Diff: rfc9160.original

	rfc9160.original	rfc9160.txt


	Network Working Group T. Graf	Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Graf
	Internet-Draft Swisscom	Request for Comments: 9160 Swisscom
	Intended status: Informational 18 September 2021	Category: Informational December 2021
	Expires: 22 March 2022	ISSN: 2070-1721


	Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in	Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow
	IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)	Information Export (IPFIX)
	draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-11

	Abstract	Abstract

	This document introduces new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) code	This document introduces new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) code
	points to identify which traffic is being forwarded based on which	points to identify which traffic is being forwarded based on which

	MPLS control plane protocol used within a Segment Routing domain. In	MPLS control plane protocol is used within a Segment Routing domain.
	particular, this document defines five code points for the IPFIX	In particular, this document defines five code points for the IPFIX
	mplsTopLabelType Information Element for PCE, IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3,	mplsTopLabelType Information Element for Path Computation Element
	and BGP MPLS Segment Routing extensions.	(PCE), IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and BGP MPLS Segment Routing
		extensions.

	Status of This Memo	Status of This Memo


	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the	This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.	published for informational purposes.

	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	This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any	(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference	received public review and has been approved for publication by the
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."	Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
		approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
		Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.


	This Internet-Draft will expire on 22 March 2022.	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/rfc9160.

	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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights	publication of this document. Please review these documents
	and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are	include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
	provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.	Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
		in the Revised BSD License.

	Table of Contents	Table of Contents


	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2	1. Introduction
	2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3	2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type
	3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3	3. IANA Considerations
	4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4	4. Operational Considerations
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4	5. Security Considerations
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5	6. References
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5	6.1. Normative References
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5	6.2. Informative References
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5	Acknowledgements
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6	Author's Address

	1. Introduction	1. Introduction


	Four routing protocol extensions, OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3	Four routing protocol extensions -- OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665],
	Extensions [RFC8666], IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667], BGP Prefix Segment	OSPFv3 Extensions [RFC8666], IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667], and BGP
	Identifiers (Prefix-SIDs) [RFC8669] and one Path Computation Element	Prefix Segment Identifiers (Prefix-SIDs) [RFC8669] -- and one Path
	Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension [RFC8664] have been defined	Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension [RFC8664]
	to be able to propagate Segment Routing (SR) labels for the MPLS data	have been defined to be able to propagate Segment Routing (SR) labels
	plane [RFC8660].	for the MPLS data plane [RFC8660].


	Also, [I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting] describes how IP Flow	Also, [SR-Traffic-Accounting] describes how IP Flow Information
	Information Export [RFC7012] can be leveraged in dimensional data	Export (IPFIX) [RFC7012] can be leveraged in dimensional data
	modelling to account traffic to MPLS SR label dimensions within a	modeling to account for traffic to MPLS SR label dimensions within a
	Segment Routing domain.	Segment Routing domain.

	In [RFC7012], the Information Element (IE) mplsTopLabelType(46)	In [RFC7012], the Information Element (IE) mplsTopLabelType(46)
	identifies which MPLS control plane protocol allocated the top-of-	identifies which MPLS control plane protocol allocated the top-of-

	stack label in the MPLS label stack. Section 7.2 of [RFC7012]	stack label in the MPLS label stack. Per Section 7.2 of [RFC7012],
	creates the "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" subregistry	the "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" subregistry [IANA-IPFIX] was
	[IANA-IPFIX] where MPLS label type should be added. This document	created, where new MPLS label type entries should be added. This
	defines new code points to address typical use cases that are	document defines new code points to address typical use cases that
	discussed in Section 2.	are discussed in Section 2.

	2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type	2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type

	By introducing five new code points to the IPFIX IE	By introducing five new code points to the IPFIX IE

	mplsTopLabelType(46) for PCE, IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and BGP Prefix-	mplsTopLabelType(46) for Path Computation Element (PCE), IS-IS,
	SID, it is possible to identify which traffic is being forwarded	OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and BGP Prefix-SIDs, it is possible to identify which
	based upon which MPLS SR control plane protocol is in use.	traffic is being forwarded based upon which MPLS SR control plane
		protocol is in use.

	A typical use case is to monitor MPLS control plane migrations from	A typical use case is to monitor MPLS control plane migrations from
	LDP to IS-IS or OSPF Segment Routing. Such a migration can be done	LDP to IS-IS or OSPF Segment Routing. Such a migration can be done
	node by node as described in Appendix A of [RFC8661].	node by node as described in Appendix A of [RFC8661].

	Another use case is to monitor MPLS control plane migrations from	Another use case is to monitor MPLS control plane migrations from
	dynamic BGP labels [RFC8277] to BGP Prefix-SIDs [RFC8669]. For	dynamic BGP labels [RFC8277] to BGP Prefix-SIDs [RFC8669]. For

	example, the motivation and benefits for such a migration in large-	example, the motivation for, and benefits of, such a migration in
	scale data centers are described in [RFC8670].	large-scale data centers are described in [RFC8670].

	Both use cases can be verified by using mplsTopLabelType(46),	Both use cases can be verified by using mplsTopLabelType(46),
	mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(47), mplsTopLabelIPv6Address(140),	mplsTopLabelIPv4Address(47), mplsTopLabelIPv6Address(140),

	mplsTopLabelStackSection(70) and forwardingStatus(89) IEs to infer	mplsTopLabelStackSection(70), and forwardingStatus(89) IEs to infer

	* how many packets are forwarded or dropped	* how many packets are forwarded or dropped


	* if dropped, for which reasons, and	* if packets are dropped, for which reasons, and

	* the MPLS provider edge loopback address and label protocol	* 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 to
	to which label protocol it belongs. This is because they may share	which label protocol it belongs. This is because they may share the
	the same label allocation range. This is, for example, the case for	same label allocation range. This is, for example, the case for IGP-
	IGP-Adjacency SIDs, LDP and dynamic BGP labels.	Adjacency SIDs, LDP, and dynamic BGP labels.

	3. IANA Considerations	3. IANA Considerations


	This document requests IANA to allocate the following code points in	IANA has allocated the following code points in the "IPFIX MPLS label
	the existing subregistry "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" under the	type (Value 46)" subregistry within the "IPFIX Information Elements"
	"IPFIX Information Elements" registry [RFC7012] available at	registry [RFC7012]. See [IANA-IPFIX].
	[IANA-IPFIX].

	+-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+
	\| Value \| Description \| Reference \|
	+-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+
	\| TBD1 \| Path Computation Element \| [RFC-to-be], RFC8664 \|
	+-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+
	\| TBD2 \| OSPFv2 Segment Routing \| [RFC-to-be], RFC8665 \|
	+-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+
	\| TBD3 \| OSPFv3 Segment Routing \| [RFC-to-be], RFC8666 \|
	+-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+
	\| TBD4 \| IS-IS Segment Routing \| [RFC-to-be], RFC8667 \|
	+-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+
	\| TBD5 \| BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID \| [RFC-to-be], RFC8669 \|
	+-------+--------------------------------+----------------------+

	Table 1: Updates to "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" subregistry

	Note to the RFC-Editor:

	* Please replace TBD1 - TBD5 with the values allocated by IANA


	* Please replace the [RFC-to-be] with the RFC number assigned to	+=======+================================+====================+
	this document	\| Value \| Description \| Reference \|
		+=======+================================+====================+
		\| 6 \| Path Computation Element \| RFC 9160, RFC 8664 \|
		+-------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
		\| 7 \| OSPFv2 Segment Routing \| RFC 9160, RFC 8665 \|
		+-------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
		\| 8 \| OSPFv3 Segment Routing \| RFC 9160, RFC 8666 \|
		+-------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
		\| 9 \| IS-IS Segment Routing \| RFC 9160, RFC 8667 \|
		+-------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
		\| 10 \| BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID \| RFC 9160, RFC 8669 \|
		+-------+--------------------------------+--------------------+


	Note IANA:	Table 1: Updates to "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)"
		Subregistry


	* Suggest to move the existing RFC references in the additional	References to RFCs 4364, 4271, and 5036 have been added to the
	information column of IE mplsTopLabelType(46) to reference column	"Reference" column in the "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)"
	for codepoint 3, 4 and 5.	subregistry [IANA-IPFIX] for code points 3, 4, and 5, respectively.
		Previously, these references appeared in the "Additional Information"
		column for mplsTopLabelType(46) in the "IPFIX Information Elements"
		registry [IANA-IPFIX].

	4. Operational Considerations	4. Operational Considerations


	In the IE mplsTopLabelType(46), the BGP code point 4 refers to the	In the IE mplsTopLabelType(46), BGP code point 4 refers to the label
	label value in MP_REACH_NLRI path attribute described in Section 2 of	value in the MP_REACH_NLRI path attribute described in Section 2 of
	[RFC8277], while the BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID code point TBD5	[RFC8277], while BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID code point 10
	corresponds to the label index value in the Label-Index TLV described	corresponds to the label index value in the Label-Index TLV described
	in Section 3.1 of [RFC8669]. These values are thus used for those	in Section 3.1 of [RFC8669]. These values are thus used for those
	distinct purposes.	distinct purposes.

	5. Security Considerations	5. Security Considerations


	There exists no significant extra security considerations regarding	There exist no significant extra security considerations regarding
	the allocation of these new IPFIX IEs compared to [RFC7012].	the allocation of these new IPFIX IEs as compared to [RFC7012].

	6. Acknowledgements

	I would like to thank the IE doctors, Paul Aitken and Andrew Feren,
	as well Benoit Claise, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, Pierre Francois,
	Bruno Decreane, Paolo Lucente, Hannes Gredler, Ketan Talaulikar,
	Sabrina Tanamal, Erik Auerswald, Sergey Fomin, Mohamed Boucadair, Tom
	Petch, Qin Wu and Matthias Arnold for their review and valuable
	comments. Many thanks also to Robert Wilton for the AD review.
	Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Eric Vyncke and Benjamin Kaduk for the IESG
	review.


	7. References	6. References


	7.1. 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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.


	7.2. Informative References	6.2. Informative References

	[I-D.ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting]
	Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S., Horneffer,
	M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D., and R. Morton,
	"Traffic Accounting in Segment Routing Networks", Work in
	Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-
	accounting-05, 12 April 2021,
	<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ali-spring-sr-
	traffic-accounting-05.txt>.

	[IANA-IPFIX]	[IANA-IPFIX]

	"IANA, IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)",	IANA, "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)",
	<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml#ipfix-	<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/>.
	mpls-label-type>.

	[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address	[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
	Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,	Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.

	[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,	[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
	Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment	Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
	Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,	Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,	DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.

	skipping to change at page 6, line 43 ¶	skipping to change at line 225 ¶
	A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment	A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
	Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,	Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,	DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.

	[RFC8670] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and	[RFC8670] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and
	P. Lapukhov, "BGP Prefix Segment in Large-Scale Data	P. Lapukhov, "BGP Prefix Segment in Large-Scale Data
	Centers", RFC 8670, DOI 10.17487/RFC8670, December 2019,	Centers", RFC 8670, DOI 10.17487/RFC8670, December 2019,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8670>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8670>.


		[SR-Traffic-Accounting]
		Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Sivabalan, S.,
		Horneffer, M., Raszuk, R., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D.,
		Morton, R., and G. Dawra, "Traffic Accounting in Segment
		Routing Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
		draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-06, 13 November
		2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ali-
		spring-sr-traffic-accounting-06>.

		Acknowledgements

		I would like to thank the IE doctors, Paul Aitken and Andrew Feren,
		as well as Benoît Claise, Loa Andersson, Tianran Zhou, Pierre
		François, Bruno Decraene, Paolo Lucente, Hannes Gredler, Ketan
		Talaulikar, Sabrina Tanamal, Erik Auerswald, Sergey Fomin, Mohamed
		Boucadair, Tom Petch, Qin Wu, and Matthias Arnold for their review
		and valuable comments. Many thanks also to Robert Wilton for the AD
		review. Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Éric Vyncke, and Benjamin Kaduk for
		the IESG review.

	Author's Address	Author's Address

	Thomas Graf	Thomas Graf
	Swisscom	Swisscom
	Binzring 17	Binzring 17

	CH-8045 Zurich	CH-8045 Zürich
	Switzerland	Switzerland

	Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com	Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com

End of changes. 28 change blocks.
	127 lines changed or deleted	121 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/