<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-05" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="draft-liu-idr-flowspec-ifit-04">BGP Flow Specification
    Extensions to Enable In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT)</title>

    <author fullname="Min Liu" initials="M." surname="Liu">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code/>

          <region/>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>lucy_liumin@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Yali Wang" initials="Y." surname="Wang">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>wangyali11@huawei.com</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ran Pang" initials="R." surname="Pang">
      <organization>China Unicom</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>9 Shouti South Rd., Haidian District</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <region/>

          <code/>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>pangran@chinaunicom.cn</email>

        <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Shunwan Zhuang" initials="S." surname="Zhuang">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>

      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District</street>

          <city>Beijing</city>

          <code/>

          <region/>

          <country>China</country>
        </postal>

        <phone/>

        <facsimile/>

        <email>zhuangshunwan@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="8" month="October" year="2026"/>

    <workgroup>Interdomain Routing Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>BGP Flowspec mechanism propogates both traffic Flow Specifications
      and Traffic Filtering Actions by making use of the Border Gateway
      Protocol Network Layer Reachability Information (BGP NLRI) and the BGP
      Extended Community encoding formats. In order to address the automatic
      deployment of IPv4 unicast and VPNv4 unicast on-path flow telemetry as
      well as IPv6 families, this document specifies a new BGP Extended
      Community named IFIT Action Specific Extended Community to distribute
      In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) actions.</t>
    </abstract>

    <note title="Requirements Language">
      <t>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
      <xref target="RFC2119"/><xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when,
      they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>

      <t/>
    </note>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="Introduction" title="Introduction">
      <t>At present, a family of on-path flow telemetry techniques referred in
      <xref target="I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework"/> are emerging, including
      In-situ OAM (IOAM) <xref target="RFC9197"/>, Postcard-Based Telemetry
      (PBT) <xref target="I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry"/>, IOAM
      Direct Export (DEX) <xref target="RFC9326"/>, Enhanced Alternate Marking
      (EAM) <xref target="I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking"/>. we
      categorize these on-path telemetry echniques as the hybrid OAM type I
      according to the classification defined in <xref target="RFC7799"/>.
      These techniques provide flow information on the entire forwarding path
      on a per-packet basis in real time, which are useful for
      application-aware network operations not only in data center and
      enterprise networks but also in carrier networks which may cross
      multiple domains. The data provided by on-path telemetry are especially
      useful for network operations in aspects of SLA compliance, service path
      enforcement, fault diagnosis, and network resource optimization, etc. In
      IFIT reflection-loop architecture <xref
      target="I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework"/>, an IFIT functionality needs
      to choose a suite of telemetry tecchniques and enable initial techniques
      to the data plane in accordance to the monitoring and measurement
      requirements. Then the IFIT head nodes need to determine the target
      flows and packets to apply the IFIT-specific functions and the telemetry
      data sets.</t>

      <t>However, enabling only a single underlying on-path telemetry
      technique may lead to defective result. A comprehensive solution needs
      the flexibility to switch between different underlying techniques and
      enable different IFIT option types to adapt to different network
      conditions and different application requirements. It's useful for
      application-aware network operations to enable desired IFIT option types
      to the target flows dynamically.</t>

      <t>As we know, Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules <xref
      target="RFC8955"> </xref> provides a protocol extension for propagation
      of traffic flow information for the purpose of rate limiting, filtering,
      shaping, classifying or redirecting. And BGP extended community encoding
      formats can be used to propagate traffic filtering actions along with
      the flow specification NLRI. Those traffic filtering actions encode
      actions a routing system can take if the packet matches the flow
      specifications. And the other document <xref target="RFC8956"> </xref>
      extends BGP Flowspec <xref target="RFC8955"> </xref> and to make it also
      usable and applicable to IPv6 data packets.</t>

      <t>From an operational perspective, the utilization of BGP Flowspec as
      the carrier for the specific flow information allows a network service
      provider to reuse BGP route distribute infrastructure. Therefore, this
      document defines the IFIT Action Specific Extended Community to enable
      the application of IPv4 unicast and VPNv4 unicast on-path flow telemetry
      as well as IPv6 families.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Terms" title="Terminologies" toc="default">
      <t>IFIT: In-situ Flow Information Telemetry</t>

      <t>NLRI: Network Layer Reachability Information</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Motiv" title="Motivation" toc="default">
      <t>The IFIT functionality, which enables the future autonomous network
      operation, will pick one of proper In-situ Flow Information Telemetry
      techniques and apply a flow, packet, and data selection policy to
      monitor the specific traffic flow for application-aware network
      operation. In current deployments, there have been relatively static
      methods, ACL-like CLI and NETCONF with YANG model to configure the
      specific flows or packets to be monitored on the relevant IFIT-capable
      nodes. However, with the evolution of Intent-based and autonomous
      network operation, and the trends of network virtualization, network
      convergence, and packet-optical integration, the future data plane
      telemetry will support an on-demand and interactive fashion. Flexibility
      and extensibility of telemetry data defining and acquiring must be
      considered. Therefore, flexible deployment of IFIT option types based on
      the real-time telemetry data analysis results and telemetry requirements
      of different applications is needed.</t>

      <t>BGP Flowspec mechanism is preferred in the reflective-loop network
      telemetry system. This document defines IFIT Action Specific Extended
      Community to enable IFIT functionality for the relevant flows that match
      the Traffic Flow Specifications along with the BGP NLRI defined in <xref
      target="RFC8955"/> and <xref target="RFC8956"> </xref>. The IFIT Action
      Specific Extended Community instructs a routing system to add the
      IFIT-Option-Types into packets of flows and update relevant
      IFIT-Data-Fields in packets that traverse.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="iFITAction"
             title="IFIT Action Specific Extended Community">
      <t>This section defines a new BGP Extended Community and different
      sub-types in accordance with different IFIT option types.</t>

      <t>Traffic Filtering Actions that are standardized as BGP Extended
      Community, which is encoded as an 8-octet quantity containing Type field
      and Value field <xref target="RFC4360"/>. The Types are to be assigned
      by IANA registry. The Value field contains Traffic Filtering Action
      values.</t>

      <t>In the IFIT framework architecture, there are a few of available
      option types for the specified traffic flow, e.g. IOAM
      pre-allocated/incremental trace <xref target="RFC9197"/>, IOM
      Edge-to-Edge <xref target="RFC9197"/>, IOAM Direct Export (DEX) <xref
      target="RFC9326"/>, Enhanced Alternate Marking (EAM) <xref
      target="I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking"/>, etc. As different
      IFIT option types have different formats of parameters, following
      defines the Type and various sub-types of Extended Communities in
      accordance with different IFIT option types.</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>Type tt: IFIT Action</t>

          <t>Sub-type ss1: IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option</t>

          <t>Sub-type ss2: IOAM Incremental Trace Option</t>

          <t>Sub-type ss3: IOAM DEX Option</t>

          <t>Sub-type ss4: IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option</t>

          <t>Sub-type ss5: Enhanced Alternate Marking Option</t>
        </list></t>

      <t>IFIT Action do not interfere with other BGP Flow Specification
      Traffic Filtering Action defined in <xref target="RFC8955"/> and <xref
      target="RFC8956"> </xref>.</t>

      <t>In the following sections, the different IFIT Action Specific Extened
      Communities encoding formats are presented.</t>

      <section title="IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option sub-type">
        <t>The IOAM tracing data is expected to be collected at every node
        that a packet traverses to ensure visibility into the entire path a
        packet takes within an IOAM domain. The pre-allocated tracing option
        will create pre-allocated space for each node to populate its
        information.</t>

        <t>The format of IOAM pre-allocated trace option Extended Community is
        defined as follows: <figure
            title="Fig. 1 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Extended Community Encoding">
            <artwork align="center"
                     name="Fig. 1 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Extended Community Encoding"><![CDATA[
     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
    +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
    |      Type     |    Sub-type   |      NamespaceID              |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Flags |          IOAM-Trace-Type                      |  Rsvd |  
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>Where:</t>

        <t>Type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The
        definition is the same as described in section 4.4 of <xref
        target="RFC9197"/> .</t>

        <t>Flags: A 4-bit field. The definition is the same as described in
        [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags] and section 4.4 of <xref
        target="RFC9197"/>.</t>

        <t>IOAM-Trace-Type: A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data
        types are used in the node data list. The definition is the same as
        described in section 4.4 of <xref target="RFC9197"/>.</t>

        <t>Rsvd: A 4-bit field reserved for further usage. It should be set to
        zero and must be ignored during decoding.</t>

        <t/>
      </section>

      <section title="IOAM Incremental Trace Option sub-type">
        <t>The incremental tracing option contains a variable node data fields
        where each node allocates and pushes its node data immediately
        following the option header.</t>

        <t>The format of IOAM incremental trace option Extended Community is
        defined as follows:</t>

        <t><figure
            title="Fig. 2 IOAM Incremental Trace Option Extended Community Encoding">
            <artwork align="center"
                     name="Fig. 2 IOAM Incremental Trace Option Extended Community Encoding"><![CDATA[
     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
    +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
    |      Type     |    Sub-type   |      NamespaceID              |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Flags |          IOAM-Trace-Type                      |  Rsvd |  
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>Where:</t>

        <t>Type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>All the other fields definistion is the same as the pre-allocated
        trace option Extended Community in section 3.2.1.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="IOAM DEX Option sub-type">
        <t>The DEX option is used as a trigger to export IOAM data to a
        collector. Moreover, IOAM nodes may send exported data for all
        traversing packets that carry the DEX option, or may selectively
        export data only for a subset of these packets. The DEX option
        specifies which data fields should be exported to the collector, as
        specified in Section 3.2 of <xref target="RFC9326"/>.</t>

        <t>The format of IOAM DEX option Extended Community is defined as
        follows:</t>

        <t><figure title="Fig. 3 IOAM DEX Option Extended Community Encoding">
            <artwork align="center"
                     name="Fig. 3 IOAM DEX Option Extended Community Encoding"><![CDATA[   
	
	 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
    +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
    |      Type     |    Sub-type   |      NamespaceID              |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    |             IOAM-Trace-Type                   |     Flags     |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>Where:</t>

        <t>Type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>Namespace-ID: a 16-bit identifier of the IOAM namespace, as defined
        in section 4.4 of <xref target="RFC9197"/>.</t>

        <t>IOAM-Trace-Type: a 24-bit identifier which specifies which data
        fields should be exported. The format of this field is as defined in
        section 4.4 of <xref target="RFC9197"/>.</t>

        <t>Flags: A 8-bit field, comprised of 8 one-bit subfields. Flags are
        allocated by IANA.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option sub-type">
        <t>The IOAM edge to edge option is to carry data that is added by the
        IOAM encapsulating node and interpreted by IOAM decapsulating
        node.</t>

        <t>The format of IOAM edge-to-edge option Extended Community is
        defined as follows:</t>

        <t><figure
            title="Fig. 4 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Extended Community Encoding">
            <artwork align="center"
                     name="Fig. 4 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Extended Community Encoding"><![CDATA[
 
	 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
    +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
    |      Type     |    Sub-type   |              Rsvd             |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    |          NamespaceID          |      IOAM-E2E-Type            |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+

]]></artwork>
          </figure>Where:</t>

        <t>Type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The
        definition is the same as described in section 4.6 of <xref
        target="RFC9197"/>.</t>

        <t>IOAM-E2E-Type: A 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types
        are used in the E2E option data. The definition is the same as
        described in section 4.6 of <xref target="RFC9197"/>.</t>

        <t>Rsvd: A 16-bit field reserved for further usage. It should be set
        to zero.</t>

        <t/>
      </section>

      <section title="Enhanced Alternate Marking Option sub-type">
        <t>The Alternate Marking <xref target="RFC9341"/> technique is an
        hybrid performance measurement method and can be used to measure
        packet loss, latency, and jitter on live traffic because it is based
        on marking consecutive batches of packets.</t>

        <t>The Enhanced Alternate Marking (EAM) <xref
        target="I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking"/> defines data
        fields for the alternate marking with enough space, in particular for
        Postcard- based Telemetry. More information can be considered within
        the alternate marking field to facilitate the efficiency and ease the
        deployment.</t>

        <t>The format of EAM Option Extended Community is defined as
        follows:</t>

        <t><figure align="center"
            title="Fig. 5 Enhanced Alternate Marking Option Extended Community Encoding">
            <artwork align="center"
                     name="Fig. 5 Enhanced Alternate Marking Option Extended Community Encoding"><![CDATA[ 
	 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
	+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
	|      Type     |    Sub-type   |          Rsvd                 |
	+---------------+---------------+-------+---------------+-------+
	|              FlowMonID                |     Period    |  Rsvd |
	+---------------------------------------+---------------+-------+

]]></artwork>
          </figure> Where:</t>

        <t>Type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>Sub-type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>

        <t>FlowMonID: A 20-bit identifier to uniquely identify a monitored
        flow within the measurement domain. The definition is the same as
        described in section 2 of <xref
        target="I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking"/>.</t>

        <t>Period: A 8-bit field. Time interval between two alternate marking
        period. The unit is second.</t>

        <t>Rsvd: A 4-bit field reserved for further usage. It should be set to
        zero.</t>

        <t/>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document requests a new Transitive Extended Community Type and
      five new registery sub-types. The new Transitive Extended Community Type
      name shall be "IFIT Action Extended Community (Sub-Types are defined in
      the "IFIT Action Extended Community Sub-Type" registery)".</t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[

Type Value                    Name  
---------                     ----------
TBD                           IFIT Action
]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t><figure>
          <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[

Sub-type Value                 Name                               
--------------                 ----------
TBD                            IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option     
TBD                            IOAM Incremental Trace Option       
TBD                            IOAM DEX Option                     
TBD                            IOAM E2E Option            
TBD                            Enhanced Alternate Marking          


]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>No new security issues are introduced to the BGP Flow Specifications
      and Traffic Filtering Action in <xref target="RFC8956"> </xref> and
      <xref target="RFC8955"> </xref>.</t>

      <t/>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>TBD.</t>

      <t/>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>

      <reference anchor="RFC4360"
                 target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360">
        <front>
          <title>BGP Extended Communities Attribute</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>

      <reference anchor="RFC9341"
                 target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341">
        <front>
          <title>Alternate-Marking Method</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <reference anchor="RFC7799"
                 target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799">
        <front>
          <title>Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types
          In-Between)</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8955"
                 target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8955">
        <front>
          <title>Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC8956"
                 target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8956">
        <front>
          <title>Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework"
                 target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework/">
        <front>
          <title>In-situ Flow Information Telemetry Framework</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC9197"
                 target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197">
        <front>
          <title>Data Fields for In-situ OAM</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC9326"
                 target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326">
        <front>
          <title>In-situ OAM Direct Exporting</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking"
                 target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking/">
        <front>
          <title>Enhanced Alternate Marking Method</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry"
                 target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry/">
        <front>
          <title>Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry</title>

          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>

          <date/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
