| Internet-Draft | AM Deployment Status | March 2024 |
| Zhou & Li | Expires 5 September 2024 | [Page] |
Operators have started the deployment of Alternate Marking in their networks for different scenarios. This document introduces several deployment cases of Alternate Marking in operator networks. Some considerations about the Alternate Marking deployments are also collected.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 September 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 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://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The Alternate Marking [RFC9341] and Multipoint Alternate Marking [RFC9342]define the Alternate Marking technique that is a hybrid performance measurement method, per RFC7799 [RFC7799] classification of measurement methods. This method is based on marking consecutive batches of packets and it can be used to measure packet loss, latency, and jitter on live traffic.¶
The IPv6 AltMark Option [RFC9343] applies the Alternate Marking Method to IPv6, and defines an Extension Header Option to encode the Alternate Marking Method for both the Hop-by-Hop Options Header and the Destination Options Header.¶
While the IPv6 AltMark Option implements the basic alternate marking methodology, the Enhanced Alternate Marking [RFC9343] defines extended data fields for the AltMark Option and provides enhanced capabilities to overcome some challenges and enable future proof applications.¶
Operators have started the deployment of Alternate Marking in their networks for different scenarios. This document introduces several deployment cases of Alternate Marking in operator networks. Some considerations about the Alternate Marking deployments are also collected.¶
Scenario: Root cause analysis for 5G, when the access speed is not qualifed.¶
Data Plane: MPLS.¶
Scenario: Realtime error detection for key areas.¶
Data Plane: MPLS.¶
Scenario: Service assurance for the private converged transport network for 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing.¶
Data Plane: MPLS.¶
Scenario: Fault location for mobile transport network from base station to mobile core network.¶
Data Plane: IPv6.¶
Scenario: Service assurance for mobile transport network.¶
Data Plane: IPv6.¶
Scenario: Service assurance for online services and datacenter interconnection.¶
Data Plane: IPv6.¶
Scenario: Service assurance for campus private WAN.¶
Data Plane: IPv6.¶
The mobile transport network is a large-scale network. It has various access modes and carries various mobile transport services (such as high definition video) that pose higher requirements on link connectivity and performance. Alternate Marking is deployed to quickly demarcates and locates faults and replays faults on demand, improving SLA experience and O&M efficiency.¶
In this scenario, edge-to-edge performance measurement is performed firstly. The hop-by-hop measurement is triggered when the base station flow performance degrades to the pre-defined threshold. The controller summarizes the reported hop-by-hop measurement data for path restoration and fault locating. This solution offers the following benefits:¶
Detailed performance data of service flows can be monitored from different dimensions, such as base station flows, data flows, and signaling flows. In addition, this solution supports clustering to process base station flow faults and quickly demarcate poor-quality services, preventing multiple faults of numerous base station flows from triggering a lot of per hop measurements.¶
If a fault occurs outside the transport network, this solution can quickly and accurately prove that the fault is not due to the network. If a fault occurs within the transport network, this solution can quickly locate the faulty network element or link, improving network operation efficiency.¶
Based on the real-time performance data of base stations across the entire network, a big data-based intelligent O&M system can be constructed to implement high-precision SLA awareness in real time and multi-dimensional visualization for base station services. It can also analyze and evaluate potential network risks, and optimize network resources to implement automatic and intelligent O&M.¶
Enterprises use private line to access cloud services. The wide coverage of the mobile transport network can provide the cloud access service more conveniently. E2E collaborative management can facilitate the network deployment, operations.¶
Alternate Marking can apply to VPN service analysis and assurance for the cloud access, including site-to-site private line, site-to-cloud private line, and cloud interconnection scenarios. Alternate Marking ensures E2E high reliability and implements minute-level fault locating through visualized O&M. This solution offers the following benefits:¶
Analyzes and locates faults of a VPN flow and queries the E2E performance of the VPN service flow by granularity ranging from year to minute, including the maximum traffic rate, maximum one-way delay, and maximum packet loss rate.¶
Queries E2E VPN service information based on the VPN name, VPN type, and service status. If multiple segments of service flows exist, the status value of the segment with the lowest quality is used.¶
Implements E2E multi-dimensional exception identification, network health visualization, intelligent fault diagnosis, and fault self-healing in a closed-loop manner.¶
In the financial industry, tier-2 banks, branches, subsidiaries, and external organizations first connect to tier-1 banks, which aggregate service traffic and then connect to the bank core network to implement mutual access between them and the head office data center. In this case, the concept of centralized management for finacial WAN is of particular importance.¶
By using SRv6 technology, the financial WAN can quickly and easily establish basic network connections between the cloud and various access points, ensuring efficient service provisioning. In terms of O&M capabilities, the financial industry has high requirements on the SLA assurance. So the financial WAN faces higher requirements due to the diverse array of branch service types brought about by the development of banking services. For example, in addition to traditional production and office services, other services such as security protection, IoT, and public cloud services are now prevalent. In this scenario, Alternate Marking can apply to tunnels. And this solution offers the following benefits:¶
In SRv6 scenarios, tunnel-level Alternate Marking can apply to measure the quality of each SRv6 segment list and select the optimal path. The path currently in use is periodically compared with the optimal path, implementing intelligent traffic steering.¶
One core controller is deployed to perform centralized O&M for the entire financial WAN and implement the E2E management and scheduling.¶
Based on the Alternate Marking deployment collected in section 2, this section describes some operational considerations.¶
In carrier networks, it is common for user traffic to traverse various tunnels for QoS, traffic engineering, or security. Both the uniform mode and the pipe mode for tunnel support are required. The uniform mode treats the nodes in a tunnel uniformly as the nodes outside of the tunnel on a path. In contrast, the pipe mode abstracts all the nodes between the tunnel ingress and egress as a circuit so no nodes in the tunnel is visible to the nodes outside of the tunnel. With such flexibility, the operator can either gain a true end-to-end visibility or apply a hierarchical approach which isolates the monitoring domain between customer and provider.¶
Standard approaches that automate the function configuration could either be deployed in a centralized fashion or a distributed fashion. The draft [I-D.ydt-ippm-alt-mark-yang] provides a YANG model for Alternate Marking configuration. It is also helpful to provide standards-based approaches for configuration in various network environments. For example, in Segment Routing (SR) networks, extensions to BGP or Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) can be defined to distribute SR policies with Alternate Marking information, so that telemetry behavior can be enabled automatically when the SR policy is applied. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-ifit] defines extensions to PCEP to configure SR policies for Alternate Marking. [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit] defines extensions to BGP for the same purpose. In the future, other approaches for hardware and software-based functions can be development to enhance the programmability and flexibility.¶
The Alternate Marking Method MUST be deployed in a controlled domain for security and compatibility reasons. Before adding the alternate marking information, the marking node must know if there is an unmarking node when the flow goes out the controlled domain. Otherwise, the alternate marking information will leak to other domain and cause potential damage. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities] defines a new BGP Router Capability Code to advertise the Alternate Marking capabilities. Within an Alternate Marking deployment domain, capability advertisement from the tail node to the head node assists the head node to determine whether the Alternate Marking Option can be encapsulated in data packets. Such advertisement helps mitigating the leakage threat and facilitating the deployment of Alternate Marking on a per-service and on-demand basis.¶
This document makes no request of IANA.¶
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC.¶
TBD¶