Internet DRAFT - draft-mfm-ippm-sfc-nsh-pmamm
draft-mfm-ippm-sfc-nsh-pmamm
IPPM Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track G. Fioccola
Expires: 3 October 2022 Huawei Technologies
T. Mizrahi
Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab
1 April 2022
Performance Measurement (PM) with Alternate Marking Method in Service
Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH) Domain
draft-mfm-ippm-sfc-nsh-pmamm-00
Abstract
This document describes how the alternate marking method can be used
as the efficient performance measurement method taking advantage of
the actual data flows in a Service Function Chaining domain using
Network Service Header encapsulation.
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 3 October 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 October 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC April 2022
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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Mark Field in NSH Base Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Single Mark Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Multiplexed Mark Enabled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Residence Time Measurement with the Alternate Marking
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Mark Field in NSH Base Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
[RFC7665] introduced the architecture of a Service Function Chain
(SFC) in the network and defined its components. These include
Classifier, Service Function Forwarder (SFF), Service Function (SF),
and Service Function proxy. [RFC8924] provides a reference framework
for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for SFC.
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis] describes the hybrid performance
measurement method, which can be used to measure packet loss,
latency, and jitter on live traffic. Because this method is based on
marking consecutive batches of packets, the procedure is often
referred to as Alternate Marking Method (AMM).
This document defines how packet loss and delay metrics of a service
flow over end-to-end (E2E) Service Function Path (SFP) or any SFP
segment can be measured using AMM. This document is aligned with the
SFC OAM Performance Measurement requirements defined in [RFC8924].
It states that any SFC-aware network device must have the ability to
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 October 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC April 2022
perform loss and delay measurements over the service function chain
as a unit, i.e., E2E, or to a specific segment of service function
through the SFC. Besides, AMM can be used in combination with
[I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh] complementing it in achieving the SFC
performance measurement objective with Network Service Header
[RFC8300] data plane.
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Acronyms
AMM: Alternate Marking Method
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
SFC: Service Function Chain
SFP: Service Function Path
SF: Service Function
SFF: Service Function Forwarder
SPI: Service Path Identifier
NSH: Network Service Header
E2E end-to-end
2.2. 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.
3. Mark Field in NSH Base Header
[RFC8300] defines the format of the Network Service Header (NSH).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver|O|M| TTL | Length |U|U|U|U|MD Type| Proto |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 October 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC April 2022
Figure 1: NSH Base format
This document defines the one-bit long field, referred to as Mark
field (M in Figure 1, as part of NSH Base and designated for the
alternate marking performance measurement method
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis]. The Mark field MUST be set to 0 at
initialization of NSH and ignored on the receipt when the method is
not in use. The Mark field MUST NOT be used in defining forwarding
and/or quality of service treatment of an SFC packet. The Mark field
MUST be used only for the performance measurement of data traffic in
the SFC layer. Though the setting of the field to any value likely
not affect forwarding and/or quality of service treatment of a
packet, the alternate marking method in the SFC layer is
characterized as an example of a hybrid performance measurement
method according to [RFC7799].
4. Theory of Operation
The marking method can be successfully used in the SFC. Without
limiting any generality consider SFC presented in Figure 2. Any
combination of markings, Loss and/or Delay, can be applied to a
service flow by any SFC component at either ingress or egress point
to perform node, link, segment, or E2E measurement to detect
performance degradation defects and localize them efficiently.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
|SF1| |SF2| |SF3| |SF4| |SF5| |SF6|
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
\ / \ / \ /
+----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|Classifier|---|SFF1|---------|SFF2|---------|SFF3|
+----------+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Figure 2: SFC network
An SFP might include a Re-classifier. Processing of an SFC packet by
the Re-classifier might result in that packet being directed to a
different SFP identified, for example, by Service Path Identifier's
(SPI) value A'. In that case, the Re-classifier MUST set the value
of the Mark field according to the local AMM policy defined for the
SPI's value A'. Note that the default AMM policy is to set the value
of the Mark field to 0.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 October 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC April 2022
Using the marking method, a component of the SFC creates distinct
sub-flows in the particular service traffic over SFC. Each sub-flow
consists of consecutive blocks that are unambiguously recognizable by
a monitoring point at any component of the SFC and can be measured to
calculate packet loss and/or packet delay metrics.
4.1. Single Mark Enabled Measurement
As explained in the [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis], marking can be applied
to delineate blocks of packets based either on the equal number of
packets in a block or based on the same time interval. The latter
method offers better control as it allows a better account for
capabilities of downstream nodes to report statistics related to
batches of packets and, at the same time, time resolution that
affects defect detection interval.
The Mark flag is used to create distinctive flows to measure the
packet loss by switching the value of the Mark flag every N-th packet
or at specified time intervals. Delay metrics MAY be calculated with
the alternate flow using any of the following methods:
* First/Last Packet Delay calculation: whenever the marking, i.e.,
the value of Mark flag changes a component of the SFC can store
the timestamp of the first/last packet of the block. The
timestamp can be compared with the timestamp of the packet that
arrived in the same order through a monitoring point at a
downstream component of the SFC to compute packet delay. Because
timestamps collected based on the order of arrival, this method is
sensitive to packet loss and re-ordering of packets
* Average Packet Delay calculation: an average delay is calculated
by considering the packets' average arrival time within a single
block. A component of the SFC may collect timestamps for each
packet received within a single block. The timestamp average is
the sum of all the timestamps divided by the total number of
packets received. Then the difference between averages calculated
at two monitoring points is the average packet delay on that
segment. This method is robust to out-of-order packets and packet
loss (only a small error is introduced). This method only
provides a single metric for the duration of the block, and it
doesn't give the minimum and maximum delay values. Highly
optimized implementation of the method can reduce the duration of
the block and thus overcome the limitation.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 October 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC April 2022
4.2. Multiplexed Mark Enabled Measurement
There is also a scheme that method allows measurement of minimum and
maximum delays for the monitored flow using a single marking flag.
This methodology is described in
[I-D.mizrahi-ippm-compact-alternate-marking]. The concept is that in
the middle of each block of packets with a certain value of the M
flag, a single packet has the M flag inverted. By examining the
stream, the packets with the inverted bit can be easily identified
and employed for delay measurement. This variation of AMM is
advantageous because it requires only one bit from each packet, and
such bits are always in short supply.
4.3. Residence Time Measurement with the Alternate Marking Method
Residence time is the variable part of the propagation delay that a
packet experiences while traversing a network, e.g., SFC. Residence
Time over an SFC is the sum of the nodal residence times, i.e.,
periods that the packet spent in each SFF that composes the SFC. The
nodal residence time in SFC itself is the sum of sub-nodal residence
times that the packet spent in each of SFs that are part of the given
SFC and are mapped to the SFF. The residence time and deviation of
the residence time metrics may include any combination of minimum,
maximum values over the measurement period. It also may include
mean, median, and percentiles calculated values. These metrics may
be used to evaluate the performance of the SFC and its elements
before and during its operation.
Use of the specially marked packets simplifies residence time
measurement and correlation of the measured metrics over the E2E SFC.
For example, AMM may be used as described in Section 4.2 to identify
packets in the data flow to be used to measure the residence time.
The nodal and sub-nodal residence time metrics can be locally
calculated and then collected using either in-band or out-band OAM
mechanisms.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Mark Field in NSH Base Header
This document requests IANA to allocate the one-bit field from NSH
Base Header Bits [RFC8300] as the Mark field of NSH as the following:
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 October 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC April 2022
+==============+=============+===============+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
+==============+=============+===============+
| TBA | Mark field | This document |
+--------------+-------------+---------------+
Table 1: Mark field of SFC NSH
6. Security Considerations
This document defines the use of AMM in an SFC domain and thus all
security considerations specific to SFC discussed in [RFC7665] and
[RFC8300] are applicable. By introducing AMM into the SFC
environment, it inherits all security considerations discussed in
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis]. A new Mark flag is defined in this
specification to be used by AMM. Processing of AMM does require
additional computational resources and creates a certain amount of
state information per AMM flow performance metrics. An
implementation MUST provide control over the number of concurrent AMM
flows that a node process.
7. Acknowledgment
TBD
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis]
Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., Zhou,
T., and X. Min, "Alternate-Marking Method", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-03, 23
February 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-03>.
[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>.
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 October 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC April 2022
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh]
Brockners, F. and S. Bhandari, "Network Service Header
(NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-07, 31
January 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-07>.
[I-D.mizrahi-ippm-compact-alternate-marking]
Mizrahi, T., Arad, C., Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Chen,
M., Zheng, L., and G. Mirsky, "Compact Alternate Marking
Methods for Passive and Hybrid Performance Monitoring",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-mizrahi-ippm-
compact-alternate-marking-05, 6 July 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mizrahi-ippm-
compact-alternate-marking-05>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[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>.
[RFC8924] Aldrin, S., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., Ed., Krishnan,
R., and A. Ghanwani, "Service Function Chaining (SFC)
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Framework", RFC 8924, DOI 10.17487/RFC8924, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8924>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 October 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PM with Alternate Marking Method in SFC April 2022
Tal Mizrahi
Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab
Israel
Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com
Mirsky, et al. Expires 3 October 2022 [Page 9]
