Internet DRAFT - draft-song-mpls-flag-based-opt

draft-song-mpls-flag-based-opt







MPLS                                                             H. Song
Internet-Draft                                    Futurewei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track                             G. Fioccola
Expires: 5 September 2024                            Huawei Technologies
                                                               R. Gandhi
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            4 March 2024


           Flag-based MPLS On Path Telemetry Network Actions
                   draft-song-mpls-flag-based-opt-03

Abstract

   This document describes the scheme to support two on-path telemetry
   techniques, PBT-M and Alternate Marking, as flag-based MPLS Network
   Actions for OAM in MPLS networks.

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 5 September 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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.



Song, et al.            Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                  MPLS OPT                      March 2024


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  PBT-M Action  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Alternate Marking Action  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Action Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   On-path telemetry, as described in [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework],
   is a kind of hybrid type I network OAM [RFC7799] which directly
   measure and monitor the user packets.  Some on-path telemetry
   technique incur very little overhead but offer big benefits on
   network performance monitoring and troubleshooting.  PBT-M
   [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] (Postcard-Based On-Path
   Telemetry using Packet Marking) is such on-path telemetry technique
   which uses only a single flag bit to trigger the collection of the
   telemetry data regarding the packet.  Alternate Marking Method
   [RFC9341] is another on-path performance measurement method which
   uses only two flag bits to measure packet loss, delay, and jitter for
   live data traffic.

   In MPLS networks, MPLS Network Action (MNA) [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
   extends the MPLS label stack by supporting extra network actions
   encoded both in stack and post stack.  The MNA header encoding is
   described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].

   This document describe the scheme to use flag-based MNAs to support
   PBT-M and Alternate Marking Method (AMM).

   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.









Song, et al.            Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                  MPLS OPT                      March 2024


2.  PBT-M Action

   A flag bit (TBA1) in the flag-based network action field is used as
   the PBT-M indicator.  If the bit is set to '1', a configured node is
   triggered to collect and export the telemetry data as configured by
   the control plane.  The detailed method on node configuration, data
   export and correlation are recommended in
   [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry].

3.  Alternate Marking Action

   Two flag bits (TBA2) in the flag-based network action field are used
   to support the alternate marking method as described in [RFC9341].

4.  Action Encoding

   The proposed action encoding is shown in Figure 1 adapted from
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].  In the figure, 'P' stands for PBT-M flag
   and 'AM' stands for alternate marking flags.


        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      NASI=bSPL                        | TC  |S|    TTL        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |NAI-Opcode=2 |P|AM |                   |0|IHS|S| Res |U| NASL  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                       (TBA)


                         Figure 1: Action Encoding

   The scope of the Network Action is carried in the IHS field for
   Ingress-To-Egress (I2E), Hop-By-Hop (HBH) or Select.

   Network Sub Stack Length is set to number of LSEs following this
   network action LSE which is 0 in this example.

   No Post Stack Network Action is required for this.

   Note that the in-stack MNA encoding may take different form, and
   these flag-based on-path telemetry use cases would adapt to it.









Song, et al.            Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                  MPLS OPT                      March 2024


5.  Security Considerations

   Only the ingress edge node is allowed to set/reset these flag bits.
   The other on-path nodes can only react to the bit values.  The
   tampering of these flag-based actions would result in DoS attack or
   unreliable measurements.  Therefore, security measures must be taken
   to ensure the proper functioning of these actions.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires IANA allocation a bit for PBT-M action (TBA1)
   and two bits for Alternate Marking (TBA2) from the MPLS "In-Stack
   MPLS Network Action Indicator Flags" registry created in
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].

7.  Acknowledgments

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
              Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K.
              Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-
              04, 21 October 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
              mna-hdr-04>.

   [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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements]
              Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "Requirements for MPLS Network
              Action Indicators and MPLS Ancillary Data", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-



Song, et al.            Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                  MPLS OPT                      March 2024


              requirements-00, 5 May 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
              miad-mna-requirements-00>.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
              Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS
              Network Actions Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-06, 24 January 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
              mna-fwk-06>.

   [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
              Song, H., Mirsky, G., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Graf, T., Mishra,
              G. S., Shin, J., and K. Lee, "On-Path Telemetry using
              Packet Marking to Trigger Dedicated OAM Packets", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-
              telemetry-16, 2 June 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-ippm-
              postcard-based-telemetry-16>.

   [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]
              Song, H., Qin, F., Chen, H., Jin, J., and J. Shin,
              "Framework for In-situ Flow Information Telemetry", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-song-opsawg-ifit-
              framework-21, 23 October 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-song-opsawg-
              ifit-framework-21>.

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Haoyu Song
   Futurewei Technologies
   United States of America
   Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com


   Giuseppe Fioccola
   Huawei Technologies
   Germany
   Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com






Song, et al.            Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                  MPLS OPT                      March 2024


   Rakesh Gandhi
   Cisco Systems
   Canada
   Email: rgandhi@cisco.com















































Song, et al.            Expires 5 September 2024                [Page 6]