draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-06.txt   draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-07.txt 
Network Working Group T. Graf Network Working Group T. Graf
Internet-Draft Swisscom Internet-Draft Swisscom
Intended status: Standards Track February 18, 2021 Intended status: Standards Track March 24, 2021
Expires: August 22, 2021 Expires: September 25, 2021
Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in
IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-06 draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-07
Abstract Abstract
This document introduces additional code points in the This document introduces additional code points in the
mplsTopLabelType Information Element for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and mplsTopLabelType Information Element for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and
BGP MPLS Segment Routing (SR) extensions to enable Segment Routing BGP MPLS Segment Routing (SR) extensions to enable Segment Routing
label protocol type information in IP Flow Information Export label protocol type information in IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX). (IPFIX).
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 22, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 25, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Besides BGP-4 [RFC8277], LDP [RFC5036] and BGP VPN [RFC4364], four Besides BGP-4 [RFC8277], LDP [RFC5036] and BGP VPN [RFC4364], four
new routing-protocols, OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3 Extensions new routing-protocols, OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3 Extensions
[RFC8666], IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667] and BGP Prefix-SID [RFC8669] [RFC8666], IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667] and BGP Prefix-SID [RFC8669]
have been added to the list of routing-protocols able to propagate have been added to the list of routing-protocols able to propagate
Segment Routing labels for the MPLS data plane [RFC8660]. Segment Routing labels for the MPLS data plane [RFC8660].
Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks
skipping to change at page 2, line 50 skipping to change at page 2, line 50
mplsTopLabelType(46) for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-SID, mplsTopLabelType(46) for IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-SID,
when Segment Routing with one of these four routing protocols is when Segment Routing with one of these four routing protocols is
deployed, we get insight into which traffic is being forwarded based deployed, we get insight into which traffic is being forwarded based
on which MPLS control plane protocol. on which MPLS control plane protocol.
A typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane A typical use case scenario is to monitor MPLS control plane
migrations from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF Segment Routing. Such a migrations from LDP to IS-IS or OSPF Segment Routing. Such a
migration can be done node by node as described in RFC8661 [RFC8661] migration can be done node by node as described in RFC8661 [RFC8661]
Another use case is the monitoring of a migration to a Seamless MPLS Another use case is the monitoring of a migration to a Seamless MPLS
SR [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr] architecture. Where prefixes SR [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr] architecture where prefixes
are propagated with dynamic BGP labels according to RFC8277 are propagated with dynamic BGP labels according to RFC8277
[RFC8277], BGP Prefix-SID according to RFC8669 [RFC8669] and used for [RFC8277], BGP Prefix-SID according to RFC8669 [RFC8669] and used for
the forwarding between IGP domains. Adding an additional layer into the forwarding between IGP domains. Adding an additional layer into
the MPLS data plane to above discribed use case. the MPLS data plane to above described use case.
Both use cases can be verified by looking at mplsTopLabelType(46), Both use cases can be verified by using mplsTopLabelType(46),
mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(47), mplsTopLabelStackSection(70) and mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(47), mplsTopLabelStackSection(70) and
forwardingStatus(89) dimensions. Giving insights into the MPLS data forwardingStatus(89) dimensions to get insights into
plane for which MPLS provider edge loopback address, which label
protocol has been used and how many packets are forwarded or dropped o how many packets are forwarded or dropped
and when dropped why they have been dropped.
o if dropped, for which reasons
o the MPLS provider edge loopback address and label protocol
By looking at the MPLS label value itself, it is not always clear as By looking at the MPLS label value itself, it is not always clear as
to which label protocol it belongs, since they could potentially to which label protocol it belongs, since they could potentially
share the same label allocation range. This is the case for IGP- share the same label allocation range. This is the case for IGP-
Adjacency SID's, LDP and dynamic BGP labels as an example. Adjacency SID's, LDP and dynamic BGP labels as an example.
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
This document specifies four additional code points for IS-IS, This document specifies four additional code points for IS-IS,
OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-SID Segment Routing extension in the OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-SID Segment Routing extension in the
existing sub-registry "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" of the existing sub-registry "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" of the
"IPFIX Information Elements" and one new "IPFIX Information Element" "IPFIX Information Elements" and one new "IPFIX Information Element"
with a new sub-registry in the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) with a new sub-registry in the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Entities" name space. Entities" name space.
----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
| Value| Description | Reference | Requester | | Value| Description | Reference | Requester |
|---------------------------------------------------|------------ |---------------------------------------------------|--------------
| TBD2 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing | RFC8665 | TBD1 | | TBD1 | OSPFv2 Segment Routing | RFC8665 | [RFC-to-be] |
|---------------------------------------------------|------------ |---------------------------------------------------|--------------
| TBD3 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing | RFC8666 | TBD1 | | TBD2 | OSPFv3 Segment Routing | RFC8666 | [RFC-to-be] |
|---------------------------------------------------|------------ |---------------------------------------------------|--------------
| TBD4 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | TBD1 | | TBD3 | IS-IS Segment Routing | RFC8667 | [RFC-to-be] |
|---------------------------------------------------|------------ |---------------------------------------------------|------------
| TBD5 | BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID | RFC8669 | TBD1 | | TBD4 | BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID | RFC8669 | [RFC-to-be] |
----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" SubRegistry Figure 1: Updates to "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" SubRegistry
Note to IANA:
o Please assign TBD1 to 4 to the next available numbers according to
the "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" sub-registry
[IANA-IPFIX-IE46] procedure.
o Please replace the [RFC-to-be] with the RFC number assigned to
this document.
Note to RFC-editor:
o Please remove above two IANA notes.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The same security considerations apply as for the IPFIX Protocol There exists no extra security considerations regarding the
allocation of these new IPFIX information elements compared to
RFC7012 [RFC7012]. RFC7012 [RFC7012].
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Paul Aitken, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, I would like to thank to the IE doctors, Paul Aitken and Andrew
Pierre Francois, Bruno Decreane, Paolo Lucente, Hannes Gredler, Ketan Feren, as well Benoit Claise, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, Pierre
Francois, Bruno Decreane, Paolo Lucente, Hannes Gredler, Ketan
Talaulikar, Sabrina Tanamal, Erik Auerswald and Sergey Fomin for Talaulikar, Sabrina Tanamal, Erik Auerswald and Sergey Fomin for
their review and valuable comments. their review and valuable comments.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 44 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/