Internet-Draft CM March 2024
Shi, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
IP Performance Measurement
Internet-Draft:
draft-shi-ippm-congestion-measurement-ipv6-options-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
H. Shi, Ed.
Huawei
T. Zhou
Huawei
Y. Liu
China Unicom
M. Han
China Unicom

IPv6 Options for Congestion Measurement

Abstract

The Congestion Measurement enables precise congestion control, aids in effective load balancing, and simplifies network debugging by accurately reflecting the degree of congestion across network paths. This document outlines how Congestion Measurement Data-Fields are encapsulated in IPv6.

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 5 September 2024.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

[I-D.draft-shi-ippm-congestion-measurement-data] defines data fields of Congestion Measurement which enables sender to obtain the degree of congestion across the path. This document defines the IPv6 encapsulation of the Congestion Measurement Data-Fields.

1.1. Requirements Language

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. Congestion Measurement Option

One IPv6 header option, Congestion Measurement Option is defined to carry the Congestion Measurement Data-Fields.

 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
                                +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                |Opt Type = TBD1|  Opt Data Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
.                                                               .
.        Congestion Measurement Data-Fields (Variable)          .
.                                                               .
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Congestion Measurement Option

where:

2.1. Congestion Measurement Hop-by-hop Options Header (HBH)

The Congestion Measurement option can be carried in the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header. In this case, each node along the path can inspect the Congestion Info Data field if they are configured the support this option. If the U bit of Congestion Measurement Data-Fields is set, intermediate nodes will modify the Congestion Info Data field accordingly.In theory, the presence of the Hop-by-Hop Option should not affect the traffic throughput both on nodes that do not recognize this Option and on the nodes that support it. However, in a real implementation, a packet with a Hop-by-hop Option may be skipped or processed in the slow path. Proposals to mitigate the problem are out of the scope for this document.

2.2. Congestion Measurement Destination Options Header (DOH)

The Congestion Measurement option can be carried in the IPv6 Destination Options Header. In this case, it is usually processed by the destination node. Note that, if there is also a Routing Header (RH), any visited destination in the route list can process it. If the U bit of Congestion Measurement Data-Fields is set, intermediate nodes will modify the Congestion Info Data field accordingly.

3. Security Considerations

TBD.

4. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to assign an IPv6 Header Option as follows:

Table 1
Value Description Reference
TBD1 Congestion Measurement Option Section 2

5. References

5.1. Normative References

[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/rfc/rfc2119>.
[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/rfc/rfc8174>.

5.2. Informative References

[I-D.draft-shi-ippm-congestion-measurement-data]
Shi, H., Zhou, T., and Z. Li, "Data Fields for Congestion Measurement", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-shi-ippm-congestion-measurement-data-00, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-shi-ippm-congestion-measurement-data-00>.

Authors' Addresses

Hang Shi (editor)
Huawei
Beijing
China
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
Beijing
China
Ying Liu
China Unicom
Beijing
China
Mengyao Han
China Unicom
Beijing
China