| RFC : | rfc9571 |
| Title: | DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) |
| Date: | May 2024 |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Bryant, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9571 University of Surrey
Category: Standards Track G. Swallow
ISSN: 2070-1721 Independent
M. Chen
Huawei
G. Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
G. Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
May 2024
Extension of RFC 6374-Based Performance Measurement Using Synonymous
Flow Labels
Abstract
RFC 6374 describes methods of making loss and delay measurements on
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) primarily as they are used in MPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) networks. This document describes a
method of extending the performance measurements (specified in RFC
6374) from flows carried over MPLS-TP to flows carried over generic
MPLS LSPs. In particular, it extends the technique to allow loss and
delay measurements to be made on multipoint-to-point LSPs and
introduces some additional techniques to allow more sophisticated
measurements to be made in both MPLS-TP and generic MPLS networks.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9571.
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Requirements Language
3. Packet Loss Measurement Using SFL
4. Single Packet Delay Measurement Using SFL
5. Data Service Packet Delay Measurement
6. Some Simplifying Rules
7. Multiple Packet Delay Characteristics
7.1. Method 1: Time Buckets
7.2. Method 2: Classic Standard Deviation
7.2.1. Multi-packet Delay Measurement Message Format
7.3. Per-Packet Delay Measurement
7.4. Average Delay
8. Sampled Measurement
9. Carrying Packets over an LSP Using an SFL
9.1. Extending RFC 6374 with SFL TLV
10. Combined Loss/Delay Measurement Using SFL
11. Privacy Considerations
12. Security Considerations
13. IANA Considerations
13.1. Allocation of MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh)
Types
13.2. Allocation of MPLS Loss/Delay TLV Object
14. References
14.1. Normative References
14.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
[RFC6374] was originally designed for use as an Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocol for use with MPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [RFC5921] LSPs. MPLS-TP only supports
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint LSPs. This document describes
how to use [RFC6374] in the generic MPLS case and also introduces a
number of more sophisticated measurements of applicability to both
cases.
[RFC8372] describes the requirement for introducing flow identities
when using packet loss measurements described in [RFC6374]. In
summary, [RFC6374] describes use of the loss measurement (LM) message
as the packet accounting demarcation point. Unfortunately, this
gives rise to a number of problems that may lead to significant
packet accounting errors in certain situations. For example:
1. Where a flow is subjected to Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP)
treatment, packets can arrive out of order with respect to the LM
packet.
2. Where a flow is subjected to ECMP treatment, packets can arrive
at different hardware interfaces, thus requiring reception of an
LM packet on one interface to trigger a packet accounting action
on a different interface that may not be co-located with it.
This is a difficult technical problem to address with the
required degree of accuracy.
3. Even where there is no ECMP (for example, on RSVP-TE, MPLS-TP
LSPs, and pseudowires (PWs)), local processing may be distributed
over a number of processor cores, leading to synchronization
problems.
4. Link aggregation techniques [RFC7190] may also lead to
synchronization issues.
5. Some forwarder implementations have a long pipeline between
processing a packet and incrementing the associated counter,
again leading to synchronization difficulties.
An approach to mitigating these synchronization issues is described
in [RFC9341] -- the packets are batched by the sender, and each batch
is marked in some way such that adjacent batches can be easily
recognized by the receiver.
An additional problem arises where the LSP is a multipoint-to-point
LSP since MPLS does not include a source address in the packet.
Network management operations require the measurement of packet loss
between a source and destination. It is thus necessary to introduce
some source-specific information into the packet to identify packet
batches from a specific source.
[RFC8957] describes a method of encoding per-flow instructions in an
MPLS label stack using a technique called Synonymous Flow Labels
(SFLs), in which labels that mimic the behavior of other labels
provide the packet batch identifiers and enable the per-batch packet
accounting. This memo specifies how SFLs are used to perform packet
loss and delay measurements as described in [RFC6374].
When the terms "performance measurement method," "Query," "packet,"
or "message" are used in this document, they refer to a performance
measurement method, Query, packet, or message as specified in
[RFC6374].
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. Packet Loss Measurement Using SFL
The data service packets of the flow being instrumented are grouped
into batches, and all the packets within a batch are marked with the
SFL [RFC8372] corresponding to that batch. The sender counts the
number of packets in the batch. When the batch has completed and the
sender is confident that all of the packets in that batch will have
been received, the sender issues a Query message to determine the
number actually received and hence the number of packets lost. The
Query message is sent using the same SFL as the corresponding batch
of data service packets. The format of the Query and Response
packets is described in Section 9.
4. Single Packet Delay Measurement Using SFL
[RFC6374] describes how to measure the packet delay by measuring the
transit time of a packet over an LSP. Such a packet may not need to
be carried over an SFL since the delay over a particular LSP should
be a function of the Traffic Class (TC) bits.
However, where SFLs are being used to monitor packet loss or where
label-inferred scheduling is used [RFC3270], then the SFL would be
REQUIRED to ensure that the packet that was being used as a proxy for
a data service packet experienced a representative delay. The format
of a packet carried over the LSP using an SFL is shown in Section 9.
5. Data Service Packet Delay Measurement
Where it is desired to more thoroughly instrument a packet flow and
to determine the delay of a number of packets, it is undesirable to
send a large number of packets acting as proxy data service packets
(see Section 4). A method of directly measuring the delay
characteristics of a batch of packets is therefore needed.
Given the long intervals over which it is necessary to measure packet
loss, it is not necessarily the case that the batch times for the two
measurement types would be identical. Thus, we use a technique that
permits the two measurements to be made concurrently and yet
relatively independently from each other. The notion that they are
relatively independent arises from the potential for the two batches
to overlap in time, in which case either the delay batch time will
need to be cut short or the loss time will need to be extended to
allow correct reconciliation of the various counters.
The problem is illustrated in Figure 1.
(Case 1) AAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBB
SFL marking of a packet batch for loss measurement
(Case 2) AADDDDAAAABBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBB
SFL marking of a subset of the packets for delay
(Case 3) AAAAAAAADDDDBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBB
SFL marking of a subset of the packets across a packet loss
measurement boundary
(Case 4) AACDCDCDAABBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBB
A case of multiple delay measurements within a packet loss
measurement
where
A and B are packets where loss is being measured.
C and D are packets where loss and delay are being measured.
Figure 1: Query Packet with SFL
In Case 1, we show where loss measurement alone is being carried out
on the flow under analysis. For illustrative purposes, consider that
10 packets are used in each flow in the time interval being analyzed.
Now consider Case 2, where a small batch of packets need to be
analyzed for delay. These are marked with a different SFL type,
indicating that they are to be monitored for both loss and delay.
The SFL=A indicates loss batch A, and SFL=D indicates a batch of
packets that are to be instrumented for delay, but SFL D is
synonymous with SFL A, which in turn is synonymous with the
underlying Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC). Thus, a packet marked
"D" will be accumulated into the A loss batch, into the delay
statistics, and will be forwarded as normal. Whether the packet is
actually counted twice (for loss and delay) or whether the two
counters are reconciled during reporting is a local matter.
Now consider Case 3, where a small batch of packets is marked for
delay across a loss batch boundary. These packets need to be
considered as a part of batch A or a part of batch B, and any Query
needs to take place after all packets A or D (whichever option is
chosen) have arrived at the receiving Label Switching Router (LSR).
Now consider Case 4. Here, we have a case where it is required to
take a number of delay measurements within a batch of packets that we
are measuring for loss. To do this, we need two SFLs for delay (C
and D) and alternate between them (on a delay-batch-by-delay-batch
basis) for the purposes of measuring the delay characteristics of the
different batches of packets.
6. Some Simplifying Rules
It is possible to construct a large set of overlapping measurement
types in terms of loss, delay, loss and delay, and batch overlap. If
we allow all combinations of cases, this leads to configuration,
testing, and implementation complexity and, hence, increased costs.
The following simplifying rules represent the default case:
1. Any system that needs to measure delay MUST be able to measure
loss.
2. Any system that is to measure delay MUST be configured to measure
loss. Whether the loss statistics are collected or not is a
local matter.
3. A delay measurement MAY start at any point during a loss
measurement batch, subject to rule 4.
4. A delay measurement interval MUST be short enough that it will
complete before the enclosing loss batch completes.
5. The duration of a second delay batch (D in Figure 1) must be such
that all packets from the packets belonging to a first delay
batch (C in Figure 1) will have been received before the second
delay batch completes. This condition is satisfied when the time
to send a batch is long compared to the network propagation time
and is a parameter that can be established by the network
operator.
Given that the sender controls both the start and duration of a loss
and a delay packet batch, these rules are readily implemented in the
control plane.
7. Multiple Packet Delay Characteristics
A number of methods are described that add to the set of measurements
originally specified in [RFC6374]. Each of these methods has
different characteristics and different processing demands on the
packet forwarder. The choice of method will depend on the type of
diagnostic that the operator seeks.
Three methods are discussed:
1. Time Buckets
2. Classic Standard Deviation
3. Average Delay
7.1. Method 1: Time Buckets
In this method, the receiving LSR measures the inter-packet gap,
classifies the delay into a number of delay buckets, and records the
number of packets in each bucket. As an example, if the operator
were concerned about packets with a delay of up to 1 μs, 2 μs, 4 μs,
8 μs, and over 8 μs, then there would be five buckets, and packets
that arrived up to 1 μs would cause the "up to 1 μs" bucket counter
to increase. Likewise, for those that arrived between 1 μs and 2 μs,
the "2 μs" bucket counter would increase, etc. In practice, it might
be better in terms of processing and potential parallelism if both
the "up to 1 μs" and "2 μs" counters were incremented when a packet
had a delay relative to its predecessor of 2 μs, and any more
detailed information was calculated in the analytics system.
This method allows the operator to see more structure in the jitter
characteristics than simply measuring the average jitter and avoids
the complication of needing to perform a per-packet multiply but will
probably need the time intervals between buckets to be programmable
by the operator.
The packet format of a Time Bucket Jitter Measurement message is
shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Flags | Control Code | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| QTF | RTF | RPTF | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session Identifier | DS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of | Reserved 1 |
| Buckets | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interval (in 10 ns units) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of Pkts in Bucket 1 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of Pkts in Bucket N |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
~ TLV Block ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Time Bucket Jitter Measurement Message Format
The Version, Flags, Control Code, Message Length, Querier Timestamp
Format (QTF), Responder Timestamp Format (RTF), Responder's Preferred
Timestamp Format (RPTF), Session Identifier, Reserved, and
Differentiated Services (DS) fields are as defined in Section 3.2 of
[RFC6374]. The remaining fields, which are unsigned integers, are as
follows:
* Number of Buckets in the measurement.
* Reserved 1 must be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
* Interval (in 10 ns units) is the inter-packet interval for this
bucket.
* Number of Pkts in Bucket 1 is the number of packets found in the
first bucket.
* Number of Pkts in Bucket N is the number of packets found in the
Nth bucket, where N is the value in the Number of Buckets field.
There will be a number of Interval/Number pairs depending on the
number of buckets being specified by the Querier. If a message is
being used to configure the buckets (i.e., the responder is creating
or modifying the buckets according to the intervals in the Query
message), then the responder MUST respond with 0 packets in each
bucket until it has been configured for a full measurement period.
This indicates that it was configured at the time of the last
response message, and thus, the response is valid for the whole
interval. As per the convention in [RFC6374], the Number of Pkts in
Bucket fields are included in the Query message and set to zero.
Out-of-band configuration is permitted by this mode of operation.
Note this is a departure from the normal fixed format used in
[RFC6374].
The Time Bucket Jitter Measurement message is carried over an LSP in
the way described in [RFC6374] and over an LSP with an SFL as
described in Section 9.
7.2. Method 2: Classic Standard Deviation
In this method, provision is made for reporting the following delay
characteristics:
1. Number of packets in the batch (n)
2. Sum of delays in a batch (S)
3. Maximum delay
4. Minimum delay
5. Sum of squares of inter-packet delay (SumS)
Characteristics 1 and 2 give the mean delay. Measuring the delay of
each pair in the batch is discussed in Section 7.3.
Characteristics 3 and 4 give the outliers.
Characteristics 1, 2, and 5 can be used to calculate the variance of
the inter-packet gap, hence the standard deviation giving a view of
the distribution of packet delays and hence the jitter. The equation
for the variance (var) is given by:
var = (SumS - S*S/n)/(n-1)
There is some concern over the use of this algorithm for measuring
variance because SumS and S*S/n can be similar numbers, particularly
where variance is low. However, the method is acceptable because it
does not require a division in the hardware.
7.2.1. Multi-packet Delay Measurement Message Format
The packet format of a Multi-packet Delay Measurement message is
shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Flags | Control Code | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| QTF | RTF | RPTF | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session Identifier | DS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of Packets |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sum of Delays for Batch |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum Delay |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum Delay |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sum of squares of Inter-packet delay |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
~ TLV Block ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Multi-packet Delay Measurement Message Format
The Version, Flags, Control Code, Message Length, QTF, RTF, RPTF,
Session Identifier, Reserved, and DS fields are as defined in
Section 3.2 of [RFC6374]. The remaining fields are as follows:
* Number of Packets is the number of packets in this batch.
* Sum of Delays for Batch is the duration of the batch in the time
measurement format specified in the RTF field.
* Minimum Delay is the minimum inter-packet gap observed during the
batch in the time format specified in the RTF field.
* Maximum Delay is the maximum inter-packet gap observed during the
batch in the time format specified in the RTF field.
The Multi-packet Delay Measurement message is carried over an LSP in
the way described in [RFC6374] and over an LSP with an SFL as
described in Section 9.
7.3. Per-Packet Delay Measurement
If detailed packet delay measurement is required, then it might be
possible to record the inter-packet gap for each packet pair. In
cases other than the exceptions of slow flows or small batch sizes,
this would create a large (per-packet) demand on storage in the
instrumentation system, a large bandwidth for such a storage system
and large bandwidth for the analytics system. Such a measurement
technique is outside the scope of this document.
7.4. Average Delay
Introduced in [RFC9341] is the concept of a one-way delay measurement
in which the average time of arrival of a set of packets is measured.
In this approach, the packet is timestamped at arrival, and the
responder returns the sum of the timestamps and the number of
timestamps. From this, the analytics engine can determine the mean
delay. An alternative model is that the responder returns the
timestamp of the first and last packet and the number of packets.
This latter method has the advantage of allowing the average delay to
be determined at a number of points along the packet path and
allowing the components of the delay to be characterized. Unless
specifically configured otherwise, the responder may return either or
both types of response, and the analytics engine should process the
response appropriately.
The packet format of an Average Delay Measurement message is shown
below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Flags | Control Code | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| QTF | RTF | RPTF | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session Identifier | DS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of Packets |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time of First Packet |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time of Last Packet |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sum of Timestamps of Batch |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
~ TLV Block ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Average Delay Measurement Message Format
The Version, Flags, Control Code, Message Length, QTF, RTF, RPTF,
Session Identifier, and DS fields are as defined in Section 3.2 of
[RFC6374]. The remaining fields are as follows:
* Number of Packets is the number of packets in this batch.
* Time of First Packet is the time of arrival of the first packet in
the batch.
* Time of Last Packet is the time of arrival of the last packet in
the batch.
* Sum of Timestamps of Batch.
The Average Delay Measurement message is carried over an LSP in the
way described in [RFC6374] and over an LSP with an SFL as described
in Section 9. As is the convention with [RFC6374], the Query message
contains placeholders for the Response message. The placeholders are
sent as zero.
8. Sampled Measurement
In the discussion so far, it has been assumed that we would measure
the delay characteristics of every packet in a delay measurement
interval defined by an SFL of constant color. In [RFC9341], the
concept of a sampled measurement is considered. That is, the
responder only measures a packet at the start of a group of packets
being marked for delay measurement by a particular color, rather than
every packet in the marked batch. A measurement interval is not
defined by the duration of a marked batch of packets but the interval
between a pair of packets taking a readout of the delay
characteristic. This approach has the advantage that the measurement
is not impacted by ECMP effects.
This sampled approach may be used if supported by the responder and
configured by the operator.
9. Carrying Packets over an LSP Using an SFL
We illustrate the packet format of a Query message using SFLs for the
case of an MPLS Direct Loss Measurement in Figure 5.
+-------------------------------+
| |
| LSP |
| Label |
+-------------------------------+
| |
| Synonymous Flow |
| Label |
+-------------------------------+
| |
| GAL |
| |
+-------------------------------+
| |
| ACH Type = 0xA |
| |
+-------------------------------+
| |
| Measurement Message |
| |
| +-------------------------+ |
| | | |
| | Fixed-format | |
| | portion of msg | |
| | | |
| +-------------------------+ |
| | | |
| | Optional SFL TLV | |
| | | |
| +-------------------------+ |
| | | |
| | Optional Return | |
| | Information | |
| | | |
| +-------------------------+ |
| |
+-------------------------------+
Figure 5: Query Packet with SFL
The MPLS label stack is exactly the same as that used for the user
data service packets being instrumented except for the inclusion of
the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) [RFC5586] to allow the
receiver to distinguish between normal data packets and OAM packets.
Since the packet loss measurements are being made on the data service
packets, an MPLS Direct Loss Measurement is being made, which is
indicated by the type field in the Associated Channel Header (ACH)
(Type = 0x000A).
The measurement message consists of up to three components as
follows.
* The fixed-format portion of the message is carried over the ACH
channel. The ACH channel type specifies the type of measurement
being made (currently: loss, delay, or loss and delay).
* (Optional) The SFL TLV specified in Section 9.1 MAY be carried if
needed. It is used to provide the implementation with a reminder
of the SFL that was used to carry the message. This is needed
because a number of MPLS implementations do not provide the MPLS
label stack to the MPLS OAM handler. This TLV is required if
messages are sent over UDP [RFC7876]. This TLV MUST be included
unless, by some method outside the scope of this document, it is
known that this information is not needed by the responder.
* (Optional) The Return Information MAY be carried if needed. It
allows the responder send the response to the Querier. This is
not needed if the response is requested in band and the MPLS
construct being measured is a point-to-point LSP, but it otherwise
MUST be carried. The Return Address TLV is defined in [RFC6374],
and the optional UDP Return Object is defined in [RFC7876].
Where a measurement other than an MPLS Direct Loss Measurement is to
be made, the appropriate measurement message is used (for example,
one of the new types defined in this document), and this is indicated
to the receiver by the use of the corresponding ACH type.
9.1. Extending RFC 6374 with SFL TLV
The [RFC6374] SFL TLV is shown in Figure 6. This contains the SFL
that was carried in the label stack, the FEC that was used to
allocate the SFL, and the index (into the batch of SFLs that were
allocated for the FEC) that corresponds to this SFL.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |MBZ| SFL Batch | SFL Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SFL | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: SFL TLV
Where:
Type Set to Synonymous Flow Label (SFL-TLV).
Length The length of the TLV is as specified in [RFC6374].
MBZ MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receive.
SFL Batch An identifier for a collection of SFLs grouped
together for management and control purposes.
SFL Index The index of this SFL within the list of SFLs that
were assigned for the FEC.
Multiple SFLs can be assigned to a FEC, each with
different actions. This index is an optional
convenience for use in mapping between the TLV and the
associated data structures in the LSRs. The use of
this feature is agreed upon between the two parties
during configuration. It is not required but is a
convenience for the receiver if both parties support
the facility.
SFL The SFL used to deliver this packet. This is an MPLS
label that is a component of a label stack entry as
defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC3032].
Reserved MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receive.
FEC The Forwarding Equivalence Class that was used to
request this SFL. This is encoded as per
Section 3.4.1 of [RFC5036].
This information is needed to allow for operation with hardware that
discards the MPLS label stack before passing the remainder of the
stack to the OAM handler. By providing both the SFL and the FEC plus
index into the array of allocated SFLs, a number of implementation
types are supported.
10. Combined Loss/Delay Measurement Using SFL
This mode of operation is not currently supported by this
specification.
11. Privacy Considerations
The inclusion of originating and/or flow information in a packet
provides more identity information and hence potentially degrades the
privacy of the communication. While the inclusion of the additional
granularity does allow greater insight into the flow characteristics,
it does not specifically identify which node originated the packet
other than by inspection of the network at the point of ingress or
inspection of the control protocol packets. This privacy threat may
be mitigated by encrypting the control protocol packets, regularly
changing the synonymous labels, and by concurrently using a number of
such labels.
12. Security Considerations
The security considerations documented in [RFC6374] and [RFC8372]
(which in turn calls up [RFC5920] and [RFC7258]) are applicable to
this protocol.
The issue noted in Section 11 is a security consideration. There are
no other new security issues associated with the MPLS data plane.
Any control protocol used to request SFLs will need to ensure the
legitimacy of the request.
An attacker that manages to corrupt the [RFC6374] SFL TLV in
Section 9.1 could disrupt the measurements in a way that the
[RFC6374] responder is unable to detect. However, the network
operator is likely to notice the anomalous network performance
measurements, and in any case, normal MPLS network security
procedures make this type of attack extremely unlikely.
13. IANA Considerations
13.1. Allocation of MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
As per the IANA considerations in [RFC5586] updated by [RFC7026] and
[RFC7214], IANA has allocated the following values in the "MPLS
Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types" registry, in the
"Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry group:
+========+================================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+========+================================+===========+
| 0x0010 | Time Bucket Jitter Measurement | RFC 9571 |
+--------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 0x0011 | Multi-packet Delay Measurement | RFC 9571 |
+--------+--------------------------------+-----------+
| 0x0012 | Average Delay Measurement | RFC 9571 |
+--------+--------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1
13.2. Allocation of MPLS Loss/Delay TLV Object
IANA has allocated the following TLV from the 0-127 range of the
"MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object" registry in the "Generic
Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry group:
+======+=======================+===========+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+======+=======================+===========+
| 4 | Synonymous Flow Label | RFC 9571 |
+------+-----------------------+-----------+
Table 2
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC7026] Farrel, A. and S. Bryant, "Retiring TLVs from the
Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Associated
Channel", RFC 7026, DOI 10.17487/RFC7026, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7026>.
[RFC7214] Andersson, L. and C. Pignataro, "Moving Generic Associated
Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry",
RFC 7214, DOI 10.17487/RFC7214, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7214>.
[RFC7876] Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., and S. Soni, "UDP Return Path
for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks",
RFC 7876, DOI 10.17487/RFC7876, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7876>.
[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>.
[RFC8957] Bryant, S., Chen, M., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., and G.
Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", RFC 8957,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8957, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8957>.
14.2. Informative References
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S.,
Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen,
"Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of
Differentiated Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270,
May 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
[RFC7190] Villamizar, C., "Use of Multipath with MPLS and MPLS
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)", RFC 7190,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7190, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7190>.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
[RFC8372] Bryant, S., Pignataro, C., Chen, M., Li, Z., and G.
Mirsky, "MPLS Flow Identification Considerations",
RFC 8372, DOI 10.17487/RFC8372, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8372>.
[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>.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Benjamin Kaduk and Elwyn Davies for their thorough
and thoughtful review of this document.
Contributors
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation
Email: ssivabal@ciena.com
Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant (editor)
University of Surrey
Email: sb@stewartbryant.com
George Swallow
Independent
Email: swallow.ietf@gmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Gregory Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
ERRATA