Internet DRAFT - draft-song-opsawg-ntf
draft-song-opsawg-ntf
OPSAWG H. Song, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational ZQ. Li
Expires: September 7, 2019 China Mobile
P. Martinez-Julia
NICT
L. Ciavaglia
Nokia
A. Wang
China Telecom
March 6, 2019
Network Telemetry Framework
draft-song-opsawg-ntf-03
Abstract
This document provides an architectural framework for network
telemetry to address the current and future network operation
challenges and requirements. As evidenced by the defining
characteristics and industry practice, network telemetry covers
technologies and protocols beyond the conventional network
Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM). Network telemetry
promises better flexibility, scalability, accuracy, coverage, and
performance and allows automated control loops to suit both today's
and tomorrow's network operation requirements. This document
clarifies the terminologies and classifies the modules and components
of a network telemetry system. The framework and taxonomy help to
set a common ground for the collection of related work and provide
guidance for future technique and standard developments.
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 September 7, 2019.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Network Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. The Necessity of a Network Telemetry Framework . . . . . . . 9
4. Network Telemetry Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Data Acquiring Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Data Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Function Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. Existing Works Mapped in the Framework . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Evolution of Network Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. A Survey on Existing Network Telemetry Techniques . 23
A.1. Management Plane Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.1.1. Requirements and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.1.2. Push Extensions for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.1.3. gRPC Network Management Interface . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.2. Control Plane Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.2.1. Requirements and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.2.2. BGP Monitoring Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.3. Data Plane Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.3.1. Requirements and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
A.3.2. Technique Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.3.3. The IPFPM technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.3.4. Dynamic Network Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.3.5. IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol . . . . . 29
A.3.6. In-Situ OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.3.7. Postcard Based Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.4. External Data and Event Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.4.1. Requirements and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.4.2. Sources of External Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.4.3. Connectors and Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction
Network visibility is essential for network operation. Network
telemetry has been widely considered as an ideal mean to gain
sufficient network visibility with better flexibility, scalability,
accuracy, coverage, and performance than conventional OAM
technologies. However, confusion and misunderstandings about the
network telemetry remain (e.g., the scope and coverage of the term).
We need an unambiguous concept and a clear architectural framework
for network telemetry so we can better align the related technology
and standard work.
First, we show some key characteristics of network telemetry which
set a clear distinction from the conventional network OAM and show
that some conventional OAM technologies can be considered a subset of
the network telemetry technologies. We then provide an architectural
framework for network telemetry to meet the current and future
network operation requirements. Following the framework, we classify
the components of a network telemetry system so we can easily map the
existing and emerging techniques and protocols into the framework.
At last, we outline a roadmap for the evolution of the network
telemetry system.
The purpose of the framework and taxonomy is to set a common ground
for the collection of related work and provide guidance for future
technique and standard developments.
1.1. 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.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
2. Motivation
Thanks to the advance of the computing and storage technologies,
today's big data analytics and machine learning-based Artificial
Intelligence (AI) give network operators an unprecedented opportunity
to gain network insights and move towards network autonomy. Software
tools can use the network data to detect and react on network faults,
anomalies, and policy violations, as well as predicting future
events. In turn, the network policy updates for planning, intrusion
prevention, optimization, and self-healing may be applied.
It is conceivable that an intent-driven autonomous network is the
logical next step for network evolution following Software Defined
Network (SDN), aiming to reduce (or even eliminate) human labor, make
the most efficient use of network resources, and provide better
services more aligned with customer requirements. Although it takes
time to reach the ultimate goal, the journey has started
nevertheless.
However, the system bottleneck is shifting from data consumption to
data supply. Both the number of network nodes and the traffic
bandwidth keep increasing at a fast pace; The network configuration
and policy change at a much smaller time frame than ever before; More
subtle events and fine-grained data through all network planes need
to be captured and exported in real time. In a nutshell, it is
challenging to get enough high-quality data out of network
efficiently, timely, and flexibly. Therefore, we need to examine the
existing network technologies and protocols, and identify any
potential gaps based on the real network and device architectures.
In the remaining of this section, first we discuss several key use
cases for today's and future network operations. Next, we show why
the current network OAM techniques and protocols are insufficient for
these use cases. The discussion underlines the need for new methods,
techniques, and protocols which we may assign under an umbrella term
- network telemetry.
2.1. Use Cases
These use cases are essential for network operations. While the list
is by no means exhaustive, it is enough to highlight the requirements
for data velocity, variety, and volume in networks.
Policy and Intent Compliance: Network policies are the rules that
constraint the services for network access, provide service
differentiation, or enforce specific treatment on the traffic.
For example, a service function chain is a policy that requires
the selected flows to pass through a set of ordered network
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
functions. An intents is a high-level abstract policy which
requires a complex translation and mapping process before being
applied on networks. While a policy is enforced, the compliance
needs to be verified and monitored continuously.
SLA Compliance: A Service-Level Agreement (SLA) defines the level of
service a user expects from a network operator, which include the
metrics for the service measurement and remedy/penalty procedures
when the service level misses the agreement. Users need to check
if they get the service as promised and network operators need to
evaluate how they can deliver the services that can meet the SLA.
Root Cause Analysis: Any network failure can be the cause or effect
of a sequence of chained events. Troubleshooting and recovery
require quick identification of the root cause of any observable
issues. However, the root cause is not always straightforward to
identify, especially when the failure is sporadic and the related
and unrelated events are overwhelming. While machine learning
technologies can be used for root cause analysis, it up to the
network to sense and provide all the relevant data.
Network Optimization: This covers all short-term and long-term
network optimization techniques, including load balancing, Traffic
Engineering (TE), and network planning. Network operators are
motivated to optimize their network utilization and differentiate
services for better ROI or lower CAPEX. The first step is to know
the real-time network conditions before applying policies for
traffic manipulation. In some cases, micro-bursts need to be
detected in a very short time-frame so that fine-grained traffic
control can be applied to avoid network congestion. The long-term
network capacity planning and topology augmentation also rely on
the accumulated data of the network operations.
Event Tracking and Prediction: The visibility of user traffic path
and performance is critical for healthy network operation.
Numerous related network events are of interest to network
operators. For example, Network operators always want to learn
where and why packets are dropped for an application flow. They
also want to be warned of issues in advance so proactive actions
can be taken to avoid catastrophic consequences.
2.2. Challenges
For a long time, network operators have relied upon SNMP [RFC3416],
Command-Line Interface (CLI), or Syslog to monitor the network. Some
other OAM techniques as described in [RFC7276] are also used to
facilitate network troubleshooting. These conventional techniques
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
are not sufficient to support the above use cases for the following
reasons:
o Most use cases need to continuously monitor the network and
dynamically refine the data collection in real-time and
interactively. The poll-based low-frequency data collection is
ill-suited for these applications. Subscription-based streaming
data directly pushed from the data source (e.g., the forwarding
chip) is preferred to provide enough data quantity and precision
at scale.
o Comprehensive data is needed from packet processing engine to
traffic manager, from line cards to main control board, from user
flows to control protocol packets, from device configurations to
operations, and from physical layer to application layer.
Conventional OAM only covers a narrow range of data (e.g., SNMP
only handles data from the Management Information Base (MIB)).
Traditional network devices cannot provide all the necessary
probes. An open and programmable network device is therefore
needed.
o Many application scenarios need to correlate data from multiple
sources (i.e., from distributed network devices, different
components of a network device, or different network planes). A
piecemeal solution is often lacking the capability to consolidate
the data from multiple sources. The composition of a complete
solution, as partly proposed by Autonomic Resource Control
Architecture(ARCA) [I-D.pedro-nmrg-anticipated-adaptation], will
be empowered and guided by a comprehensive framework.
o Some of the conventional OAM techniques (e.g., CLI and Syslog) are
lack of formal data model. The unstructured data hinder the tool
automation and application extensibility. Standardized data
models are essential to support the programmable networks.
o Although some conventional OAM techniques support data push (e.g.,
SNMP Trap [RFC2981][RFC3877], Syslog, and sFlow), the pushed data
are limited to only predefined management plane warnings (e.g.,
SNMP Trap) or sampled user packets (e.g., sFlow). We require the
data with arbitrary source, granularity, and precision which are
beyond the capability of the existing techniques.
o The conventional passive measurement techniques can either consume
too much network resources and render too much redundant data, or
lead to inaccurate results; the conventional active measurement
techniques can interfere with the user traffic and their results
are indirect. We need techniques that can collect direct and on-
demand data from user traffic.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
2.3. Glossary
Before further discussion, we list some key terminology and acronyms
used in this documents. We make an intended distinction between
network telemetry and network OAM.
AI: Artificial Intelligence. Use machine-learning based
technologies to automate network operation.
BMP: BGP Monitoring Protocol
DNP: Dynamic Network Probe
DPI: Deep Packet Inspection
gNMI: gRPC Network Management Interface
gRPC: gRPC Remote Procedure Call
IDN: Intent-Driven Network
IPFIX: IP Flow Information Export Protocol
IPFPM: IP Flow Performance Measurement
IOAM: In-situ OAM
NETCONF: Network Configuration Protocol
Network Telemetry: Acquiring network data remotely for network
monitoring and operation. A general term for a large set of
network visibility techniques and protocols, with the
characteristics defined in this document. Network telemetry
addresses the current network operation issues and enables smooth
evolution toward intent-driven autonomous networks.
NMS: Network Management System
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance. A group of
network management functions that provide network fault
indication, fault localization, performance information, and data
and diagnosis functions. Most conventional network monitoring
techniques and protocols belong to network OAM.
SNMP: Simple Network Management Protocol
YANG: A data modeling language for NETCONF
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
YANG FSM: A YANG model to define device side finite state machine
YANG PUSH: A method to subscribe pushed data from remote YANG
datastore
2.4. Network Telemetry
Network telemetry has emerged as a mainstream technical term to refer
to the newer data collection and consumption techniques,
distinguishing itself form the convention techniques for network OAM.
The representative techniques and protocols include IPFIX [RFC7011]
and gPRC [I-D.kumar-rtgwg-grpc-protocol]. Network telemetry allows
separate entities to acquire data from network devices so that data
can be visualized and analyzed to support network monitoring and
operation. Network telemetry overlaps with the conventional network
OAM and has a wider scope than it. It is expected that network
telemetry can provide the necessary network insight for autonomous
networks, address the shortcomings of conventional OAM techniques,
and allow for the emergence of new techniques bearing certain
characteristics.
One difference between the network telemetry and the network OAM is
that the network telemetry assumes machines as data consumer, while
the conventional network OAM usually assumes human operators. Hence,
the network telemetry can directly trigger the automated network
operation, but the conventional OAM tools only help human operators
to monitor and diagnose the networks and guide manual network
operations. The difference leads to very different techniques.
Although the network telemetry techniques are just emerging and
subject to continuous evolution, several characteristics of network
telemetry have been well accepted (Note that network telemetry is
intended to be an umbrella term covering a wide spectrum of
techniques, so the following characteristics are not expected to be
held by every specific technique):
o Push and Streaming: Instead of polling data from network devices,
the telemetry collector subscribes to the streaming data pushed
from data sources in network devices.
o Volume and Velocity: The telemetry data is intended to be consumed
by machine rather than by a human. Therefore, the data volume is
huge and the processing is often in realtime.
o Normalization and Unification: Telemetry aims to address the
overall network automation needs. The piecemeal solutions offered
by the conventional OAM approach are no longer suitable. Efforts
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
need to be made to normalize the data representation and unify the
protocols.
o Model-based: The telemetry data is modeled in advance which allows
applications to configure and consume data with ease.
o Data Fusion: The data for a single application can come from
multiple data sources (e.g., cross-domain, cross-device, and
cross-layer) and needs to be correlated to take effect.
o Dynamic and Interactive: Since the network telemetry means to be
used in a closed control loop for network automation, it needs to
run continuously and adapt to the dynamic and interactive queries
from the network operation controller.
Note that a technique does not need to have all the above
characteristics to be qualified as telemetry. An ideal network
telemetry solution may also have the following features or
properties:
o In-Network Customization: The data can be customized in network at
run-time to cater to the specific need of applications. This
needs the support of a programmable data plane which allows probes
to be deployed at flexible locations.
o Direct Data Plane Export: The data originated from data plane can
be directly exported to the data consumer for efficiency,
especially when the data bandwidth is large and the real-time
processing is required.
o In-band Data Collection: In addition to the passive and active
data collection approaches, the new hybrid approach allows to
directly collect data for any target flow on its entire forwarding
path.
o Non-intrusive: The telemetry system should avoid the pitfall of
the "observer effect". That is, it should not change the network
behavior and affect the forwarding performance.
3. The Necessity of a Network Telemetry Framework
Big data analytics and machine-learning based AI technologies are
applied for network operation automation, relying on abundant data
from networks. The single-sourced and static data acquisition cannot
meet the data requirements. It is desirable to have a framework that
integrates multiple telemetry approaches from different layers. This
allows flexible combinations for different applications. The
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
framework would benefit application development for the following
reasons:
o The future autonomous networks will require a holistic view on
network visibility. All the use cases and applications need to be
supported uniformly and coherently under a single intelligent
agent. Therefore, the protocols and mechanisms should be
consolidated into a minimum yet comprehensive set. A telemetry
framework can help to normalize the technique developments.
o Network visibility presents multiple viewpoints. For example, the
device viewpoint takes the network infrastructure as the
monitoring object from which the network topology and device
status can be acquired; the traffic viewpoint takes the flows or
packets as the monitoring object from which the traffic quality
and path can be acquired. An application may need to switch its
viewpoint during operation. It may also need to correlate a
service and impact on network experience to acquire the
comprehensive information.
o Applications require network telemetry to be elastic in order to
efficiently use the network resource and reduce the performance
impact. Routine network monitoring covers the entire network with
low data sampling rate. When issues arise or trends emerge, the
telemetry data source can be modified and the data rate can be
boosted.
o Efficient data fusion is critical for applications to reduce the
overall quantity of data and improve the accuracy of analysis.
So far, some telemetry related work has been done within IETF.
However, the work is fragmented and scattered in different working
groups. The lack of coherence makes it difficult to assemble a
comprehensive network telemetry system and causes repetitive and
redundant work.
A formal network telemetry framework is needed for constructing a
working system. The framework should cover the concepts and
components from the standardization perspective. This document
clarifies the layers on which the telemetry is exerted and decomposes
the telemetry system into a set of distinct components that the
existing and future work can easily map to.
4. Network Telemetry Framework
Network telemetry techniques can be classified from multiple
dimensions. In this document, we provide three unique perspectives:
data acquiring mechanisms, data objects, and function components.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
4.1. Data Acquiring Mechanisms
Broadly speaking, network data can be acquired through subscription
(push) and query (poll). A subscriber may request data when it is
ready. It follows a pub-sub mode or a sub-pub mode. In the pub-sub
mode, pre-defined data are published and multiple qualified
subscribers can subscribe the data. In the sub-pub mode, a
subscriber designates what data are of interest and demands the
network devices to deliver the data when they are avaiable.
In contrast, a querier expects immediate feedback from network
devices. It is usually used in a more interactive environment. The
queried data may be directly extracted from some specific data
source, or synthesized and processed from raw data.
There are four types of data from network devices:
Simple Data: The data that are steadily available from some data
store or static probes in network devices. such data can be
specified by YANG model.
Custom Data: The data need to be synthesized or processed from raw
data from one or more network devices. The data processing
function can be statically or dynamically loaded into network
devices.
Event-triggered Data: The data are conditionally acquired based on
the occurrence of some event. An event can be modeled as a Finite
State Machine (FSM).
Streaming Data: The data are continuously or periodically generated.
The above data types are not mutual exclusive. For example, event-
triggered data can be simple or custom, and streaming data can be
event triggered. The relationships of these data types are
illustrated in Figure 1
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
+--------------------------+
| +----------------------+ |
| | +-----------------+ | |
| | | +-------------+ | | |
| | | | Simple Data | | | |
| | | +-------------+ | | |
| | | Custom Data | | |
| | +-----------------+ | |
| | Event-triggered Data | |
| +----------------------+ |
| Streaming Data |
+--------------------------+
Figure 1: Data Type Relationship
Subscription usually deals with event-triggered data and streaming
data, and query usually deals with simple data and custom data. It
is easy to see that conventional OAM techniques are mostly about
querying simple data only. While these techniques are still useful,
advanced network telemetry techniques pay more attention on the other
three data types, and prefer subscription and custom data query over
simple data query.
4.2. Data Objects
Telemetry can be applied on the forwarding plane, the control plane,
and the management plane in a network, as well as other sources out
of the network, as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, we categorize the
network telemetry into four distinct modules.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
+------------------------------+
| |
| Network Operation |<-------+
| Applications | |
| | |
+------------------------------+ |
^ ^ ^ |
| | | |
V | V V
+-----------|---+--------------+ +-----------+
| | | | | |
| Control Pl|ane| | | External |
| Telemetry | <---> | | Data and |
| | | | | Event |
| ^ V | Management | | Telemetry |
+------|--------+ Plane | | |
| V | Telemetry | +-----------+
| Forwarding | |
| Plane <---> |
| Telemetry | |
| | |
+---------------+--------------+
Figure 2: Layer Category of the Network Telemetry Framework
The rationale of this partition lies in the different telemetry data
objects which result in different data source and export locations.
Such differences have profound implications on in-network data
programming and processing capability, data encoding and transport
protocol, and data bandwidth and latency.
We summarize the major differences of the four modules in the
following table. Some representative techniques are shown in some
table blocks to highlight the technical diversity of these modules.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
| Module | Control | Management | Forwarding | External |
| | Plane | Plane | Plane | Data |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
|Object | control | config. & | flow & packet| terminal, |
| | protocol & | operation | QoS, traffic | social & |
| | signaling, | state, MIB | stat., buffer| environ- |
| | RIB, ACL | | & queue stat.| mental |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
|Export | main control | main control | fwding chip | various |
|Location | CPU, | CPU | or linecard | |
| | linecard CPU | | CPU; main | |
| | or fwding | | control CPU | |
| | chip | | unlikely | |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
|Model | YANG, | MIB, syslog, | template, | YANG |
| | custom | YANG, | YANG, | |
| | | custom | custom | |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
|Encoding | GPB, JSON, | GPB, JSON, | plain | GPB, JSON |
| | XML, plain | XML | | XML, plain|
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
|Protocol | gRPC,NETCONF,| gPRC,NETCONF,| IPFIX, mirror| gRPC |
| | IPFIX,mirror | | | |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
|Transport| HTTP, TCP, | HTTP, TCP | UDP | TCP, UDP |
| | UDP | | | |
+---------+--------------+--------------+--------------+-----------+
Figure 3: Layer Category of the Network Telemetry Framework
Note that the interaction with the network operation applications can
be indirect. For example, in the management plane telemetry, the
management plane may need to acquire data from the data plane. Some
of the operational states can only be derived from the data plane
such as the interface status and statistics. For another example,
the control plane telemetry may need to access the FIB in data plane.
On the other hand, an application may involve more than one plane
simultaneously. For example, an SLA compliance application may
require both the data plane telemetry and the control plane
telemetry.
4.3. Function Components
At each plane, the telemetry can be further partitioned into five
distinct components:
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
Data Query, Analysis, and Storage: This component works at the
application layer. On the one hand, it is responsible for issuing
data queries. The queries can be for modeled data through
configuration or custom data through programming. The queries can
be one shot or subscriptions for events or streaming data. On the
other hand, it receives, stores, and processes the returned data
from network devices. Data analysis can be interactive to
initiate further data queries.
Data Configuration and Subscription: This component deploys data
queries on devices. It determines the protocol and channel for
applications to acquire desired data. This component is also
responsible for configuring the desired data that might not be
directly available form data sources. The subscription data can
be described by models, templates, or programs.
Data Encoding and Export: This component determines how telemetry
data are delivered to the data analysis and storage component.
The data encoding and the transport protocol may vary due to the
data exporting location.
Data Generation and Processing: The requested data needs to be
captured, processed, and formatted in network devices from raw
data sources. This may involve in-network computing and
processing on either the fast path or the slow path in network
devices.
Data Object and Source: This component determines the monitoring
object and original data source. The data source usually just
provides raw data which needs further processing. A data source
can be considered a probe. A probe can be statically installed or
dynamically installed.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
+----------------------------------------+
| |
| Data Query, Analysis, & Storage |
| |
+----------------------------------------+
| ^
| |
V |
+---------------------+------------------+
| Data Configuration | |
| & Subscription | Data Encoding |
| (model, template, | & Export |
| & program) | |
+---------------------+------------------|
| |
| Data Generation |
| & Processing |
| |
+----------------------------------------|
| |
| Data Object and Source |
| |
+----------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Components in the Network Telemetry Framework
Since most existing standard-related work belongs to the first four
components, in the remainder of the document, we focus on these
components only.
4.4. Existing Works Mapped in the Framework
The following two tables provide a non-exhaustive list of existing
works (mainly published in IETF and with the emphasis on the latest
new technologies) and shows their positions in the framework. The
details about the mentioned work can be found in Appendix A.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+
| | Query | Subscription |
| | | |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+
| Simple Data | SNMP, NETCONF,| |
| | YANG, BMP, | |
| | IOAM, PBT | |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+
| Custom Data | DNP, YANG FSM | |
| | gRPC, NETCONF | |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+
| Event-triggered | | gRPC, NETCONF, |
| Data | | YANG PUSH, DNP |
| | | IOAM, PBT, |
| | | YANG FSM |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+
| Streaming Data | | gRPC, NETCONF, |
| | | IOAM, PBT, DNP |
| | | IPFIX, IPFPM |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+
Figure 5: Existing Work Mapping I
+--------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+
| | Management | Control | Forwarding |
| | Plane | Plane | Plane |
+--------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+
| data Config. | gRPC, NETCONF,| NETCONF/YANG | NETCONF/YANG, |
| & subscrib. | YANG PUSH | | YANG FSM |
+--------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+
| data gen. & | DNP, | DNP, | In-situ OAM, |
| processing | YANG | YANG | PBT, IPFPM, |
| | | | DNP |
+--------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+
| data | gRPC, NETCONF | BMP, NETCONF | IPFIX |
| export | YANG PUSH | | |
+--------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+
Figure 6: Existing Work Mapping II
5. Evolution of Network Telemetry
As the network is evolving towards the automated operation, network
telemetry also undergoes several levels of evolution.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
Level 0 - Static Telemetry: The telemetry data is determined at
design time. The network operator can only configure how to use
it with limited flexibility.
Level 1 - Dynamic Telemetry: The telemetry data can be dynamically
programmed or configured at runtime, allowing a tradeoff among
resource, performance, flexibility, and coverage. DNP is an
effort towards this direction.
Level 2 - Interactive Telemetry: The network operator can
continuously customize the telemetry data in real time to reflect
the network operation's visibility requirements. At this level,
some tasks can be automated, although ultimately human operators
will still need to sit in the middle to make decisions.
Level 3 - Closed-loop Telemetry: Human operators are completely
excluded from the control loop. The intelligent network operation
engine automatically issues the telemetry data request, analyzes
the data, and updates the network operations in closed control
loops.
While most of the existing technologies belong to level 0 and level
1, with the help of a clearly defined network telemetry framework, we
can assemble the technologies to support level 2 and make solid steps
towards level 3.
6. Security Considerations
Given that this document has proposed a framework for network
telemetry and the telemetry mechanisms discussed are distinct (in
both message frequency and traffic amount) from the conventional
network OAM concepts, we must also reflect that various new security
considerations may also arise. A number of techniques already exist
for securing the data plane, control plane, and the management plane
in a network, but the it is important to consider if any new threat
vectors are now being enabled via the use of network telemetry
procedures and mechanisms.
Security considerations for networks that use telemetry methods may
include:
o Telemetry framework trust and policy model;
o Role management and access control for enabling and disabling
telemetry capabilities;
o Protocol transport used telemetry data and inherent security
capabilities;
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
o Telemetry data stores, storage encryption and methods of access;
o Tracking telemetry events and any abnormalities that might
identify malicious attacks using telemetry interfaces.
Some of the security considerations highlighted above may be
minimized or negated with policy management of network telemetry. In
a network telemetry deployment it would be advantageous to separate
telemetry capabilities into different classes of policies, i.e., Role
Based Access Control and Event-Condition-Action policies. Also,
potential conflicts between network telemetry mechanisms must be
detected accurately and resolved quickly to avoid unnecessary network
telemetry traffic propagation escalating into an unintended or
intended denial of service attack.
Further discussion and development of this section will be required,
and it is expected that this security section, and subsequent policy
section will be developed further.
7. IANA Considerations
This document includes no request to IANA.
8. Contributors
The other major contributors of this document are listed as follows.
o Tianran Zhou
o Zhenbin Li
o Daniel King
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Randy Presuhn, Victor Liu,
James Guichard, Uri Blumenthal, Giuseppe Fioccola, Yunan Gu, Parviz
Yegani, Young Lee, Alexander Clemm, Joe Clarke, and many others who
have provided helpful comments and suggestions to improve this
document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Dara, S., Pignataro, C.,
Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mozes, D., Mizrahi,
T., Lapukhov, P., and r. remy@barefootnetworks.com,
"Requirements for In-situ OAM", draft-brockners-inband-
oam-requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2017.
[I-D.fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto,
"Multipoint Alternate Marking method for passive and
hybrid performance monitoring", draft-fioccola-ippm-
multipoint-alt-mark-04 (work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out]
Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Lucente, P., Mi, K., and S.
Zhuang, "Support for Adj-RIB-Out in BGP Monitoring
Protocol (BMP)", draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-03 (work
in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib]
Evens, T., Bayraktar, S., Bhardwaj, M., and P. Lucente,
"Support for Local RIB in BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)",
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-02 (work in progress),
September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel]
Zheng, G., Zhou, T., and A. Clemm, "UDP based Publication
Channel for Streaming Telemetry", draft-ietf-netconf-udp-
pub-channel-04 (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, A., Voit, E., Prieto, A., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-
Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel, "Subscription to
YANG Datastores", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22 (work in
progress), February 2019.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
[I-D.kumar-rtgwg-grpc-protocol]
Kumar, A., Kolhe, J., Ghemawat, S., and L. Ryan, "gRPC
Protocol", draft-kumar-rtgwg-grpc-protocol-00 (work in
progress), July 2016.
[I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., Borman, P., Hines, M., Lebsack,
C., and C. Morrow, "gRPC Network Management Interface
(gNMI)", draft-openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec-01 (work in
progress), March 2018.
[I-D.pedro-nmrg-anticipated-adaptation]
Martinez-Julia, P., "Exploiting External Event Detectors
to Anticipate Resource Requirements for the Elastic
Adaptation of SDN/NFV Systems", draft-pedro-nmrg-
anticipated-adaptation-02 (work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., and J. Shin, "Postcard-based
In-band Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song-ippm-postcard-
based-telemetry-01 (work in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.song-opsawg-dnp4iq]
Song, H. and J. Gong, "Requirements for Interactive Query
with Dynamic Network Probes", draft-song-opsawg-dnp4iq-01
(work in progress), June 2017.
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]
Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Bierman,
"Subscription to Multiple Stream Originators", draft-zhou-
netconf-multi-stream-originators-03 (work in progress),
October 2018.
[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1157,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1157, May 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1157>.
[RFC2981] Kavasseri, R., Ed., "Event MIB", RFC 2981,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2981, October 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2981>.
[RFC3416] Presuhn, R., Ed., "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations
for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
STD 62, RFC 3416, DOI 10.17487/RFC3416, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3416>.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
[RFC3877] Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management
Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, DOI 10.17487/RFC3877,
September 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3877>.
[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>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[RFC7276] Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
[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>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7854>.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
Appendix A. A Survey on Existing Network Telemetry Techniques
We provide an overview of the challenges and existing solutions for
each network telemetry module.
A.1. Management Plane Telemetry
A.1.1. Requirements and Challenges
The management plane of the network element interacts with the
Network Management System (NMS), and provides information such as
performance data, network logging data, network warning and defects
data, and network statistics and state data. Some legacy protocols
are widely used for the management plane, such as SNMP and Syslog.
However, these protocols are insufficient to meet the requirements of
the automatic network operation applications.
New management plane telemetry protocols should consider the
following requirements:
Convenient Data Subscription: An application should have the freedom
to choose the data export means such as the data types and the
export frequency.
Structured Data: For automatic network operation, machines will
replace human for network data comprehension. The schema
languages such as YANG can efficiently describe structured data
and normalize data encoding and transformation.
High Speed Data Transport: In order to retain the information, a
server needs to send a large amount of data at high frequency.
Compact encoding formats are needed to compress the data and
improve the data transport efficiency. The push mode, by
replacing the poll mode, can also reduce the interactions between
clients and servers, which help to improve the server's
efficiency.
A.1.2. Push Extensions for NETCONF
NETCONF [RFC6241] is one popular network management protocol, which
is also recommended by IETF. Although it can be used for data
collection, NETCONF is good at configurations. YANG Push
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] extends NETCONF and enables subscriber
applications to request a continuous, customized stream of updates
from a YANG datastore. Providing such visibility into changes made
upon YANG configuration and operational objects enables new
capabilities based on the remote mirroring of configuration and
operational state. Moreover, distributed data collection mechanism
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators] via UDP based publication
channel [I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel] provides enhanced
efficiency for the NETCONF based telemetry.
A.1.3. gRPC Network Management Interface
gRPC Network Management Interface (gNMI)
[I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec] is a network management protocol
based on the gRPC [I-D.kumar-rtgwg-grpc-protocol] RPC (Remote
Procedure Call) framework. With a single gRPC service definition,
both configuration and telemetry can be covered. gRPC is an HTTP/2
[RFC7540] based open source micro service communication framework.
It provides a number of capabilities which are well-suited for
network telemetry, including:
o Full-duplex streaming transport model combined with a binary
encoding mechanism provided further improved telemetry efficiency.
o gRPC provides higher-level features consistency across platforms
that common HTTP/2 libraries typically do not. This
characteristic is especially valuable for the fact that telemetry
data collectors normally reside on a large variety of platforms.
o The built-in load-balancing and failover mechanism.
A.2. Control Plane Telemetry
A.2.1. Requirements and Challenges
The control plane telemetry refers to the health condition monitoring
of different network protocols, which covers Layer 2 to Layer 7.
Keeping track of the running status of these protocols is beneficial
for detecting, localizing, and even predicting various network
issues, as well as network optimization, in real-time and in fine
granularity.
One of the most challenging problems for the control plane telemetry
is how to correlate the E2E Key Performance Indicators (KPI) to a
specific layer's KPIs. For example, an IPTV user may describe his
User Experience (UE) by the video fluency and definition. Then in
case of an unusually poor UE KPI or a service disconnection, it is
non-trivial work to delimit and localize the issue to the responsible
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
protocol layer (e.g., the Transport Layer or the Network Layer), the
responsible protocol (e.g., ISIS or BGP at the Network Layer), and
finally the responsible device(s) with specific reasons.
Traditional OAM-based approaches for control plane KPI measurement
include PING (L3), Tracert (L3), Y.1731 (L2) and so on. One common
issue behind these methods is that they only measure the KPIs instead
of reflecting the actual running status of these protocols, making
them less effective or efficient for control plane troubleshooting
and network optimization. An example of the control plane telemetry
is the BGP monitoring protocol (BMP), it is currently used to
monitoring the BGP routes and enables rich applications, such as BGP
peer analysis, AS analysis, prefix analysis, security analysis, and
so on. However, the monitoring of other layers, protocols and the
cross-layer, cross-protocol KPI correlations are still in their
infancy (e.g., the IGP monitoring is missing), which require
substantial further research.
A.2.2. BGP Monitoring Protocol
BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] is used to monitor BGP
sessions and intended to provide a convenient interface for obtaining
route views.
The BGP routing information is collected from the monitored device(s)
to the BMP monitoring station by setting up the BMP TCP session. The
BGP peers are monitored by the BMP Peer Up and Peer Down
Notifications. The BGP routes (including Adjacency_RIB_In [RFC7854],
Adjacency_RIB_out [I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out], and Local_Rib
[I-D.ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib] are encapsulated in the BMP Route
Monitoring Message and the BMP Route Mirroring Message, in the form
of both initial table dump and real-time route update. In addition,
BGP statistics are reported through the BMP Stats Report Message,
which could be either timer triggered or event-driven. More BMP
extensions can be explored to enrich the applications of BGP
monitoring.
A.3. Data Plane Telemetry
A.3.1. Requirements and Challenges
An effective data plane telemetry system relies on the data that the
network device can expose. The data's quality, quantity, and
timeliness must meet some stringent requirements. This raises some
challenges to the network data plane devices where the first hand
data originate.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
o A data plane device's main function is user traffic processing and
forwarding. While supporting network visibility is important, the
telemetry is just an auxiliary function, and it should not impede
normal traffic processing and forwarding (i.e., the performance is
not lowered and the behavior is not altered due to the telemetry
functions).
o The network operation applications requires end-to-end visibility
from various sources, which results in a huge volume of data.
However, the sheer data quantity should not stress the network
bandwidth, regardless of the data delivery approach (i.e., through
in-band or out-of-band channels).
o The data plane devices must provide timely data with the minimum
possible delay. Long processing, transport, storage, and analysis
delay can impact the effectiveness of the control loop and even
render the data useless.
o The data should be structured and labeled, and easy for
applications to parse and consume. At the same time, the data
types needed by applications can vary significantly. The data
plane devices need to provide enough flexibility and
programmability to support the precise data provision for
applications.
o The data plane telemetry should support incremental deployment and
work even though some devices are unaware of the system. This
challenge is highly relevant to the standards and legacy networks.
The industry has agreed that the data plane programmability is
essential to support network telemetry. Newer data plane chips are
all equipped with advanced telemetry features and provide flexibility
to support customized telemetry functions.
A.3.2. Technique Taxonomy
There can be multiple possible dimensions to classify the data plane
telemetry techniques.
Active and Passive: The active and passive methods (as well as the
hybrid types) are well documented in [RFC7799]. The passive
methods include TCPDUMP, IPFIX [RFC7011], sflow, and traffic
mirror. These methods usually have low data coverage. The
bandwidth cost is very high in order to improve the data coverage.
On the other hand, the active methods include Ping, Traceroute,
OWAMP [RFC4656], and TWAMP [RFC5357]. These methods are intrusive
and only provide indirect network measurement results. The hybrid
methods, including in-situ OAM
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements], IPFPM [RFC8321], and
Multipoint Alternate Marking
[I-D.fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark], provide a well-balanced
and more flexible approach. However, these methods are also more
complex to implement.
In-Band and Out-of-Band: The telemetry data, before being exported
to some collector, can be carried in user packets. Such methods
are considered in-band (e.g., in-situ OAM
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements]). If the telemetry data
is directly exported to some collector without modifying the user
packets, Such methods are considered out-of-band (e.g., postcard-
based INT). It is possible to have hybrid methods. For example,
only the telemetry instruction or partial data is carried by user
packets (e.g., IPFPM [RFC8321]).
E2E and In-Network: Some E2E methods start from and end at the
network end hosts (e.g., Ping). The other methods work in
networks and are transparent to end hosts. However, if needed,
the in-network methods can be easily extended into end hosts.
Flow, Path, and Node: Depending on the telemetry objective, the
methods can be flow-based (e.g., in-situ OAM
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements]), path-based (e.g.,
Traceroute), and node-based (e.g., IPFIX [RFC7011]).
A.3.3. The IPFPM technology
The Alternate Marking method is efficient to perform packet loss,
delay, and jitter measurements both in an IP and Overlay Networks, as
presented in IPFPM [RFC8321] and
[I-D.fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark].
This technique can be applied to point-to-point and multipoint-to-
multipoint flows. Alternate Marking creates batches of packets by
alternating the value of 1 bit (or a label) of the packet header.
These batches of packets are unambiguously recognized over the
network and the comparison of packet counters for each batch allows
the packet loss calculation. The same idea can be applied to delay
measurement by selecting ad hoc packets with a marking bit dedicated
for delay measurements.
Alternate Marking method needs two counters each marking period for
each flow under monitor. For instance, by considering n measurement
points and m monitored flows, the order of magnitude of the packet
counters for each time interval is n*m*2 (1 per color).
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
Since networks offer rich sets of network performance measurement
data (e.g packet counters), traditional approaches run into
limitations. One reason is the fact that the bottleneck is the
generation and export of the data and the amount of data that can be
reasonably collected from the network. In addition, management tasks
related to determining and configuring which data to generate lead to
significant deployment challenges.
Multipoint Alternate Marking approach, described in
[I-D.fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark], aims to resolve this issue
and makes the performance monitoring more flexible in case a detailed
analysis is not needed.
An application orchestrates network performance measurements tasks
across the network to allow an optimized monitoring and it can
calibrate how deep can be obtained monitoring data from the network
by configuring measurement points roughly or meticulously.
Using Alternate Marking, it is possible to monitor a Multipoint
Network without examining in depth by using the Network Clustering
(subnetworks that are portions of the entire network that preserve
the same property of the entire network, called clusters). So in
case there is packet loss or the delay is too high the filtering
criteria could be specified more in order to perform a detailed
analysis by using a different combination of clusters up to a per-
flow measurement as described in IPFPM [RFC8321].
In summary, an application can configure end-to-end network
monitoring. If the network does not experiment issues, this
approximate monitoring is good enough and is very cheap in terms of
network resources. However, in case of problems, the application
becomes aware of the issues from this approximate monitoring and, in
order to localize the portion of the network that has issues,
configures the measurement points more exhaustively. So a new
detailed monitoring is performed. After the detection and resolution
of the problem the initial approximate monitoring can be used again.
A.3.4. Dynamic Network Probe
Hardware-based Dynamic Network Probe (DNP) [I-D.song-opsawg-dnp4iq]
provides a programmable means to customize the data that an
application collects from the data plane. A direct benefit of DNP is
the reduction of the exported data. A full DNP solution covers
several components including data source, data subscription, and data
generation. The data subscription needs to define the custom data
which can be composed and derived from the raw data sources. The
data generation takes advantage of the moderate in-network computing
to produce the desired data.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
While DNP can introduce unforeseeable flexibility to the data plane
telemetry, it also faces some challenges. It requires a flexible
data plane that can be dynamically reprogrammed at run-time. The
programming API is yet to be defined.
A.3.5. IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol
Traffic on a network can be seen as a set of flows passing through
network elements. IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC7011]
provides a means of transmitting traffic flow information for
administrative or other purposes. A typical IPFIX enabled system
includes a pool of Metering Processes collects data packets at one or
more Observation Points, optionally filters them and aggregates
information about these packets. An Exporter then gathers each of
the Observation Points together into an Observation Domain and sends
this information via the IPFIX protocol to a Collector.
A.3.6. In-Situ OAM
Traditional passive and active monitoring and measurement techniques
are either inaccurate or resource-consuming. It is preferable to
directly acquire data associated with a flow's packets when the
packets pass through a network. In-situ OAM (iOAM)
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements], a data generation technique,
embeds a new instruction header to user packets and the instruction
directs the network nodes to add the requested data to the packets.
Thus, at the path end, the packet's experience gained on the entire
forwarding path can be collected. Such firsthand data is invaluable
to many network OAM applications.
However, iOAM also faces some challenges. The issues on performance
impact, security, scalability and overhead limits, encapsulation
difficulties in some protocols, and cross-domain deployment need to
be addressed.
A.3.7. Postcard Based Telemetry
PBT [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] is an alternative to
IOAM. PBT directly exports data at each node through an independent
packet. PBT solves several issues of IOAM. It can also help to
identify packet drop location in case a packet is dropped on its
forwarding path.
A.4. External Data and Event Telemetry
Events that occur outside the boundaries of the network system are
another important source of telemetry information. Correlating both
internal telemetry data and external events with the requirements of
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
network systems, as presented in Exploiting External Event Detectors
to Anticipate Resource Requirements for the Elastic Adaptation of
SDN/NFV Systems [I-D.pedro-nmrg-anticipated-adaptation], provides a
strategic and functional advantage to management operations.
A.4.1. Requirements and Challenges
As with other sources of telemetry information, the data and events
must meet strict requirements, especially in terms of timeliness,
which is essential to properly incorporate external event information
to management cycles. Thus, the specific challenges are described as
follows:
o The role of external event detector can be played by multiple
elements, including hardware (e.g. physical sensors, such as
seismometers) and software (e.g. Big Data sources that analyze
streams of information, such as Twitter messages). Thus, the
transmitted data must support different shapes but, at the same
time, follow a common but extensible ontology.
o Since the main function of the external event detectors is to
perform the notifications, their timeliness is assumed. However,
once messages have been dispatched, they must be quickly collected
and inserted into the control plane with variable priority, which
will be high for important sources and/or important events and low
for secondary ones.
o The ontology used by external detectors must be easily adopted by
current and future devices and applications. Therefore, it must
be easily mapped to current information models, such as in terms
of YANG.
Organizing together both internal and external telemetry information
will be key for the general exploitation of the management
possibilities of current and future network systems, as reflected in
the incorporation of cognitive capabilities to new hardware and
software (virtual) elements.
A.4.2. Sources of External Events
To ensure that the information provided by external event detectors
and used by the network management solutions is meaningful for the
management purposes, the network telemetry framework must ensure that
such detectors (sources) are easily connected to the management
solutions (sinks). This requires the specification of a simple
taxonomy of detectors and match it to the connectors and/or
interfaces required to connect them.
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
Once detectors are classified in such taxonomy, their definitions are
enlarged with the qualities and other aspects used to handle them and
represented in the ontology and information model (e.g. YANG).
Therefore, differentiating several types of detectors as potential
sources of external events is essential for the integrity of the
management framework. We thus differentiate the following source
types of external events:
o Smart objects and sensors. With the consolidation of the Internet
of Things~(IoT) any network system will have many smart objects
attached to its physical surroundings and logical operation
environments. Most of these objects will be essentially based on
sensors of many kinds (e.g. temperature, humidity, presence) and
the information they provide can be very useful for the management
of the network, even when they are not specifically deployed for
such purpose. Elements of this source type will usually provide a
specific protocol for interaction, especially one of those
protocols related to IoT, such as the Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP). It will be used by the telemetry framework to
interact with the relevant objects.
o Online news reporters. Several online news services have the
ability to provide enormous quantity of information about
different events occurring in the world. Some of those events can
impact on the network system managed by a specific framework and,
therefore, it will be interested on getting such information. For
instance, diverse security reports, such as the Common
Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE), can be issued by the
corresponding authority and used by the management solution to
update the managed system if needed. Instead of a specific
protocol and data format, the sources of this kind of information
usually follow a relaxed but structured format. This format will
be part of both the ontology and information model of the
telemetry framework.
o Global event analyzers. The advance of Big Data analyzers
provides a huge amount of information and, more interestingly, the
identification of events detected by analyzing many data streams
from different origins. In contrast with the other types of
sources, which are focused in specific events, the detectors of
this source type will detect very generic events. For example, a
sports event takes place and some unexpected movement makes it
highly interesting and many people connects to sites that are
covering such event. The systems supporting the services that
cover the event can be affected by such situation so their
management solutions should be aware of it. In contrast with the
other source types, a new information model, format, and reporting
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
protocol is required to integrate the detectors of this type with
the management solution.
Additional types of detector types can be added to the system but
they will be generally the result of composing the properties offered
by these main classes. In any case, future revisions of the network
telemetry framework will include the required types that cover new
circumstances and that cannot be obtained by composition.
A.4.3. Connectors and Interfaces
For allowing external event detectors to be properly integrated with
other management solutions, both elements must expose interfaces and
protocols that are subject to their particular objective. Since
external event detectors will be focused on providing their
information to their main consumers, which generally will not be
limited to the network management solutions, the framework must
include the definition of the required connectors for ensuring the
interconnection between detectors (sources) and their consumers
within the management systems (sinks) are effective.
In some situations, the interconnection between the external event
detectors and the management system is via the management plane. For
those situations there will be a special connector that provides the
typical interfaces found in most other elements connected to the
management plane. For instance, the interfaces will accomplish with
a specific information model (YANG) and specific telemetry protocol,
such as NETCONF, SNMP, or gRPC.
Authors' Addresses
Haoyu Song (editor)
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara
USA
Email: haoyu.song@huawei.com
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
No. 32 Xuanwumenxi Ave., Xicheng District
Beijing, 100032
P.R. China
Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Network Telemetry Framework March 2019
Pedro Martinez-Julia
NICT
4-2-1, Nukui-Kitamachi
Koganei, Tokyo 184-8795
Japan
Email: pedro@nict.go.jp
Laurent Ciavaglia
Nokia
Villarceaux 91460
France
Email: laurent.ciavaglia@nokia.com
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, 102209
P.R. China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Song, et al. Expires September 7, 2019 [Page 33]
