MPLS Working Group W. Cheng
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track X. Min
Expires: 3 September 2025 ZTE Corp.
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
G. Fioccola
Huawei
2 March 2025
MNA for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-06
Abstract
MPLS Network Action (MNA) is used to indicate action for Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) and/or MPLS packets, and to transfer data
needed for the action.
This document defines MNA encoding for MPLS performance measurement
with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss,
delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS live traffic.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 September 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Cheng, et al. Expires 3 September 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 2025
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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. MPLS Network Action for Flow-based PM . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
MPLS Network Action (MNA) [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] is used to indicate
action for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and/or MPLS packets, and to
transfer data needed for the action. [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] defines
the MNA sub-stack solution for carrying Network Action Indicators and
Ancillary Data in the label stack.
As specified in [RFC9714], Flow-ID Label, L bit and D bit are used
for MPLS flow identification and flow-based performance measurement
with alternate marking method [RFC9341], which can be an applicable
MNA usecase [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases].
This document defines MNA encoding for MPLS performance measurement
with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss,
delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS live traffic. The proposed
MNA encoding is compliant with the MNA sub-stack solution specified
in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] and reuses the data fields specified in
[RFC9714].
1.1. Terminology
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC9714] and
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].
Cheng, et al. Expires 3 September 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 2025
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.
2. MPLS Network Action for Flow-based PM
The MNA format for performance measurement with alternate marking
method is illustrated as 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Opcode=PMAMM | Flow-ID |S|U|FID|L|D|NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: MNA for Alternate Marking
The description of MNA for Alternate Marking is as follows:
* Opcode: Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
(PMAMM) Action.
* Network Action Indication: The PMAMM Action indication is Opcode
TBA1.
* Scope: The PMAMM Action is valid in all scopes.
* In-Stack Data: The PMAMM Action carries 20 bits of ancillary data.
The most significant 18 bits of ancillary data is the Flow-ID
Value, immediately followed by L bit and D bit. The three fields
Flow-ID Value, L bit, and D bit have semantics consistent with the
Flow-ID Label, L bit and D bit defined in [RFC9714], except that
the Flow-ID Value is an 18-bit value while the Flow-ID Label is a
20-bit value. While the Flow-ID Label has some restrictions to
avoid collisions with the reserved label space (0-15) [RFC3032],
those restrictions are not necessary for the Flow-ID Value and do
not apply. The forwarding node in the scope of PMAMM Action
SHOULD execute the flow-based performance measurement by using the
Flow-ID Value, L bit and D bit.
* Label Stack Entry (LSE) Format: Format C as defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. There is no additional data. The
Network Action Length (NAL) field MUST be set to zero.
* Post-Stack Data: None.
Cheng, et al. Expires 3 September 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 2025
3. Security Considerations
Security issues discussed in [RFC9341], [RFC9714], and
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] apply to this document.
4. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA allocates a codepoint (TBA1) from
the MPLS "HBH and Select In-Stack MPLS Network Action Indicator
Opcodes" from the "IETF Review" range and the same codepoint from the
MPLS "I2E In-Stack MPLS Network Action Indicator Opcodes" from the
"IETF Review" range for the Performance Measurement with Alternate
Marking Method Action. Note that both the "HBH and Select In-Stack
MPLS Network Action Indicator Opcodes" and the "I2E In-Stack MPLS
Network Action Indicator Opcodes" will be created based on the
request from [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. Specifically, this document
requests the following allocation from IANA.
MNA Opcode Description Scope
---------- -------------------------------- -------------------
TBA1 PM with Alternate Marking Method HBH, Select, or I2E
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Loa Andersson for his careful
review and helpful comments.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K.
Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-
11, 17 February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-hdr-11>.
[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>.
Cheng, et al. Expires 3 September 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 2025
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9714] Cheng, W., Ed., Min, X., Ed., Zhou, T., Dai, J., and Y.
Peleg, "Encapsulation for MPLS Performance Measurement
with the Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9714,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9714, February 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9714>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS
Network Actions (MNA) Framework", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-15, 27 December
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
mpls-mna-fwk-15>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]
Saad, T., Makhijani, K., Song, H., and G. Mirsky, "Use
Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS
Ancillary Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-15, 23 September 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-usecases-15>.
Authors' Addresses
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Cheng, et al. Expires 3 September 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM March 2025
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei
Italy
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Cheng, et al. Expires 3 September 2025 [Page 6]