MNA for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-07
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Weiqiang Cheng , Xiao Min , Rakesh Gandhi , Greg Mirsky , Giuseppe Fioccola | ||
| Last updated | 2025-09-11 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-07
MPLS Working Group W. Cheng
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track X. Min
Expires: 15 March 2026 ZTE Corp.
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
G. Fioccola
Huawei
11 September 2025
MNA for Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-07
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Cheng, et al. Expires 15 March 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM September 2025
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. MPLS Network Actions for Flow-based PM . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. In-Stack MNA for Flow-based PM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Post-Stack MNA for Flow-based PM . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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].
Cheng, et al. Expires 15 March 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM September 2025
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:
* Opcode: Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method
(PMAMM) Action with value TBA1.
* Scope: The PMAMM Action is valid in all scopes.
* In-Stack Data: The PMAMM Action carries 20 bits of ancillary data.
The most significant 18 bits of ancillary data is the Flow-ID
Value, immediately followed by L bit and D bit. Note that the
2-bit FID field is part of the Flow-ID Value. The three fields
Flow-ID Value, L bit, and D bit have semantics consistent with the
Flow-ID Label, L bit and D bit defined in [RFC9714], except that
the Flow-ID Value is an 18-bit value while the Flow-ID Label is a
20-bit value. While the Flow-ID Label has some restrictions to
avoid collisions with the reserved label space (0-15) [RFC3032],
those restrictions are not necessary for the Flow-ID Value and do
not apply. The forwarding node in the scope of PMAMM Action
SHOULD execute the flow-based performance measurement by using the
Flow-ID Value, L bit and D bit.
Cheng, et al. Expires 15 March 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM September 2025
* Label Stack Entry (LSE) Format: Format C as defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. The S bit is the Bottom of Stack (BoS)
field [RFC3032]. There is no additional data. The Network Action
Length (NAL) field MUST be set to 0. The U bit has the same
semantics as used in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].
* Post-Stack Data: None.
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:
* Opcode: PMAMM In-Stack Network Action for Alternate Marking Data
in MNA PSH with value TBA2. This Opcode is optional and can be
carried in Format B LSE or Format C LSE.
* Scope: The PMAMM Action is valid in all scopes.
* In-Stack Data: The 10 bits next to the Opcode field contains the
offset for MNA PSH for this In-Stack Network Action in 4-octet
units after bottom of stack LSE to the start of the corresponding
Post-Stack Network Action Opcode. Due to the Post-Stack Header
type top-header, minimum value for the offset is 1 (i.e.,
4-octets).
Cheng, et al. Expires 15 March 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM September 2025
* LSE Format: Format B as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr] or
Format C as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]. The P bit MUST be
set to 1. The S bit is the BoS field [RFC3032]. The NAL field
MUST be set to 0. The IHS field, NASL field and U bit have the
same semantics as used in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].
* Post-Stack Data: As defined in Figure 3.
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:
* Opcode: PMAMM Post-Stack Network Action carrying Alternate Marking
Data with value TBA3.
* Post-Stack Data: The PMAMM Post-Stack Network Action carries 22
bits of ancillary data. The most significant 20 bits of ancillary
data is the Flow-ID Value, immediately followed by L bit and D
bit. The three fields Flow-ID Value, L bit, and D bit have
semantics consistent with the Flow-ID Label, L bit and D bit
defined in [RFC9714]. While the Flow-ID Label has some
restrictions to avoid collisions with the reserved label space
(0-15) [RFC3032], those restrictions are not necessary for the
Flow-ID Value and do not apply. The forwarding node in the scope
of PMAMM In-Stack Action SHOULD execute the flow-based performance
measurement by using the Flow-ID Value, L bit and D bit.
* Post-Stack MNA Format: Post-Stack Network Action Encoding as
defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr]. The PS-NAL field MUST be
set to 1. The R bit and POST-STACK DATA field have the same
semantics as used in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr].
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.
Cheng, et al. Expires 15 March 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM September 2025
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.
+========+===============================+===========+
| Opcode | Description | Reference |
+========+===============================+===========+
| TBA1 | In-Stack Network Action for | This |
| | Performance Measurement with | document |
| | Alternate Marking Data in ISD | |
+--------+-------------------------------+-----------+
| TBA2 | In-Stack Network Action for | This |
| | Performance Measurement with | document |
| | Alternate Marking Data in PSD | |
+--------+-------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: In-Stack Network Action Opcodes Registry
+========+===========================================+===========+
| Opcode | Description | Reference |
+========+===========================================+===========+
| TBA3 | Post-Stack Network Action for Performance | This |
| | Measurement with Alternate Marking Method | document |
+--------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: Post-Stack Network Action Opcodes Registry
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Loa Andersson for his careful
review and helpful comments.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
Cheng, et al. Expires 15 March 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM September 2025
[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, 5 September 2025,
<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, 30 May 2025,
<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, March 1997,
<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, January 2001,
<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,
May 2017, <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, December 2022,
<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, February 2025,
<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, July 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9789>.
Cheng, et al. Expires 15 March 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MNA for PM with AMM September 2025
[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, July 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9791>.
Authors' Addresses
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei
Italy
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Cheng, et al. Expires 15 March 2026 [Page 8]