draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-07.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-08.txt 
MPLS Working Group S. Bryant (Ed) MPLS Working Group S. Bryant (Ed)
Internet-Draft Futurewei Technologies Inc. Internet-Draft Futurewei Technologies Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track G. Swallow Intended status: Standards Track G. Swallow
Expires: December 10, 2020 Southend Technical Center Expires: June 10, 2021 Southend Technical Center
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
G. Fioccola G. Fioccola
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
G. Mirsky G. Mirsky
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
June 08, 2020 December 07, 2020
RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels RFC6374 Synonymous Flow Labels
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-07 draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-08
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a method of making RFC6374 performance This document describes a method of making RFC6374 performance
measurements on flows carried over an MPLS Label Switched path. This measurements on flows carried over an MPLS Label Switched path. This
allows loss and delay measurements to be made on multi-point to point allows loss and delay measurements to be made on multi-point to point
LSPs and allows the measurement of flows within an MPLS construct LSPs and allows the measurement of flows within an MPLS construct
using RFC6374. using RFC6374.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
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 December 10, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 10, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
7.3. Per Packet Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.3. Per Packet Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. Average Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.4. Average Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Sampled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Sampled Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Carrying RFC6374 Packets over an LSP using an SFL . . . . . . 13 9. Carrying RFC6374 Packets over an LSP using an SFL . . . . . . 13
9.1. RFC6374 SFL TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.1. RFC6374 SFL TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Applicability to Pro-active and On-demand Measurement . . . . 16 10. Applicability to Pro-active and On-demand Measurement . . . . 16
11. RFC6374 Combined Loss-Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. RFC6374 Combined Loss-Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.1. Allocation of PW Associated Channel Type . . . . . . . . 17 14.1. Allocation of MPLS Generalized Associated Channel
14.2. MPLS Loss/Delay TLV Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 (G-ACh) Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.2. Allocation of MPLS Loss/Delay TLV Object . . . . . . . . 17
15. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC6374] was originally designed for use as an OAM protocol for use [RFC6374] was originally designed for use as an OAM protocol for use
with MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [RFC5921] LSPs. MPLS-TP only with MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [RFC5921] LSPs. MPLS-TP only
skipping to change at page 17, line 18 skipping to change at page 17, line 18
13. Security Considerations 13. Security Considerations
The issue noted in Section 5 is a security consideration. There are The issue noted in Section 5 is a security consideration. There are
no other new security issues associated with the MPLS dataplane. Any no other new security issues associated with the MPLS dataplane. Any
control protocol used to request SFLs will need to ensure the control protocol used to request SFLs will need to ensure the
legitimacy of the request. legitimacy of the request.
14. IANA Considerations 14. IANA Considerations
14.1. Allocation of PW Associated Channel Type 14.1. Allocation of MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
As per the IANA considerations in [RFC5586], IANA is requested to As per the IANA considerations in [RFC5586], IANA is requested to
allocate the following Channel Type in the "PW Associated Channel allocate the following codeponts in the "MPLS Generalized Associated
Type" registry: Channel (G-ACh) Type" registry, in the "Generic Associated Channel
(G-ACh) Parameters" name space:
Value Description TLV Follows Reference Value Description TLV Follows Reference
----- --------------------------------- ----------- --------- ----- --------------------------------- ----------- ---------
TBD RFC6374 Bucket Jitter Measurement No This TBD RFC6374 Bucket Jitter Measurement No This
TBD RFC6374 Multi-Packet Delay No This TBD RFC6374 Multi-Packet Delay No This
Measurement Measurement
TBD RFC6374 Average Delay Measurement No This TBD RFC6374 Average Delay Measurement No This
14.2. MPLS Loss/Delay TLV Object 14.2. Allocation of MPLS Loss/Delay TLV Object
IANA is request to allocate a new TLV from the 0-127 range on the IANA is request to allocate a new TLV from the 0-127 range of the
MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object Registry: MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object Registry in the "Generic
Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" namespace:
Type Description Reference Type Description Reference
---- --------------------------------- --------- ---- --------------------------------- ---------
TBD Synonymous Flow Label This TBD Synonymous Flow Label This
A value of 4 is recommended. A value of 4 is recommended.
RFC Editor please delete this line RFC Editor please delete this line
[RFC3032][I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control] [RFC3032][I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control]
skipping to change at page 19, line 8 skipping to change at page 19, line 8
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
16.2. Informative References 16.2. Informative References
[I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control] [I-D.bryant-mpls-sfl-control]
Bryant, S., Swallow, G., and S. Sivabalan, "A Simple Bryant, S., Swallow, G., and S. Sivabalan, "A Simple
Control Protocol for MPLS SFLs", draft-bryant-mpls-sfl- Control Protocol for MPLS SFLs", draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-
control-07 (work in progress), June 2020. control-08 (work in progress), June 2020.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework] [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-framework]
Bryant, S., Chen, M., Li, Z., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., Bryant, S., Chen, M., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., and G.
and G. Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", draft- Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", draft-ietf-
ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-07 (work in progress), June 2020. mpls-sfl-framework-11 (work in progress), October 2020.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, [RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi- P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002, Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010, Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 19 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/