Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM September 2025
Cheng, et al. Expires 15 March 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
MPLS Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-07
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
W. Cheng
China Mobile
X. Min
ZTE Corp.
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
G. Fioccola
Huawei

MNA for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method

Abstract

MPLS Network Action (MNA) is used to indicate action for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and/or MPLS packets, and to transfer data needed for the action.

This document defines MNA encodings for MPLS performance measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS live traffic.

Status of This Memo

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 15 March 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

MPLS Network Action (MNA) [RFC9789] is used to indicate action for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and/or MPLS packets, and to transfer data needed for the action. [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] defines the MNA sub-stack solution for carrying Network Actions and Ancillary Data in the MPLS label stack. [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr] defines the Post-Stack MNA solution for carrying Network Actions and Ancillary Data after the MPLS label stack.

As specified in [RFC9714], Flow-ID Label, L bit and D bit are used for MPLS flow identification and flow-based performance measurement with alternate marking method [RFC9341], which can be an applicable MNA usecase [RFC9791].

This document defines MNA encodings for MPLS performance measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS live traffic. The proposed MNA encodings are compliant with the MNA solutions specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] and [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr], and reuse the data fields specified in [RFC9714].

1.1. Terminology

This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC9714], [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr] and [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr].

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

2. MPLS Network Actions for Flow-based PM

2.1. In-Stack MNA for Flow-based PM

The In-Stack MNA format for performance measurement with alternate marking method is illustrated as below:

 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Opcode=PMAMM |            Flow-ID            |S|FID|L|D|U|NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: In-Stack MNA for Alternate Marking

The description of In-Stack MNA for Alternate Marking is as follows:

2.2. Post-Stack MNA for Flow-based PM

The Post-Stack MNA format for performance measurement with alternate marking method contains two parts, one part is an In-Stack MNA which indicates the presence of MNA Post-Stack Header (PSH), another part is a Post-Stack Network Action carrying the data for performance measurement with alternate marking method. Note that a Post-Stack Network Action is part of an MNA PSH.

The format of the In-Stack MNA indicating the presence of MNA PSH is illustrated as below:

 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|               MNA Label               | TC  |S|      TTL      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Opcode     |      Data (Format B)    |P|IHS|S| NASL  |U| NAL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Opcode     |      Data (Format C)          |S| Data  |U| NAL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: In-Stack MNA with Post-Stack Network Action Carrying Alternate Marking Data

The description of the In-Stack MNA is as follows:

The format of the Post-Stack MNA carrying Alternate Marking Data is illustrated as below:

 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  MNA-PS-OP  |R|R|  PS-NAL     |       POST-STACK DATA         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|               Flow-ID                 |L|D|     Reserved      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Post-Stack MNA carrying Alternate Marking Data

The description of the Post-Stack MNA is as follows:

3. Security Considerations

Security issues discussed in [RFC9341], [RFC9714], [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr], and [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr] apply to this document.

4. IANA Considerations

This document requests that IANA allocates two codepoints (TBA1 and TBA2) from the "Network Action Opcodes" registry within the "MPLS Network Actions Parameters" registry group. This document also requests that IANA allocates a codepoint (TBA3) from the "Post-Stack Network Action Opcodes" registry within the "MPLS Network Actions Parameters" registry group. The IETF Review range (1-110) should be used. Note that both the "MPLS Network Actions Parameters" registry group and the "Network Action Opcodes" registry will be created based on the request from [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr], and the "Post-Stack Network Action Opcodes" registry will be created based on the request from [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr]. Specifically, this document requests the following allocation from IANA.

Table 1: In-Stack Network Action Opcodes Registry
Opcode Description Reference
TBA1 In-Stack Network Action for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Data in ISD This document
TBA2 In-Stack Network Action for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Data in PSD This document
Table 2: Post-Stack Network Action Opcodes Registry
Opcode Description Reference
TBA3 Post-Stack Network Action for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method This document

5. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Loa Andersson for his careful review and helpful comments.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K. Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-15, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-15>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Post-Stack MPLS Network Action (MNA) Solution", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr-01, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr-01>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3032]
Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9341]
Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341, DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.
[RFC9714]
Cheng, W., Ed., Min, X., Ed., Zhou, T., Dai, J., and Y. Peleg, "Encapsulation for MPLS Performance Measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9714, DOI 10.17487/RFC9714, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9714>.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC9789]
Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) Framework", RFC 9789, DOI 10.17487/RFC9789, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9789>.
[RFC9791]
Saad, T., Makhijani, K., Song, H., and G. Mirsky, "Use Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and Ancillary Data", RFC 9791, DOI 10.17487/RFC9791, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9791>.

Authors' Addresses

Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei
Italy