extends STAMP to implement performance measurement on
every member link of a LAG. The proposed method could also
potentially apply to layer 3 ECMP (Equal Cost Multi-Path), e.g., with
Segment Routing Policy [RFC9256].
2. Micro Session on LAG
This document intends to address the scenario (e.g., Figure 1) where
a LAG (e.g., the LAG includes four member links) directly connects
two nodes (A and B) . The goal is to measure the performance of each
link of the LAG.
+---+ +---+
| |-----------------------| |
| A |-----------------------| B |
| |-----------------------| |
| |-----------------------| |
+---+ +---+
Figure 1: PM 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.
Li, et al. Expires 1 March 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG August 2022
All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
Receiver IP Address. 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.
At the Sender side, each micro STAMP session MUST be assgined with a
unique SSID [RFC8972]. Both the micro STAMP Session Sender and
Reflector MUST use SSID to correlate the Test packet to a micro
session. If there is no such a session, or the SSID is not correct,
the Test packet MUST be discarded.
Test packets MAY carry the member link information for validation
check. For example, when a micro STAMP Session-Sender receives a
reflected Test packet, it may need to check whether the Test packet
is from the expected member link. The detailed description about the
member link validation is in section 3.
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 MAY carry the member link information for validation
check. The micro Session Sender can verify whether the test packet
is reveived from the expected member link. It can also verify
whether the packet is sent from the expected member link at the
Reflector side. The micro Session Reflector can verify 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. The format of the Micro-session ID TLV is shown as
follows:
Li, et al. Expires 1 March 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG August 2022
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Micro-session ID TLV
* Type: A one-octet field. Value TBA1 is allocated by IANA
(Section 5).
* Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Value field
in octets. The Length field value MUST be 4 octets.
* Sender Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
carry the Micro-session identifier of the Sender side. The value
of the Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender.
* Reflector Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
carry the Micro-session identifier of the Reflector side. The
value of the Reflector Member ID MUST be unique 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
configuration and management of the mapping between a micro STAMP
session and the Sender/Reflector member link identifiers are outside
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). How to obtain/learn the Reflector member
link identifier is outside of this document's scope.
Li, et al. Expires 1 March 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG August 2022
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 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 transmitted over 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.
4. 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:
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
| STAMP TLV Type | Description | Semantics | Reference |
| Value | | Definition | |
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
| TBA1 | Micro-session | Section 3 | This |
| | ID TLV | | Document |
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
Figure 3: New STAMP TLV Type
5. Security Considerations
The STAMP extension defined in this document is intended for
deployment in LAG scenario where Session-Sender and Session-Reflector
are directly connnected. 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.
Li, et al. Expires 1 March 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG August 2022
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mach Chen, Min Xiao, Fang Xin for the
valuable comments to this work.
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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
2008.
Li, et al. Expires 1 March 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft STAMP PM on LAG August 2022
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., and A. Bogdanov,
"Segment Routing Policy Architecture", RFC 9256,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
Authors' Addresses
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
No. 29 Finance Avenue, Xicheng District
Beijing
China
Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
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 1 March 2023 [Page 8]
