RFC 9160: Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
- T. Graf
Abstract
This document introduces new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) code
points to identify which traffic is being forwarded based on which MPLS
control plane protocol is used within a Segment Routing domain. In
particular, this document defines five code points for the IPFIX
mpls
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the 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.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://
1. Introduction
Four routing protocol extensions -- OSPFv2 Extensions [RFC8665], OSPFv3 Extensions [RFC8666], IS-IS Extensions [RFC8667], and BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (Prefix-SIDs) [RFC8669] -- and one Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension [RFC8664] have been defined to be able to propagate Segment Routing (SR) labels for the MPLS data plane [RFC8660].¶
Also, [SR
In [RFC7012], the Information Element (IE)
mpls
2. MPLS Segment Routing Top Label Type
By introducing five new code points to the IPFIX IE
mpls
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 node by node as described in Appendix A of [RFC8661].¶
Another use case is to monitor MPLS control plane migrations from dynamic BGP labels [RFC8277] to BGP Prefix-SIDs [RFC8669]. For example, the motivation for, and benefits of, such a migration in large-scale data centers are described in [RFC8670].¶
Both use cases can be verified by using mpls
By looking at the MPLS label value itself, it is not always clear to which label protocol it belongs. This is because they may share the same label allocation range. This is, for example, the case for IGP-Adjacency SIDs, LDP, and dynamic BGP labels.¶
3. IANA Considerations
IANA has allocated the following code points in the "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" subregistry within the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry [RFC7012]. See [IANA-IPFIX].¶
References to RFCs 4364, 4271, and 5036 have been added to the
"Reference" column in the "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)" subregistry
[IANA-IPFIX] for code points 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Previously, these
references appeared in the "Additional Information" column for mpls
4. Operational Considerations
In the IE mpls
5. Security Considerations
There exist no significant extra security considerations regarding the allocation of these new IPFIX IEs as compared to [RFC7012].¶
6. References
6.1. Normative References
- [RFC7012]
-
Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7012 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7012
6.2. Informative References
- [IANA-IPFIX]
-
IANA, "IPFIX MPLS label type (Value 46)", <https://
www >..iana .org /assignments /ipfix / - [RFC8277]
-
Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8277 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8277 - [RFC8660]
-
Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8660 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8660 - [RFC8661]
-
Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing MPLS Interworking with LDP", RFC 8661, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8661 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8661 - [RFC8664]
-
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8664 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8664 - [RFC8665]
-
Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8665 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8665 - [RFC8666]
-
Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8666 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8666 - [RFC8667]
-
Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8667 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8667 - [RFC8669]
-
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah, A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8669 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8669 - [RFC8670]
-
Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and P. Lapukhov, "BGP Prefix Segment in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 8670, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8670 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 , , <https://-spring -sr -traffic -accounting -06 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.¶