<?xmlversion="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?> <?rfc toc="yes" ?> <?rfc symrefs="yes" ?> <?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?> <?rfc compact="yes" ?> <?rfc subcompact="no" ?>version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <!DOCTYPE rfc [ <!ENTITY nbsp " "> <!ENTITY zwsp "​"> <!ENTITY nbhy "‑"> <!ENTITY wj "⁠"> ]> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18" number="9714" consensus="true"submissionType="IETF">submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" updates="" obsoletes="" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3" xml:lang="en"> <front> <title abbrev="Encap for MPLS PM withAMM"> Encapsulation ForAMM">Encapsulation for MPLS Performance Measurement with the Alternate-MarkingMethod </title>Method</title> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9714"/> <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng" initials="W" surname="Cheng" role="editor"> <organization>China Mobile</organization> <address> <postal><street></street> <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently --><city>Beijing</city><region></region> <code></code><country>China</country> </postal><phone></phone><email>chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com</email><!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added --></address> </author> <author fullname="Xiao Min" initials="X" surname="Min" role="editor"> <organization>ZTE Corp.</organization> <address> <postal><street></street> <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently --><city>Nanjing</city><region></region> <code></code><country>China</country> </postal><phone></phone><email>xiao.min2@zte.com.cn</email><!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added --></address> </author> <author fullname="Tianran Zhou" initials="T" surname="Zhou"> <organization>Huawei</organization> <address> <postal><street></street> <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently --><city>Beijing</city><region></region> <code></code><country>China</country> </postal><phone></phone><phone/> <email>zhoutianran@huawei.com</email><!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added --></address> </author> <author fullname="Jinyou Dai" initials="J" surname="Dai"> <organization>FiberHome</organization> <address> <postal><street></street> <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently --><city>Wuhan</city><region></region> <code></code><country>China</country> </postal><phone></phone><email>djy@fiberhome.com</email><!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added --></address> </author> <author fullname="Yoav Peleg" initials="Y" surname="Peleg"> <organization>Broadcom</organization> <address> <postal><street></street> <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently --> <city></city> <region></region> <code></code><country>United States of America</country> </postal><phone></phone><email>yoav.peleg@broadcom.com</email><!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added --></address> </author> <dateyear="2024"/> <area>Routing</area> <workgroup>MPLS Working Group</workgroup> <keyword>Request for Comments</keyword> <keyword>RFC</keyword> <keyword>Internet Draft</keyword> <keyword>I-D</keyword>year="2025" month="January"/> <area>RTG</area> <workgroup>mpls</workgroup> <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> <keyword>example</keyword> <abstract> <t>This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-Markingmethod,Method, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements ontheMPLS traffic.</t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <sectiontitle="Introduction">anchor="introduction"> <name>Introduction</name> <t> <xref target="RFC9341"/> describes a performance measurement method, which can be used to measure packet loss, delay, and jitter on data traffic. Since this method is based on marking consecutive batches of packets, it is referred to as the Alternate-Marking Method. <xref target="RFC8372"/> outlines key considerations for developing a solution for MPLS flow identification, intended for use in performance monitoring of MPLS flows.</t> <t> This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-Markingmethod,Method, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on the MPLS traffic. The encapsulation defined in this document supports performance monitoring at the intermediate nodes and MPLS flow identification at both transport and service layers.</t> <!-- [rfced] The following is somewhat tough to parse. May we update as follows? Otherwise, please clarify. Original: That means the MNA encapsulation is expected to provide a more advanced solution, when published as an RFC and it is agreed that this document will be made Historic at that time. Perhaps: That means the MNA encapsulation is expected to provide a more advanced solution. Once published as an RFC, it is agreed that this document will be made Historic. --> <t> Note that in parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing work on MPLS Network Actions (MNA) <xref target="RFC9613"/>. The MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-MarkingmethodMethod can also be achieved by MNA encapsulation. In addition, MNA will provide a broaderuse caseuse-case applicability. That means the MNA encapsulation is expected to provide a more advanced solution, when published as an RFC and it is agreed that this document will be made Historic at that time.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="Conventionsanchor="conventions"> <name>Conventions Used in ThisDocument">Document</name> <sectiontitle="Abbreviations"> <t> ACL: Accessanchor="abbrevs"> <name>Abbreviations</name> <dl spacing="normal" newline="false"> <dt>ACL:</dt><dd>Access ControlList</t> <t> BoS: BottomList</dd> <dt>BoS:</dt><dd>Bottom ofStack</t> <t> cSPL: CompositeStack</dd> <dt>cSPL:</dt><dd>Composite Special Purpose Label, the combination of the Extension Label (value 15) and an Extended Special PurposeLabel</t> <t> DSCP: DifferentiatedLabel</dd> <dt>DSCP:</dt><dd>Differentiated Services CodePoint</t> <t> ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath</t> <t> ELC: EntropyPoint</dd> <dt>ECMP:</dt><dd>Equal-Cost Multipath</dd> <dt>ELC:</dt><dd>Entropy LabelCapability</t> <t> ERLD: EntropyCapability</dd> <dt>ERLD:</dt><dd>Entropy Readable LabelDepth</t> <t> eSPL: ExtendedDepth</dd> <dt>eSPL:</dt><dd>Extended Special Purpose Label, a special-purpose label that is placed in the label stack after the Extension Label (value15)</t> <t> FL: Flow-ID Label</t> <t> FLC: Flow-ID15)</dd> <dt>FL:</dt><dd>Flow-ID Label</dd> <dt>FLC:</dt><dd>Flow-ID LabelCapability</t> <t> FLI: Flow-IDCapability</dd> <dt>FLI:</dt><dd>Flow-ID LabelIndicator</t> <t> FRLD: Flow-IDIndicator</dd> <dt>FRLD:</dt><dd>Flow-ID Readable LabelDepth</t> <t> IPFIX: IPDepth</dd> <dt>IPFIX:</dt><dd>IP Flow Information Export <xreftarget="RFC7011"/></t> <t> LSP: Labeltarget="RFC7011"/></dd> <dt>LSP:</dt><dd>Label SwitchedPath</t> <t> LSR: LabelPath</dd> <dt>LSR:</dt><dd>Label SwitchingRouter</t> <t> MPLS: Multi-ProtocolRouter</dd> <dt>MPLS:</dt><dd>Multi-Protocol LabelSwitching</t> <t> NMS: NetworkSwitching</dd> <dt>NMS:</dt><dd>Network ManagementSystem</t> <t> PHP: PenultimateSystem</dd> <dt>PHP:</dt><dd>Penultimate HopPopping</t> <t> PM: Performance Measurement</t> <t> PW: PseudoWire</t> <t> SFL: SynonymousPopping</dd> <dt>PM:</dt><dd>Performance Measurement</dd> <dt>PW:</dt><dd>PseudoWire</dd> <dt>SFL:</dt><dd>Synonymous FlowLabel</t> <t> SID: Segment ID</t> <t> SR: Segment Routing</t> <t> TC: Traffic Class</t> <t> TTL: Time to Live</t> <t> VC: Virtual Channel</t> <t> VPN: VirtualLabel</dd> <dt>SID:</dt><dd>Segment ID</dd> <dt>SR:</dt><dd>Segment Routing</dd> <dt>TC:</dt><dd>Traffic Class</dd> <dt>TTL:</dt><dd>Time to Live</dd> <dt>VC:</dt><dd>Virtual Channel</dd> <dt>VPN:</dt><dd>Virtual PrivateNetwork</t> <t> XL: Extension Label</t>Network</dd> <dt>XL:</dt><dd>Extension Label</dd> </dl> </section> <sectiontitle="Requirements Language">anchor="requirements"> <name>Requirements Language</name> <t> The key words"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY","<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and"OPTIONAL""<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as described inBCP 14BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shownhere.</t>here. </t> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Flow-basedanchor="flow-based-pm-encapsulation"> <name>Flow-Based PM Encapsulation inMPLS">MPLS</name> <t> This document defines the Flow-based MPLS performance measurement encapsulation withalternate marking method,the Alternate-Marking Method, as shown infigure 1.</t><xref target="Figure_1"/>.</t> <figureanchor="Figure_1" title="Flow-basedanchor="Figure_1"> <name>Flow-based PM Encapsulation inMPLS">MPLS</name> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[ 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Label (15) | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flow-ID Label Indicator(TBA1)(18) | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flow-ID Label |L|D|T|S| TTL |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ]]></artwork>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+]]></artwork> </figure> <t> The Flow-ID Label Indicator (FLI) is an Extended Special Purpose Label (eSPL), which is combined with the Extension Label (XL, value 15) to form a Composite Special Purpose Label (cSPL), as defined in <xref target="RFC9017"/>. The FLI is defined in this document as valueTBA1.18. </t> <t> The Traffic Class (TC) and Time To Live (TTL) fields of the XL and FLIMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the same values of the label immediately preceding the XL. The Bottom of the Stack (BoS) bit <xref target="RFC3032"/> for the XL and FLIMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be zero. If any XL or FLI processed by a node has the BoS bit set, the nodeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> discard the packet andMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> log an error. </t> <t> The Flow-ID Label (FL) is used as an MPLS flow identification <xref target="RFC8372"/>. Its valueMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be unique within the administrative domain. The Flow-ID Label valuesMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be allocated by an external NMS or controller based on the measurement object instances (such as LSP or PW). There is a one-to-one mapping between a Flow-ID and a flow. The specific method on how to allocate the Flow-ID Label values is described inSection 5.<xref target="procedures-of-flow-id-alloc"/>. </t> <t> The FL, preceded by a cSPL, can be placed either at the bottom or in the middle, but not at the top, of the MPLS label stack, and itMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> appear multiple times within a label stack.Section 3.1<xref target="examples-for-flow-id"/> of this document provides several examples to illustrate the application of FL in a label stack. The TTL for the FLMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be zero to ensure that it is not used inadvertently for forwarding. The BoS bit for the FL depends on whether the FL is placed at the bottom of the MPLS label stack, i.e., the BoS bit for the FL is set only when the FL is placed at the bottom of the MPLS label stack. </t> <!-- [rfced] For readability, we have updated the sentence below. Please let us know if updates are needed. Original: To achieve the purpose of coloring the MPLS traffic, and to distinguish between hop-by-hop measurement and edge-to-edge measurement, the TC for the FL is defined as follows: Current: To color the MPLS traffic and to distinguish between hop-by-hop measurement and edge- to-edge measurement, the TC for the FL is defined as follows: --> <t> Besides the flow identification, a color-marking field is also necessary for the Alternate-Markingmethod.Method. Toachieve the purpose of coloringcolor the MPLStraffic,traffic and to distinguish between hop-by-hop measurement and edge-to-edge measurement, the TC for the FL is defined as follows:<list style="symbols"></t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t> L(oss) bit is used for coloring the MPLS packets for loss measurement. Setting the bit means color11, and unsetting the bit means color 0. </t> </li> <li> <t> D(elay) bit is used for coloring the MPLS packets for delay/jitter measurement. Setting the bit means color for delay measurement. </t> </li> <li> <t> T(ype) bit is used to indicate the measurement type. When the T bit is set to 1, that means edge-to-edge performance measurement. When the T bit is set to 0, that means hop-by-hop performance measurement. </t></list></li> </ul> <t> Considering the FL is not used as a forwarding label, the repurposing of the TC for the FL is feasible and viable. </t></t><sectiontitle="Examplesanchor="examples-for-flow-id"> <name>Examples for Applying Flow-ID Label in alabel stack">Label Stack</name> <t> Three examples of different layouts of the Flow-ID label (4 octets) are illustrated as follows. Note that more examples may exist.</t><t> (1) Layout<section anchor="example-one"> <name>Layout of the Flow-IDlabelLabel whenappliedApplied to MPLStransport.</t>Transport</name> <figureanchor="Figure_2" title="Applyinganchor="Figure_2"> <name>Applying Flow-ID to MPLStransport">Transport</name> <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[ +----------------------+ | LSP | | Label | +----------------------+ <--+ | Extension | | | Label | | +----------------------+ |--- cSPL | Flow-ID Label | | | Indicator | | +----------------------+ <--+ | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ | Application | | Label | +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack | | | Payload | | |+----------------------+ ]]></artwork>+----------------------+]]></artwork> </figure> <t> With penultimate hop popping(PHP, Section 3.16 of(PHP <xreftarget="RFC3031"/>)sectionFormat="of" section="3.16" target="RFC3031"/>), the top label is "popped at the penultimate LSR of the LSP, rather than at the LSP Egress".Since Section 4The final bullet of <xref target="procedures-of-encap"/> of the presentdocument, final bullet,document requires that"The"[t]he processing nodeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> pop the XL,FLIFLI, and FL from the MPLS label stack when it needs to pop the preceding forwarding label",thiswhich implies that the penultimate Label Switching Router (LSR) needs to follow the requirement ofSection 4<xref target="procedures-of-encap"/> in order to support this specification. If this is done, the egress LSRwould beis excluded from the performance measurement. Therefore, when this specification is inuseuse, PHP should be disabled, unless the penultimate LSR is known to have the necessarysupport,support and unless it's acceptable to exclude the egress LSR.</t> <t> Also note that in other examples of applying Flow-ID to MPLS transport, one LSP label can be substituted by multiple SID labels in the case of using SR Policy, and the combination of cSPL and Flow-ID label can be placed between SID labels, as specified inSection 6.</t> <t> (2) Layout<xref target="flc-frld-considerations"/>.</t> </section> <section anchor="example-two"> <name>Layout of the Flow-IDlabelLabel whenappliedApplied to MPLSservice.</t>Service</name> <figureanchor="Figure_3" title="Applyinganchor="Figure_3"> <name>Applying Flow-ID to MPLSservice">Service</name> <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[ +----------------------+ | LSP | | Label | +----------------------+ | Application | | Label | +----------------------+ <--+ | Extension | | | Label | | +----------------------+ |--- cSPL | Flow-ID Label | | | Indicator | | +----------------------+ <--+ | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack | | | Payload | | |+----------------------+ ]]></artwork>+----------------------+]]></artwork> </figure> <t> Note that in this case, the application label can be an MPLS PW label, MPLS Ethernet VPNlabellabel, or MPLS IP VPN label, and it is also called a VC label as defined in <xref target="RFC4026"/>.</t><t> (3) Layout</section> <section anchor="example-three"> <name>Layout of the Flow-IDlabelLabel whenappliedApplied to both MPLStransportTransport and MPLSservice.</t>Service</name> <figureanchor="Figure_4" title="Applyinganchor="Figure_4"> <name>Applying Flow-ID to both MPLStransportTransport and MPLSservice">Service</name> <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[ +----------------------+ | LSP | | Label | +----------------------+ <--+ | Extension | | | Label | | +----------------------+ |--- cSPL | Flow-ID Label | | | Indicator | | +----------------------+ <--+ | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ | Application | | Label | +----------------------+ <--+ | Extension | | | Label | | +----------------------+ |--- cSPL | Flow-ID Label | | | Indicator | | +----------------------+ <--+ | Flow-ID | | Label | +----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack | | | Payload | | |+----------------------+ ]]></artwork>+----------------------+]]></artwork> </figure><t> Note<t>Note that for this example, the two Flow-ID Label values appearing in a label stack must be different. In other words, the Flow-ID label applied to the MPLS transport and the Flow-ID label applied to the MPLS service must be different. Also, note that the two Flow-ID label values are independent of each other. For example, two packets can belong to the same VPN flow but different LSP flows, or two packets can belong to different VPN flows but the same LSP flow.</t> </section> </section> </section> <sectiontitle="Proceduresanchor="procedures-of-encap"> <name>Procedures of Encapsulation,Look-upLook-Up, andDecapsulation">Decapsulation</name> <t> The procedures for Flow-ID label encapsulation,look-uplook-up, and decapsulation are summarized as follows:<list style="symbols"></t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t> The MPLS ingress node <xref target="RFC3031"/> inserts the XL,FLIFLI, and FL into the MPLS label stack. At the same time, the ingress node sets the Flow-ID Label value, the two color-markingbitsbits, and the T bit, as defined inSection 3.<xref target="flow-based-pm-encapsulation"/>. </t> </li> <li> <!-- [rfced] "perform some deep labels inspection beyond the label" reads oddly. Please review. Original: Note that while looking up the Flow-ID label, the transit node needs to perform some deep labels inspection beyond the label (at the top of the label stack) used to make forwarding decisions. Perhaps: Note that while looking up the Flow-ID label, the transit node needs to inspect beyond the label at the top of the label stack used to make forwarding decisions. --> <t> Iftheedge-to-edge measurement is applied, i.e., the T bit is set to 1, then only the MPLS ingress/egress node <xref target="RFC3031"/> is the processingnode, otherwisenode; otherwise, all the MPLS nodes along the LSP are the processing nodes. The processing node looks up the FL with the help of the XL and FLI, and exports the collecteddata, suchdata (such as the Flow-ID, blockcounterscounters, andtimestamps,timestamps) to an external NMS/controller, referring to the Alternate-Markingmethod.Method. Section 6 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment"/> describes protocols for collected dataexport, andexport; the details on how to export the collected data are outside the scope of this document. Note that while looking up the Flow-ID label, the transit node needs to perform some deep labels inspection beyond the label (at the top of the label stack) used to make forwarding decisions. </t> </li> <li> <t> The processing nodeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> pop the XL,FLIFLI, and FL from the MPLS label stack when it needs to pop the preceding forwarding label. The egress nodeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> pop the whole MPLS labelstack, and thisstack. This document doesn't introduce any new process to the decapsulated packet. </t></list> </t></li> </ul> </section> <sectiontitle="Proceduresanchor="procedures-of-flow-id-alloc"> <name>Procedures of Flow-IDallocation">Allocation</name> <t> There are at least two ways of allocating Flow-ID. One way is to allocate Flow-ID by a manual trigger from the network operator, and the other way is to allocate Flow-ID by an automatic trigger from the ingress node. Details are as follows:<list style="symbols"></t> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t> In the case of a manual trigger, the network operatorwouldmanuallyinputinputs the characteristics(e.g.(e.g., IP five tuples and IP DSCP) of the measuredflow,flow; then the NMS/controllerwould generategenerates one or two Flow-IDs based on the input from the networkoperator,operator andprovisionprovisions the ingress node with the characteristics of the measured flow and the corresponding allocated Flow-ID(s). </t> </li> <li> <t> In the case of an automatic trigger, the ingress nodewould identifyidentifies the flow entering the measuredpath, exportpath and exports the characteristics of the identified flow to the NMS/controller by IPFIX <xreftarget="RFC7011"/>,target="RFC7011"/>; then the NMS/controllerwould generategenerates one or two Flow-IDs based on the characteristics exported from the ingressnode,node andprovisionprovisions the ingress node with the characteristics of the identified flow and the corresponding allocated Flow-ID(s). </t></list> </t></li> </ul> <t> The policypre-configuredpreconfigured at the NMS/controller decides whether one Flow-ID or two Flow-IDswould beare generated. If the performance measurement on the MPLS service is enabled, then one Flow-ID applied to the MPLS servicewould beis generated. If the performance measurement on the MPLS transport is enabled, then one Flow-ID applied to the MPLS transportwould beis generated. If both of them are enabled, then two Flow-IDs are respectively applied to the MPLS service and the MPLS transportwould beare generated. In this case, a transit node needs to look up both of the two Flow-IDs by default. However, thisbehaviourbehavior can be changed through configuration, such as by setting it to look up only the Flow-ID applied to the MPLS transport. </t> <t> Whether using the two methods mentioned above or other methods to allocate Flow-ID, the NMS/controllerMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ensure that every generated Flow-ID is unique within the administrative domain andMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> have any value in the reserved label space (0-15) <xref target="RFC3032"/>. Specifically, the statement of "Flow-ID is unique" means that the values of Flow-ID are distinct and non-redundant for any flow at any given time within an administrative domain, such that no two flows share the same Flow-ID. This uniqueness ensures that each flow can be individually identified, tracked, and differentiated from others for accurate performance monitoring and management. </t> </section> <sectiontitle="FLCanchor="flc-frld-considerations"> <name>FLC and FRLDConsiderations">Considerations</name> <t> Analogous to the Entropy Label Capability (ELC) defined inSection 5 of<xref sectionFormat="of" section="5" target="RFC6790"/> and the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) defined inSection 4 of<xref sectionFormat="of" section="4" target="RFC8662"/>, the Flow-ID Label Capability (FLC) and the Flow-ID Readable Label Depth (FRLD) are defined in this document. Both FLC and FRLD have similar semantics with the ELC and ERLD to a router, except that the Flow-ID is used in its flow identification function while the Entropy is used in its load-balancing function.</t> <t> The ingress nodeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> insert each FL at an appropriate depth, which ensures the node to which the FL is exposed has the FLC. The ingress nodeSHOULD<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> insert each FL within an appropriate FRLD, which is the minimum FRLD of all the on-path nodes that need to read and use the FL in question. How the ingress node knows the FLC and FRLD of all the on-path nodes is outside the scope of this document.</t> <t> When the SR paths are used for transport, the label stack grows as the number of on-path segments increases. If the number of on-path segments is high, that may become a challenge for the FL to be placed within an appropriate FRLD. To overcome this potential challenge, an implementationMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> allow the ingress node to place FL between SID labels. This means that multiple identical FLs at different depthsMAY<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be interleaved with SID labels. When this occurs, sophisticated network planning may be needed, which is beyond the scope of this document.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="Equal-Costanchor="ecmp"> <name>Equal-Cost MultipathConsiderations">Considerations</name> <t> Analogous to what's described inSection 5 of<xref sectionFormat="of" section="5" target="RFC8957"/>, under conditions of Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP), the introduction of the FL may lead to the same problemasthat is caused by the Synonymous Flow Label (SFL) <xref target="RFC8957"/>. The two solutions proposed for SFLwouldalso apply here. Specifically, adding FL to an existing flow may cause that flow to take a different path. If the operator expects to resolve this problem, they can choose to apply entropy labels <xref target="RFC6790"/> or add FL to all flows.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="Security Considerations">anchor="sec-considerations"> <name>Security Considerations</name> <t> As specified inSection 7.1 of<xref sectionFormat="of" section="7.1" target="RFC9341"/>, "for security reasons, the Alternate-Marking MethodMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> only be applied to controlleddomains". Thatdomains." This requirement applies when the MPLS performance measurement with Alternate-Marking Method is taken into account, which means the MPLS encapsulation and related procedures defined in this documentMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> only be applied to controlleddomains, otherwisedomains; otherwise, the potential attacks discussed inSection 10 of<xref sectionFormat="of" section="10" target="RFC9341"/> may be applied to the deployed MPLS networks. </t> <t> As specified inSection 3,<xref target="flow-based-pm-encapsulation"/>, the value of a Flow-ID labelMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be unique within the administrative domain. In other words, the administrative domain is the scope of a Flow-ID label. The method for achieving multi-domain performance measurement with the same Flow-ID label is outside the scope of this document. The Flow-ID labelMUST NOT<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be signaled and distributed outside the administrative domain. Improper configuration that allows the Flow-ID label to be passed from one administrative domain to another would result in Flow-ID conflicts. </t> <t> To prevent packets carrying Flow-ID labels from leaking from one domain to another, domain boundary nodesMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> deploy policies (e.g., ACL) to filter out these packets. Specifically, at the sending edge, the domain boundary nodeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> filter out the packets that carry the Flow-ID Label Indicator and are sent to other domains. At the receiving edge, the domain boundary nodeMUST<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> drop the packets that carry the Flow-ID Label Indicator and are from other domains. Note that packet leakage is neither breaching privacy norcan bea source of DoS.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="Implementation Status"> <t>[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as well as remove the reference to <xref target="RFC7942"/>.</t> <t>This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in <xref target="RFC7942"/>. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effortanchor="iana-considerations"> <name>IANA Considerations</name> <t>IANA hasbeen spent to verifyassigned theinformation presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist.</t> <t>According to <xref target="RFC7942"/>, "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".</t> <section title="Fiberhome"> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Organization: Fiberhome Corporation.</t> </li> <li> <t>Implementation: Fiberhome R82*, R800*, S680*, S780* series routers are running the common-building block 'Flow-based PM Encapsulationfollowing value inMPLS'.</t> </li> <li> <t>Maturity Level: Product</t> </li> <li> <t>Coverage: Partial, section 3 and example (2) of section 3.1.</t> </li> <li> <t>Version: Draft-08</t> </li> <li> <t>Licensing: N/A</t> </li> <li> <t>Implementation experience: Nothing specific.</t> </li> <li> <t>Contact: djy@fiberhome.com</t> </li> <li> <t>Last updated: December 25, 2023</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section title="Huawei Technologies"> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Organization: Huawei Technologies.</t> </li> <li> <t>Implementation: Huawei ATN8XX, ATN910C, ATN980B, CX600-M2, NE40E, ME60-X1X2, ME60-X3X8X16 Routers running VRPV800R021C00 or above. Huawei NCE-IP Controller running V1R21C00 or above.</t> </li> <li> <t>Maturity Level: Product</t> </li> <li> <t>Coverage: Partial, section 3 and example (2) of section 3.1.</t> </li> <li> <t>Version: Draft-08</t> </li> <li> <t>Licensing: N/A</t> </li> <li> <t>Implementation experience: Nothing specific.</t> </li> <li> <t>Contact: zhoutianran@huawei.com</t> </li> <li> <t>Last updated: January 10, 2024</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section title="ZTE Corp"> <ul spacing="normal"> <li> <t>Organization: ZTE Corporation.</t> </li> <li> <t>Implementation: ZTE ZXCTN 6500-32 routers running V5.00.20 or above. ZTE ZXCTN 6170H routers running V5.00.30.20 or above. ZTE ElasticNet UME Controller running V16.22.20 or above.</t> </li> <li> <t>Maturity Level: Product</t> </li> <li> <t>Coverage: Partial, section 3 and example (2) of section 3.1.</t> </li> <li> <t>Version: Draft-08</t> </li> <li> <t>Licensing: N/A</t> </li> <li> <t>Implementation experience: Nothing specific.</t> </li> <li> <t>Contact: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn</t> </li> <li> <t>Last updated: January 22, 2024</t> </li> </ul> </section> <section title="China Mobile"> <t> China Mobile reported that they have conducted interconnection tests with multiple vendors according to this draft. The tests result have proven that the solutions from multiple vendors are mature and ready for large-scale deployment. This report was last updated on January 10, 2024.</t> </section> </section> <section title="IANA Considerations"> <t> Fromthe "Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" registryinwithin the "Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Values"namespace, a new value for the Flow-ID Label Indicator is requested from IANA as follows:</t> <texttable anchor="Table_1" title="Newregistry group: </t> <table anchor="Table_1"> <name>New Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Flow-ID LabelIndicator"> <ttcol align="left">Value</ttcol> <ttcol align="left">Description</ttcol> <ttcol align="left">Reference</ttcol> <c>TBA1 (value 18 is recommended)</c> <c>Flow-IDIndicator</name> <thead> <tr> <th align="left">Value</th> <th align="left">Description</th> <th align="left">Reference</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td align="left">18</td> <td align="left">Flow-ID Label Indicator(FLI)</c> <c>This Document</c> </texttable>(FLI)</td> <td align="left">RFC 9714</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </section> </middle> <back> <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment" to="ALT-MARK"/> <references> <name>References</name> <references> <name>Normative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3031.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3032.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9017.xml"/> </references> <references> <name>Informative References</name> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4026.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7011.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8372.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6790.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8662.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8957.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9341.xml"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9613.xml"/> <!-- [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] IESG State: I-D Exists as of 10/23/2024 --> <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment.xml"/> </references> </references> <!-- [rfced] Note the following regarding terminology: A) The following term appears with inconsistent capitalization. Perhaps FL can be used throughout once the abbreviated form is introduced? This avoids the capitalization issue. Flow-ID Label vs Flow-ID label B) "ECMP" is only used in connection with its expanded form. Perhaps the abbreviated form does not need to be introduced/used in this document? Originals from - Section 2.1: ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath - Section 7: Analogous to what's described in Section 5 of [RFC8957], under conditions of Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP), the introduction of the FL may lead to the same problem as caused by the Synonymous Flow Label (SFL) [RFC8957]. C) We updated the capitalization as follows for consistency with RFC 9341. Please let us know if you disagree. Alternate-Marking method -> Alternate-Marking Method --> <sectiontitle="Acknowledgements">anchor="acknowledgements" numbered="false"> <name>Acknowledgements</name> <t> The authorswould like toacknowledgeLoa Andersson, Tarek Saad, Stewart Bryant, Rakesh Gandhi, Greg Mirsky, Aihua Liu, Shuangping Zhan, Ming Ke, Wei He, Ximing Dong, Darren Dukes, Tony Li, James Guichard, Daniele Ceccarelli, Eric Vyncke, John Scudder, Gunter<contact fullname="Loa Andersson"/>, <contact fullname="Tarek Saad"/>, <contact fullname="Stewart Bryant"/>, <contact fullname="Rakesh Gandhi"/>, <contact fullname="Greg Mirsky"/>, <contact fullname="Aihua Liu"/>, <contact fullname="Shuangping Zhan"/>, <contact fullname="Ming Ke"/>, <contact fullname="Wei He"/>, <contact fullname="Ximing Dong"/>, <contact fullname="Darren Dukes"/>, <contact fullname="Tony Li"/>, <contact fullname="James Guichard"/>, <contact fullname="Daniele Ceccarelli"/>, <contact fullname="Eric Vyncke"/>, <contact fullname="John Scudder"/>, <contact fullname="Gunter van deVelde, Roman Danyliw, Warren Kumari, Murray Kucherawy, Deb Cooley, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, and Deboraha BrungardVelde"/>, <contact fullname="Roman Danyliw"/>, <contact fullname="Warren Kumari"/>, <contact fullname="Murray Kucherawy"/>, <contact fullname="Deb Cooley"/>, <contact fullname="Zaheduzzaman Sarker"/>, and <contact fullname="Deboraha Brungard"/> for their careful review and very helpful comments.</t> <t> They alsowish toacknowledgeItalo Busi and Chandrasekar Ramachandran<contact fullname="Italo Busi"/> and <contact fullname="Chandrasekar Ramachandran"/> for their insightful MPLS-RT review and constructive comments.</t> <t> Additionally, the authorswould like tothankDhruv Dhody<contact fullname="Dhruv Dhody"/> for the English grammar review.</t> </section> <sectiontitle="Contributors"> <t>Minxue Wang<br/>China Mobile<br/>Email: wangminxue@chinamobile.com</t> <t>Wen Ye<br/>China Mobile<br/>Email: yewen@chinamobile.com</t>anchor="contrib" numbered="false"> <name>Contributors</name> <contact fullname="Minxue Wang"> <organization>China Mobile</organization> <address> <email>wangminxue@chinamobile.com</email> </address> </contact> <contact fullname="Wen Ye"> <organization>China Mobile</organization> <address> <email>yewen@chinamobile.com</email> </address> </contact> </section></middle> <back> <references title="Normative References"> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3031"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3032"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9017"?> </references> <references title="Informative References"> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4026"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7011"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8372"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6790"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8662"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8957"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7942"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9341"?> <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9613"?> <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment"?> </references><!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> </back> </rfc>