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/ |