draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex-06.txt		draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex-07.txt
	MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky		MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky
	Internet-Draft Ericsson		Internet-Draft Ericsson
	Intended status: Standards Track M. Boucadair		Intended status: Standards Track M. Boucadair
	Expires: 29 September 2024 Orange		Expires: 27 December 2024 Orange
	T. Li		T. Li
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	28 March 2024		25 June 2024
	Supporting In-Situ OAM Direct Export Using MPLS Network Actions		Supporting In-Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Direct
	draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex-06		Export Using MPLS Network Actions
			draft-mb-mpls-ioam-dex-07
	Abstract		Abstract
	In-Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM), defined		In-Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM), defined
	in RFC 9197, is an on-path telemetry method to collect and transport		in RFC 9197, is an on-path telemetry method to collect and transport
	the operational state and telemetry information that can be used to		the operational state and telemetry information that can be used to
	calculate various performance metrics. IOAM Direct Export (IOAM-DEX)		calculate various performance metrics. IOAM Direct Export (IOAM-DEX)
	is one of the IOAM Option types, in which the operational state and		is one of the IOAM Option types, in which the operational state and
	telemetry information are collected according to the specified		telemetry information are collected according to the specified
	profile and exported in a manner and format defined by a local		profile and exported in a manner and format defined by a local
	skipping to change at page 1, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶
	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 29 September 2024.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 December 2024.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	skipping to change at page 2, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 32 ¶
	2. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Applicability of IOAM Option Types in an MPLS Network . . . . 3		3. Applicability of IOAM Option Types in an MPLS Network . . . . 3
	4. Realization of IOAM-DEX as an MPLS Network Action . . . . . . 4		4. Realization of IOAM-DEX as an MPLS Network Action . . . . . . 4
	4.1. IOAM-DEX Format for an MPLS Network . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4.1. IOAM-DEX Format for an MPLS Network . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4.2. IOAM-DEX-MNA Encoding as In-Stack Data MPLS Network		4.2. IOAM-DEX-MNA Encoding as In-Stack Data MPLS Network
	Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.1. IOAM-DEX-MNA as an MPLS Network Action Opcode . . . . . . 7		5.1. IOAM-DEX-MNA as an MPLS Network Action Opcode . . . . . . 7
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	In-Situ OAM (IOAM) [RFC9197] is an on-path telemetry method to		In-Situ OAM (IOAM) [RFC9197] is an on-path telemetry method to
	collect and transport the operational state and telemetry information		collect and transport the operational state and telemetry information
	that can be used to calculate various performance metrics. Several		that can be used to calculate various performance metrics. Several
	IOAM Option types (e.g., Pre-allocated and Incremental) use the user		IOAM Option types (e.g., Pre-allocated and Incremental) use the user
	packet to collect the operational state and telemetry information.		packet to collect the operational state and telemetry information.
	Such a mechanism transports the collected information to an IOAM		Such a mechanism transports the collected information to an IOAM
	skipping to change at page 3, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 29 ¶
	IOAM: In-Situ OAM		IOAM: In-Situ OAM
	IOAM-DEX: IOAM Direct Export		IOAM-DEX: IOAM Direct Export
	IOAM-DEX-MNA: IOAM Direct Export in MPLS Network Action		IOAM-DEX-MNA: IOAM Direct Export in MPLS Network Action
	ISD: In-Stack Data		ISD: In-Stack Data
	LSP: Label Switched Path		LSP: Label Switched Path
	LSE: Label Stack Element		LSE: Label Stack Entry
	MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching		MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
	MNA: MPLS Network Action		MNA: MPLS Network Action
	NAI: Network Action Indicator		NAI: Network Action Indicator
	2.2. Requirements Language		2.2. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	skipping to change at page 4, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 29 ¶
	4.1. IOAM-DEX Format for an MPLS Network		4.1. IOAM-DEX Format for an MPLS Network
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases] recognizes the importance of IOAM in		[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases] recognizes the importance of IOAM in
	MPLS networks and lists it as one of the use cases that might be		MPLS networks and lists it as one of the use cases that might be
	supported using MNA techniques. [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] defines the		supported using MNA techniques. [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] defines the
	architectural elements that compose MNA. This document uses all the		architectural elements that compose MNA. This document uses all the
	elements of the IOAM-DEX Option-Type format defined in [RFC9326] to		elements of the IOAM-DEX Option-Type format defined in [RFC9326] to
	support IOAM-DEX in an MPLS network using MPLS Network Action (MNA)		support IOAM-DEX in an MPLS network using MPLS Network Action (MNA)
	framework [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] and architecture as in-stack data		framework [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] and architecture as in-stack data
	(ISD) MNA [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. The format of IOAM-DEX in MNA is		(ISD) MNA [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. The IOAM-DEX in MNA header is
	shown in Figure 1.		using LSE Format D, as defined in Section 4.4 [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
			mapping IOAM-DEX Optin Type format [RFC9326]. In addition to the
			requirement to preserve the Bottom of Stack field, the most
			significant bit in LSE Format D is always set to 1 avoiding a
			possible mix-up of the LSE with one of the Base Special Purpose
			Labels. The format of IOAM-DEX in MNA is shown in Figure 1.
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|1| Namespace-ID | Resv |S| Flags |		|1| Namespace-ID | Resv |S| Flags |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|1| IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA |S|O|R| Ext-Flags |		|1| IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA |S|O|R| Ext-Flags |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	~1| Extended IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA (Optional) |S| Resv ~
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|1| Flow ID MNA (Optional) |S| Resv |		|1| Flow ID MNA (Optional) |S| Resv |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|1| Sequence Number MNA (Optional) |S| Resv |		|1| Sequence Number MNA (Optional) |S| Resv |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1: IOAM Direct Export Option Type Format in an MPLS		Figure 1: IOAM Direct Export Option Type Format in an MPLS
	Network Action Framework		Network Action Framework
	Where fields are defined as follows:		Where fields are defined as follows:
	* Namespace-ID is a 16-bit identifier of the IOAM Namespace, as		* Namespace-ID is a 16-bit identifier of the IOAM Namespace, as
	defined in [RFC9197].		defined in [RFC9197].
	* S is a one-bit the Bottom of Stack [RFC3032].		* S is a one-bit the Bottom of Stack [RFC3032].
	* Flags is an eight-bit field comprised of eight one-bit subfields.		* Flags is an eight-bit field comprised of eight one-bit subfields.
	The subfields in the Flags field are allocated by IANA, as defined		The subfields in the Flags field are allocated by IANA in IOAM DEX
	in Section 4.2 of [RFC9326].		Flags registry, as defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC9326].
	* IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA is a 22-bit field. The interpretation of bit		* IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA is a 22-bit field. The interpretation of bit
	positions in the IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA is as specified in IANA's		positions in the IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA is as specified in IANA's
	IOAM Trace-Type registry [IANA-IOAM-Trace-Type] from Bit 0 through		IOAM Trace-Type registry [IANA-IOAM-Trace-Type] from Bit 0 through
	Bit 21.		Bit 21.
	* O is the one-bit flag that is identical to the interpretation of		* O is the one-bit flag identical to the interpretation of Bit 22
	Bit 22 variable-length Opaque State Snapshot in IANA's IOAM Trace-		variable-length Opaque State Snapshot in IANA's IOAM Trace-Type
	Type registry [IANA-IOAM-Trace-Type].		registry [IANA-IOAM-Trace-Type].
	* R (Reserved) is a one-bit flag. It MUST be zeroed on the		* R (Reserved) is a one-bit flag identical to the interpretation of
	transmission and ignored on receipt. Similarly to [RFC9197], it		Bit 23 in IANA's IOAM Trace-Type registry [IANA-IOAM-Trace-Type].
	is reserved to allow for future extensions of the IOAM-Trace-Type-		It MUST be zeroed on the transmission and ignored on receipt.
	MNA bit field.		Similarly to [RFC9197], it is reserved to allow for future
			extensions of the IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA bit field.
			* The concatenation of IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA, O, and R fields,
			explained above, is identical to IOAM-Trace-Type in the
			interpretation of its bits, assigned in IANA's IOAM Trace-Type
			registry [IANA-IOAM-Trace-Type]. Also, note that the Bit 7 field,
			i.e., checksum complement, is handled as defined in [RFC9326].
	* Ext-Flags is a six-bit field comprised of six one-bit subfields.		* Ext-Flags is a six-bit field comprised of six one-bit subfields.
	The allocation of the subfields in the Ext-Flags field is		The allocation of the subfields in the Ext-Flags field is
	according to Section 4.3 of [RFC9326]. The allocated flags		according to Section 4.3 of [RFC9326]. The allocated flags
	indicate the presence of the optional Flow ID and/or Sequence		indicate the presence of the optional Flow ID and/or Sequence
	Number fields in the IOAM-DEX-MNA header. Figure 2 displays the		Number fields in the IOAM-DEX-MNA header. The length of the Ext-
	detailed format of the Ext-Flags field.		Flags field in IOAM-DEX Option-Type in MNA is shorter by two one-
			bit fields compared to the length of the Extension Flags field
			defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC9326]. Mapping of these two bit
			positins is for further study. Figure 2 displays the detailed
			format of the Ext-Flags field.
	* Extended IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA is a 22-bit field. The		* Optional fields, i.e., Flow ID and Sequence Number, according to
	interpretation of bit positions is according to IANA's IOAM Trace-		[RFC9326], immediately follow the Reserved field used to align
	Type registry. An IOAM-DEX-MNA encoding MAY include none, one, or		optional fields at the four-octet word boundary. In the case of
	more LSEs with the Extended IOAM-Trace-Type-MNA field.		IOAM-DEX in MNA, such alignment can be achieved without using
			padding.
	* Flow ID MNA is an optional 22-bit field. The semantics of the		* Flow ID MNA is an optional 22-bit field. The semantics of the
	Flow ID MNA field is as of the Flow ID field defined in		Flow ID MNA field is as of the Flow ID field defined in
	Section 3.2 of [RFC9326].		Section 3.2 of [RFC9326].
	* Sequence Number - is an optional 22-bit field. The semantics of		* Sequence Number - is an optional 22-bit field. The semantics of
	the Sequence Number MNA field is as of the Sequence Number field		the Sequence Number MNA field is as of the Sequence Number field
	defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC9326].		defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC9326]. Although the length of the
			Sequence Number field in IOAM-DEX in MNA is 22 bit-long smaller
			than the 32-bit length allotted in [RFC9326], there is sufficient
			space before the rollover so that its value, in combination with
			the value of the Flow ID field, can be used to correlate the
			exported data generated by the same trigger packet carrying IOAM-
			DEX MNA.
	* Resv fields MUST be zeroed on transmit and ignored on receipt.		* Resv fields MUST be zeroed on transmit and ignored on receipt.
	0 1 2 3 4 5		0 1 2 3 4 5
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|F|S|U|U|U|U|		|F|S|U|U|U|U|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: Ext-Flags Field Format		Figure 2: Ext-Flags Field Format
	skipping to change at page 7, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 12 ¶
	Table 1: IOAM-DEX as MPLS Network Action Opcode		Table 1: IOAM-DEX as MPLS Network Action Opcode
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	Security considerations discussed in [RFC9197], [RFC9326], and		Security considerations discussed in [RFC9197], [RFC9326], and
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] apply to this document.		[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] apply to this document.
	7. Acknowledgments		7. Acknowledgments
	TBD		The authors exxpress their sincereappreciation to Loa Andersson for
			his thorough review and thoughtful suggestion that helped in
			improving this document.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]		[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
	Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS		Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS
	Network Actions Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-		Network Actions (MNA) Framework", Work in Progress,
	Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-06, 24 January 2024,		Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-08, 7 May 2024,
	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-		<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
	mna-fwk-06>.		mna-fwk-08>.
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]		[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
	Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K.		Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K.
	Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution",		Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution",
	Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-		Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-
	04, 21 October 2023,		07, 17 June 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-		draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-07>.
	mna-hdr-04>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,		[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
	Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack		Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
	Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,		Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 17 ¶
	Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326,		Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, November 2022,		DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, November 2022,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326>.
	8.2. Informational References		8.2. Informational References
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]		[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]
	Saad, T., Makhijani, K., Song, H., and G. Mirsky, "Use		Saad, T., Makhijani, K., Song, H., and G. Mirsky, "Use
	Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS		Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS
	Ancillary Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-		Ancillary Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
	ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-04, 10 February 2024,		ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-10, 20 June 2024,
	<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-		<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
	mna-usecases-04>.		mna-usecases-10>.
	[IANA-IOAM-Trace-Type]		[IANA-IOAM-Trace-Type]
	IANA, "IOAM Trace-Type",		IANA, "IOAM Trace-Type",
	<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ioam/ioam.xhtml#trace-		<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ioam/ioam.xhtml#trace-
	type>.		type>.
	[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and		[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and
	L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network		L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network
	Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,		Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,
	January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8969>.		January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8969>.
End of changes. 20 change blocks.
	40 lines changed or deleted		63 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/