Internet-Draft IPFIX IE for UDP Options May 2024
Boucadair & Reddy.K Expires 18 November 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
OPSAWG
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix-10
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
M. Boucadair
Orange
T. Reddy.K
Nokia

Export of UDP Options Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)

Abstract

This document specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Elements for UDP options.

Discussion Venues

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Discussion of this document takes place on the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group mailing list (opsawg@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/boucadair/udp-ipfix.

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 18 November 2024.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC7011] is a protocol that is widely deployed in operators networks for traffic management purposes (Section 2 of [RFC6632]). The protocol specifies the encoding of a set of basic data types and how the various Information Elements (IEs) are transmitted. In order to support the export of new flow-related measurement data, new IEs can be defined and registered in a dedicated IANA registry [IANA-IPFIX] for interoperability.

This document specifies new IPFIX Information Elements for UDP options (Section 4). A brief overview of UDP options is provided in Section 3.

The IE specified in Section 4.1 uses the new abstract data type defined in Section 7.2.

Transport (including MTU) considerations are discussed in Section 10 of [RFC7011].

Examples to illustrate the use of the new IPFIX Information Elements are provided in Section 5.

2. Conventions and Definitions

This document uses the IPFIX-specific terminology (e.g., Flow) defined in Section 2 of [RFC7011]. As in [RFC7011], these IPFIX-specific terms have the first letter of a word capitalized.

The document adheres to the naming conventions for Information Elements per Section 2.3 of [RFC7012].

Also, this document uses the terms defined in Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options], especially "datagram" and "surplus area".

3. UDP Options at a Glance

UDP [RFC0768] does not support an extension mechanism similar to the options supported by other transport protocols, such as TCP [RFC9293], SCTP [RFC9260], or DCCP [RFC4340]. Such a mechanism can be useful for various applications, e.g., to discover a path MTU or share timestamps. To fill that void, [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] extends UDP with a mechanism to insert extensions in datagrams. To do so, and unlike the conventional approach that relies upon transport headers, [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] uses trailers. Concretely, UDP options are placed in the surplus area (that is, the area of an IP payload that follows a UDP packet). See Figure 1. An example of the use of UDP options is described in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud].

                       IP transport payload
          <------------------------------------------------->
+--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+
| IP Hdr | UDP Hdr |     UDP user data    |   surplus area   |
+--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+
          <------------------------------>
                     UDP Length
Figure 1: Surplus Area

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 introduce new IEs to export the observed UDP options.

Options indicated by Kind values in the range 0-191 are called SAFE options. Such options can be silently ignored by legacy receivers because they do not alter the UDP user data (Section 11 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]). Safe options are exported using the IE defined in Section 4.1.

Options indicated by Kind values in the range 192-255 are called UNSAFE options. Such options are not safe for legacy receivers to ignore because they alter the UDP user data (Section 12 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]). Unsafe options are exported using the IE defined in Section 4.2.

UDP options occur per-packet within a Flow and can be inserted at any time in the Flow.

[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] reserves two options for experiments: the Experimental option (EXP, Kind=127) for SAFE options and the UNSAFE Experimental option (UEXP, Kind=254). For both options, Experiment Identifiers (ExIDs) are used to differentiate concurrent use of these options. Known ExIDs are expected to be registered within IANA. Section 4.4 specifies a new IPFIX IE to export observed ExIDs in the EXP options. Also, Section 4.5 specifies a new IPFIX IE to export observed ExIDs in the UEXP options. Only 16-bit ExIDs are supported in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options].

This document does not intend to elaborate operational guidance/implications of UDP options. The document focuses exclusively on exporting observed UDP options in datagrams.

4. New UDP IPFIX Information Elements

Given the Kind structure of safe and unsafe UDP options, using one single IE that would multiplex both types of option will limit the benefits of reduced-size encoding in the presence of unsafe options. In order to use less bits to report observed UDP options, distinct IEs are thus defined to report safe (Section 4.1) and unsafe (Section 4.2) UDP options.

4.1. udpSafeOptions

Name:

udpSafeOptions

ElementID:

TBD1

Description:

Observed safe UDP options in a Flow. The information is encoded in a set of bit fields.

Options are mapped to bits according to their option numbers. UDP option Kind 0 corresponds to the least-significant bit in the udpSafeOptions IE while Kind 191 corresponds to the most-significant bit of the IE. The bit is set to 1 if the corresponding safe UDP option is observed in the Flow. The bit is set to 0 if the option is not observed in the Flow.

The reduced-size encoding per Section 6.2 of [RFC7011] is followed whenever fewer octets are needed to report observed safe UDP options. For example, if only option Kinds <= 32 are observed, then the value of the udpSafeOptions IE can be encoded as unsigned32, or if only option Kinds <= 63 are observed, then the value of the udpSafeOptions IE can be encoded as unsigned64.

The presence of udpSafeExIDList is an indication that the SAFE Experimental option is observed in a Flow. The presence of udpSafeExIDList takes precedence over setting the corresponding bit in the udpSafeOptions IE for the same Flow. In order to optimize the use of the reduced-size encoding in the presence of udpSafeExIDList IE, the Exporter MUST NOT set to 1 the EXP flag of the udpSafeOptions IE that is reported for the same Flow.

Abstract Data Type:

unsigned192

Data Type Semantics:

flags

Additional Information:

See the "UDP Option Kind Numbers" registry at [URL_IANA_UDP_OPTIONS].

See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] for more details about UDP options.

Reference:

This-Document

4.2. udpUnsafeOptions

Name:

udpUnsafeOptions

ElementID:

TBD2

Description:

Observed unsafe UDP options in a Flow. The information is encoded in a set of bit fields.

Options are mapped to bits according to their option numbers. UDP option Kind 192 corresponds to the least-significant bit in the udpUnsafeOptions IE while Kind 255 corresponds to the most-significant bit of the IE. The bit is set to 1 if the corresponding unsafe UDP option is observed in the Flow. The bit is set to 0 if the option is not observed in the Flow.

The reduced-size encoding per Section 6.2 of [RFC7011] is followed whenever fewer octets are needed to report observed unsafe UDP options.

The presence of udpUnsafeExIDList is an indication that the UNSAFE Experimental option is observed in a Flow. The presence of udpUnsafeExIDList takes precedence over setting the corresponding bit in the udpUnsafeOptions IE for the same Flow. In order to optimize the use of the reduced-size encoding in the presence of udpUnsafeExIDList IE, the Exporter MUST NOT set to 1 the UEXP flag of the udpUnsafeOptions IE that is reported for the same Flow.

Abstract Data Type:

unsigned64

Data Type Semantics:

flags

Additional Information:

See the "UDP Option Kind Numbers" registry at [URL_IANA_UDP_OPTIONS].

See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] for more details about UDP options.

Reference:

This-Document

4.3. udpExID

Name:

udpExID

ElementID:

TBD3

Description:

Observed ExID in an Experimental option (EXP, Kind=127) or an UNSAFE Experimental option (UEXP, Kind=254).

Abstract Data Type:

unsigned16

Data Type Semantics:

identifier

Additional Information:

See the "UDP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs)" registry at [URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs].

See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] for more details about ExIDs.

Reference:

This-Document

4.4. udpSafeExIDList

Name:

udpSafeExIDList

ElementID:

TBD4

Description:

Observed ExIDs in the Experimental option (EXP, Kind=127).

A basicList of udpExID Information Elements in which each udpExID Information Element carries the ExID observed in an EXP option.

Abstract Data Type:

basicList

Data Type Semantics:

list

Additional Information:

See the "UDP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs)" registry at [URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs].

See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] for more details about ExIDs.

Reference:

This-Document

4.5. udpUnsafeExIDList

Name:

udpUnsafeExIDList

ElementID:

TBD5

Description:

Observed ExIDs in the UNSAFE Experimental option (UEXP, Kind=254).

A basicList of udpExID Information Elements in which each udpExID Information Element carries the ExID observed in an UEXP option.

Abstract Data Type:

basicList

Data Type Semantics:

list

Additional Information:

See the "UDP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs)" registry at [URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs].

See [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] for more details about ExIDs.

Reference:

This-Document

5. Examples

5.1. Reduced-size Encoding

Given the UDP Kind allocation in Section 10 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] and the option mapping defined in Section 4.1 of this document, fewer octets are likely to be used for Flows with mandatory UDP options.

Figure 2 shows an example of the Kind/bit mappings in the udpSafeOptions IE for a Flow in which End of Options List (EOL, Kind=0) and Alternate payload checksum (APC, Kind=2) options are observed. Only the bits that corresponds to EOL and APC options are set to 1.

MSB                                                       LSB
                     1                                  19
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|   |0|0|0|0|0|1|0|1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-++-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: An Example of udpSafeOptions IE with EOL and APC Options

One octet is sufficient to report these observed options because the leading zeros are dropped per the reduced-size encoding guidance. Concretely, the reported udpSafeOptions IE will be set to 0x05 (Figure 3).

MSB           LSB
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: An Example of the Wire udpSafeOptions IE Value with EOL and APC Options

5.2. SAFE Experimental Option

Let us now consider a UDP Flow in which SAFE Experimental options are observed. If a udpSafeOptions IE is exported for this Flow, then that IE will have the EXP bit set to 1 (Figure 4). This example does not make any assumption about the presence of other UDP options ("X" can be set to 0 or 1).

MSB                                                     LSB
                  12                                  19
 0 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|X|X|X|   |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|1|X|X|   |X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-++-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: An Example of udpSafeOptions with EXP Option

5.3. ExIDs and Reduced-size Encoding

Now assume that EOL, APC, EXP, and UEXP options are observed in a Flow. Let us also consider that the observed SAFE Experimental options have ExIDs set to 0x9858 and 0xE2D4, and UNSAFE Experimental options have ExIDs set to 0xC3D9 and 0x1234. Figure 5 shows an excerpt of the Data Set encoding with a focus on SAFE Experimental options have ExIDs. The meaning of the fields is defined in [RFC6313].

 MSB                                                          LSB
 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
:                           ...                                 :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      255      |        List Length = 9        |semantic=allof |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           udpExID = TBD3      |         Field Length = 2      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SAFE ExID =  0x9858           | SAFE ExID = 0xE2D4            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      255      |        List Length = 9        |semantic=allof |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           udpExID = TBD3      |         Field Length = 2      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UNSAFE ExID =  0xC3D9         | UNSAFE ExID =  0x1234         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
:                           ...                                 :
Figure 5: Example of UDP Experimental Option ExID IEs

Following the guidance in Section 4.1, the reported udpSafeOptions IE will be set to 0x05 even in the presence of EXP options.

6. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce new security considerations other than those already discussed in Section 11 of [RFC7011] and Section 8 of [RFC7012].

The reader may refer to Section 24 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] for the security considerations related to UDP options.

7. IANA Considerations

7.1. IPFIX Information Elements

This document requests IANA to add the following new IEs to the "IPFIX Information Elements" registry under the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" registry group [IANA-IPFIX]:

Table 1: New IPFIX Information Elements
Value Name Reference
TBD1 udpSafeOptions Section 4.1 of This-Document
TBD2 udpUnsafeOptions Section 4.2 of This-Document
TBD3 udpExID Section 4.3 of This-Document
TBD4 udpSafeExIDList Section 4.4 of This-Document
TBD5 udpUnsafeExIDList Section 4.5 of This-Document

  • udpSafeOptions uses the abstract data type ("unsigned192") defined in Section 7.2.

7.2. IPFIX Information Element Data Type

This document requests IANA to add the following new abstract data type to the "IPFIX Information Element Data Types" registry under the "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" registry group [IANA-IPFIX]:

Table 2: New IPFIX Information Element Data Type
Value Description Reference
TBD6 unsigned192 This-Document

7.2.1. unsigned192 Data Type

The type "unsigned192" represents a non-negative integer value in the range of '0' to '2^192 - 1'. Similar to Section 6.1.1 of [RFC7011], this type MUST be encoded using the default canonical format in network byte order.

Reduced-Size encoding (Section 6.2 of [RFC7011]) applies to this data type. The reduction in size can be to any number of octets smaller than the unsigned192 type if the data value still fits, i.e., so that only leading zeroes are dropped.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
Touch, J. D., "Transport Options for UDP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-32, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-32>.
[RFC0768]
Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc768>.
[RFC6313]
Claise, B., Dhandapani, G., Aitken, P., and S. Yates, "Export of Structured Data in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 6313, DOI 10.17487/RFC6313, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6313>.
[RFC7011]
Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011>.
[RFC7012]
Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7012>.

8.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud]
Fairhurst, G. and T. Jones, "Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP Options", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-12, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-12>.
[IANA-IPFIX]
"IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml>.
[RFC4340]
Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4340>.
[RFC6632]
Ersue, M., Ed. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards", RFC 6632, DOI 10.17487/RFC6632, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6632>.
[RFC9260]
Stewart, R., Tüxen, M., and K. Nielsen, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, DOI 10.17487/RFC9260, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9260>.
[RFC9293]
Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293>.
[URL_IANA_UDP_ExIDs]
"UDP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs)", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/url2>.
[URL_IANA_UDP_OPTIONS]
"UDP Option Kind Numbers", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/url1>.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Benoît Claise for the discussion on the ordering of IPFIX IEs. Thanks to Paul Aitken for the review and comments.

Thanks to Tommy Pauly for the tsvart review, Joe Touch for the intdir review, Robert Sparks for the genart review, and Watson Ladd for the secdir review.

Thanks to Thomas Graf for the Shepherd review.

Thanks to Mahesh Jethanandani for the AD review.

Authors' Addresses

Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
35000 Rennes
France
Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
Nokia
India