draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-05.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt 
Network Working Group G. Mirsky Network Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track G. Jun Intended status: Standards Track G. Jun
Expires: June 1, 2019 ZTE Corporation Expires: October 25, 2019 ZTE Corporation
H. Nydell H. Nydell
Accedian Networks Accedian Networks
R. Foote R. Foote
Nokia Nokia
November 28, 2018 April 23, 2019
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-05 draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip
performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Softwarization of Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Softwarization of Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode 4 4.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode 4
4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode . 7 4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode . 6
4.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . 7 4.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated 4.2.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated
Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode 10 4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode 9
4.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP . . . . 12 4.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP . . . . 11
4.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Development and deployment of Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Development and deployment of Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions, e.g., [RFC6038] that defined (TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions, e.g., [RFC6038] that defined
features such as Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size for TWAMP features such as Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size for TWAMP
provided invaluable experience. Several independent implementations provided invaluable experience. Several independent implementations
exist, have been deployed and provide important operational exist, have been deployed and provide important operational
performance measurements. At the same time, there has been performance measurements. At the same time, there has been
noticeable interest in using a simpler mechanism for active noticeable interest in using a simpler mechanism for active
performance monitoring that can provide deterministic behavior and performance monitoring that can provide deterministic behavior and
inherit separation of control (vendor-specific configuration or inherit separation of control (vendor-specific configuration or
orchestration) and test functions. One of such is Performance orchestration) and test functions. One of such is Performance
Measurement from IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light from Measurement from IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light from
Broadband Forum ([BBF.TR-390]). This document defines active Broadband Forum [BBF.TR-390] used as the reference TWAMP Light that,
performance measurement test protocol, Simple Two-way Active according to [RFC8545], includes sub-set of TWAMP-Test functions in
Measurement Protocol (STAMP), that enables measurement of both one- combination with other applications that provide, for example,
way and round-trip performance metrics like delay, delay variation, control and security. This document defines active performance
and packet loss. measurement test protocol, Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
(STAMP), that enables measurement of both one-way and round-trip
performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Terminology
AES Advanced Encryption Standard AES Advanced Encryption Standard
CBC Cipher Block Chaining CBC Cipher Block Chaining
ECB Electronic Cookbook ECB Electronic Cookbook
skipping to change at page 3, line 39 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
2.2. Requirements Language 2.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Softwarization of Performance Measurement 3. Softwarization of Performance Measurement
Figure 1 presents Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Figure 1 presents the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
Session-Sender and Session-Reflector with a measurement session. The (STAMP) Session-Sender and Session-Reflector with a measurement
configuration and management of the STAMP Session-Sender, Session- session. The configuration and management of the STAMP Session-
Reflector and management of the STAMP sessions can be achieved Sender, Session-Reflector and management of the STAMP sessions can be
through various means. Command Line Interface, OSS/BSS using SNMP or achieved through various means. Command Line Interface, OSS/BSS
SDN using Netconf/YANG are but a few examples. (operations support system/business support system as a combination
of two systems used to support a range of telecommunication services)
using SNMP or controllers in Software-Defined Networking using
Netconf/YANG are but a few examples.
o----------------------------------------------------------o o----------------------------------------------------------o
| Configuration and | | Configuration and |
| Management | | Management |
o----------------------------------------------------------o o----------------------------------------------------------o
|| || || ||
|| || || ||
|| || || ||
+----------------------+ +-------------------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------------------+
| STAMP Session-Sender | <--- STAMP---> | STAMP Session-Reflector | | STAMP Session-Sender | <--- STAMP---> | STAMP Session-Reflector |
skipping to change at page 4, line 28 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
4. Theory of Operation 4. Theory of Operation
STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets toward STAMP Session- STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets toward STAMP Session-
Reflector. STAMP Session-Reflector receives Session-Sender's packet Reflector. STAMP Session-Reflector receives Session-Sender's packet
and acts according to the configuration and optional control and acts according to the configuration and optional control
information communicated in the Session-Sender's test packet. STAMP information communicated in the Session-Sender's test packet. STAMP
defines two different test packet formats, one for packets defines two different test packet formats, one for packets
transmitted by the STAMP-Session-Sender and one for packets transmitted by the STAMP-Session-Sender and one for packets
transmitted by the STAMP-Session-Reflector. STAMP supports two transmitted by the STAMP-Session-Reflector. STAMP supports two
modes: unauthenticated and authenticated. Unauthenticated STAMP test modes: unauthenticated and authenticated. Unauthenticated STAMP test
packets are compatible on the wire with unauthenticated TWAMP-Test packets, defined in Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.2.1, ensure
[RFC5357] packet formats. interworking between STAMP and TWAMP Light as described in
Section 4.4 packet formats.
By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets, i.e., size of the packet By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets, i.e., size of the packet
transmitted by Session-Reflector equals the size of the packet transmitted by Session-Reflector equals the size of the packet
received by the Session-Reflector. received by the Session-Reflector.
4.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format 4.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format
4.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
Because STAMP supports symmetrical test packets, STAMP Session-Sender Because STAMP supports symmetrical test packets, STAMP Session-Sender
packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in unauthenticated mode, see packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in unauthenticated mode, see
Figure 2, and 48 octets in the authenticated mode, see Figure 4. Figure 2, and 112 octets in the authenticated mode, see Figure 4.
For unauthenticated mode: 4.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
STAMP Session-Sender packet format in unauthenticated mode:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number | | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp | | Timestamp |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error Estimate | | | Error Estimate | |
skipping to change at page 5, line 27 skipping to change at page 5, line 27
| MBZ (27 octets) | | MBZ (27 octets) |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Server Octets | | | | Server Octets | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Remaining Packet Padding (to be reflected) | | Remaining Packet Padding (to be reflected) |
~ (length in octets specified in Server Octets) ~ ~ (length in octets specified in Server Octets) ~
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Comp.MBZ | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in unauthenticated Figure 2: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in unauthenticated
mode mode
where fields are defined as the following: where fields are defined as the following:
o Sequence Number is four octets long field. For each new session o Sequence Number is four octets long field. For each new session
its value starts at zero and is incremented with each transmitted its value starts at zero and is incremented with each transmitted
packet. packet.
o Timestamp is eight octets long field. STAMP node MUST support o Timestamp is eight octets long field. STAMP node MUST support
Network Time Protocol (NTP) version 4 64-bit timestamp format Network Time Protocol (NTP) version 4 64-bit timestamp format
[RFC5905]. STAMP node MAY support IEEE 1588v2 Precision Time [RFC5905], the format used in [RFC5357]. STAMP node MAY support
Protocol truncated 64-bit timestamp format [IEEE.1588.2008]. IEEE 1588v2 Precision Time Protocol truncated 64-bit timestamp
format [IEEE.1588.2008], the format used in [RFC8186].
o Error Estimate is two octets long field with format displayed in o Error Estimate is two octets long field with format displayed in
Figure 3 Figure 3
0 1 0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|Z| Scale | Multiplier | |S|Z| Scale | Multiplier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Error Estimate Format Figure 3: Error Estimate Format
skipping to change at page 6, line 29 skipping to change at page 6, line 29
The STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector MAY use, not use, The STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector MAY use, not use,
or set value of the Z field in accordance with the timestamp or set value of the Z field in accordance with the timestamp
format in use. This optional field is to enhance operations, but format in use. This optional field is to enhance operations, but
local configuration or defaults could be used in its place. local configuration or defaults could be used in its place.
o Must-be-Zero (MBZ) field in the session-sender unauthenticated o Must-be-Zero (MBZ) field in the session-sender unauthenticated
packet is 27 octets long. It MUST be all zeroed on the packet is 27 octets long. It MUST be all zeroed on the
transmission and ignored on receipt. transmission and ignored on receipt.
o Server Octets field is two octets long field. It MUST follow the o Server Octets field is optional two octets long field. This field
27 octets long MBZ field. The Reflect Octets capability defined is used for the Reflect Octets capability defined in [RFC6038].
in [RFC6038]. The value in the Server Octets field equals the If being used, the Server Octets field MUST follow the 27 octets
long MBZ field. The value in the Server Octets field equals the
number of octets the Session-Reflector is expected to copy back to number of octets the Session-Reflector is expected to copy back to
the Session-Sender starting with the Server Octets field. Thus the Session-Sender starting with the Server Octets field. Thus
the minimal non-zero value for the Server Octets field is two. the minimum non-zero value for the Server Octets field is two.
Therefore, the value of one is invalid. If none of Payload to be Therefore, the value of one is invalid. If none of Payload to be
copied, the value of the Server Octets field MUST be set to zero copied, the value of the Server Octets field MUST be set to zero
on transmit. on transmit.
o Remaining Packet Padding is an optional field of variable length. o Remaining Packet Padding is an optional field of variable length.
The number of octets in the Remaining Packet Padding field is the The number of octets in the Remaining Packet Padding field is the
value of the Server Octets field less the length of the Server value of the Server Octets field minus the length of the Server
Octets field. Octets field.
o Comp.MBZ is variable length field used to achieve alignment on a
word boundary. Thus the length of Comp.MBZ field may be only 0,
1, 2 or 3 octets. The value of the field MUST be zeroed on
transmission and ignored on receipt.
4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode 4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
For authenticated mode: STAMP Session-Sender packet format in authenticated mode:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number | | Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| MBZ (12 octets) | | MBZ (12 octets) |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp | | Timestamp |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error Estimate | | | Error Estimate | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
~ ~ ~ ~
| MBZ (70 octets) | | MBZ (70 octets) |
~ ~ ~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Comp.MBZ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| HMAC (16 octets) | | HMAC (16 octets) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in authenticated Figure 4: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in authenticated
mode mode
The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode,
listed in Section 4.1.1. Also, Comp.MBZ field is variable length listed in Section 4.1.1. Also, Comp.MBZ field is a variable length
field to align the packet on 16 octets boundary. Also, the packet field to align the packet on 16 octets boundary. Also, the packet
includes a key-hashed message authentication code (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) includes a key-hashed message authentication code (HMAC) ([RFC2104])
hash at the end of the PDU. hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is
described in Section 4.3.
4.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format 4.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format
The Session-Reflector receives the STAMP test packet, verifies it, The Session-Reflector receives the STAMP test packet, verifies it,
prepares and transmits the reflected test packet. prepares and transmits the reflected test packet.
Two modes of STAMP Session-Reflector characterize the expected Two modes of STAMP Session-Reflector characterize the expected
behavior and, consequently, performance metrics that can be measured: behavior and, consequently, performance metrics that can be measured:
o Stateless - STAMP Session-Reflector does not maintain test state o Stateless - STAMP Session-Reflector does not maintain test state
skipping to change at page 9, line 30 skipping to change at page 8, line 44
| Session-Sender Timestamp | | Session-Sender Timestamp |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Error Estimate | MBZ | | Session-Sender Error Estimate | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ses-Sender TTL | | |Ses-Sender TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| | | |
~ Packet Padding (reflected) ~ ~ Packet Padding (reflected) ~
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Comp.MBZ | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in Figure 5: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in
unauthenticated mode unauthenticated mode
where fields are defined as the following: where fields are defined as the following:
o Sequence Number is four octets long field. The value of the o Sequence Number is four octets long field. The value of the
Sequence Number field is set according to the mode of the STAMP Sequence Number field is set according to the mode of the STAMP
Session-Reflector: Session-Reflector:
skipping to change at page 10, line 17 skipping to change at page 9, line 28
Z flag of the Error Estimate field as described in Section 4.1. Z flag of the Error Estimate field as described in Section 4.1.
o Error Estimate has the same size and interpretation as described o Error Estimate has the same size and interpretation as described
in Section 4.1. in Section 4.1.
o Session-Sender Sequence Number, Session-Sender Timestamp, and o Session-Sender Sequence Number, Session-Sender Timestamp, and
Session-Sender Error Estimate are copies of the corresponding Session-Sender Error Estimate are copies of the corresponding
fields in the STAMP test packet sent by the Session-Sender. fields in the STAMP test packet sent by the Session-Sender.
o Session-Sender TTL is one octet long field, and its value is the o Session-Sender TTL is one octet long field, and its value is the
copy of the TTL field from the received STAMP test packet. copy of the TTL field in IPv4 (or Hop Limit in IPv6) from the
received STAMP test packet.
o Packet Padding (reflected) is an optional variable length field. o Packet Padding (reflected) is an optional variable length field.
The length of the Packet Padding (reflected) field MUST be equal The length of the Packet Padding (reflected) field MUST be equal
to the value of the Server Octets field (Figure 2). If the value to the value of the Server Octets field (Figure 2). If the value
is non-zero, the Session-Reflector MUST copy number of octets is non-zero, the Session-Reflector MUST copy number of octets
equal to the value of Server Octets field starting with the Server equal to the value of Server Octets field starting with the Server
Octets field. Octets field.
o Comp.MBZ is variable length field used to achieve alignment on a o Comp.MBZ is a variable length field used to achieve alignment on a
word boundary. Thus the length of Comp.MBZ field may be only 0, word boundary. Thus the length of Comp.MBZ field may be only 0,
1, 2 or 3 octets. The value of the field MUST be zeroed on 1, 2 or 3 octets. The value of the field MUST be zeroed on
transmission and ignored on receipt. transmission and ignored on receipt.
4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode 4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
For the authenticated mode: For the authenticated mode:
0 1 2 3 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 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
skipping to change at page 11, line 27 skipping to change at page 10, line 39
| Session-Sender Error Estimate | | | Session-Sender Error Estimate | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| MBZ (6 octets) | | MBZ (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ses-Sender TTL | | |Ses-Sender TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| | | |
| MBZ (15 octets) | | MBZ (15 octets) |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Comp.MBZ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HMAC (16 octets) | | HMAC (16 octets) |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated Figure 6: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated
mode mode
The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode,
listed in Section 4.2.1. Additionally, the packet MAY include listed in Section 4.2.1. Additionally, the packet MAY include
Comp.MBZ field is variable length field to align the packet on 16 Comp.MBZ field is a variable length field to align the packet on 16
octets boundary. Also, STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in octets boundary. Also, STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in
authenticated mode includes a key (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) hash at the end authenticated mode includes a key (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) hash at the end
of the PDU. of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is in Section 4.3.
4.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP 4.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP
To provide integrity protection, each STAMP message is being To provide integrity protection, each STAMP message is being
authenticated by adding Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC). authenticated by adding Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC).
STAMP uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use STAMP uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use
of it in IPSec defined in [RFC4868]); hence the length of the HMAC of it in IPSec defined in [RFC4868]); hence the length of the HMAC
field is 16 octets. HMAC uses own key and the definition of the field is 16 octets. HMAC uses own key and the definition of the
mechanism to distribute the HMAC key is outside the scope of this mechanism to distribute the HMAC key is outside the scope of this
specification. One example is to use an orchestrator to configure specification. One example is to use an orchestrator to configure
HMAC key based on STAMP YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]. HMAC key based on STAMP YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang].
HMAC MUST be verified as early as possible to avoid using or HMAC MUST be verified as early as possible to avoid using or
propagating corrupted data. propagating corrupted data.
If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, encryption at If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, encryption at
the higher level MUST be used. the higher level MUST be used. For example, STAMP packets could be
transmitted in the dedicated IPsec tunnel or share the IPsec tunnel
with the monitored flow.
4.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light 4.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light
One of the essential requirements to STAMP is the ability to One of the essential requirements to STAMP is the ability to
interwork with TWAMP Light device. There are two possible interwork with a TWAMP Light device. There are two possible
combinations for such use case: combinations for such use case:
o STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector; o STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector;
o TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector. o TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector.
In the former case, Session-Sender MAY not be aware that its Session- In the former case, the Session-Sender MAY not be aware that its
Reflector does not support STAMP. For example, TWAMP Light Session- Session-Reflector does not support STAMP. For example, a TWAMP Light
Reflector may not support the use of UDP port 862 as defined in Session-Reflector may not support the use of UDP port 862 as defined
[I-D.ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test]. Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be in [RFC8545]. Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
able to send test packets to destination UDP port number from the packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find a
system should find port number that both devices can use. And if any port number that both devices can use. And if any of STAMP
of TLV-based STAMP extensions are used, the TWAMP Light Session- extensions are used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them
Reflector will view them as Packet Padding field. The Session-Sender as Packet Padding field. The Session-Sender SHOULD use the default
SHOULD use the default format for its timestamps - NTP. And it MAY format for its timestamps - NTP. And it MAY use PTPv2 timestamp
use PTPv2 timestamp format. format.
In the latter scenario, the test management system should set STAMP In the latter scenario, the test management system should set STAMP
Session-Reflector to use UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or Session-Reflector to use UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
Private Ports range. As for Packet Padding field that the TWAMP Private Ports range. As for Packet Padding field that the TWAMP
Light Session-Sender includes in its transmitted packet, the STAMP Light Session-Sender includes in its transmitted packet, the STAMP
Session-Reflector will process it according to [RFC6038] and return Session-Reflector will process it according to [RFC6038] and return
reflected packet of the symmetrical size. The Session-Reflector MUST reflected packet of the symmetrical size. The Session-Reflector MUST
use the default format for its timestamps - NTP. use the default format for its timestamps - NTP.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document doesn't have any IANA action. This section may be This document doesn't have any IANA action. This section may be
removed before the publication. removed before the publication.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
In general, all the security considerations related to TWAMP-Test,
discussed in [RFC5357] apply to STAMP. Since STAMP uses the well-
known UDP port number allocated for the OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test
Receiver port, the security considerations and measures to mitigate
the risk of the attack using the registered port number documented in
Section 6 [RFC8545] equally apply to STAMP. Because of the control
and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this
specification only the more general requirement is set:
To mitigate the possible attack vector, the control and management
of a STAMP test session MUST use the secured transport.
Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data
integrity of the STAMP test packets. integrity of the STAMP test packets.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
Authors express their appreciation to Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin Authors express their appreciation to Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin
and Brian Weis for their great insights into the security and and Brian Weis for their great insights into the security and
identity protection, and the most helpful and practical suggestions. identity protection, and the most helpful and practical suggestions.
Also, our sincere thanks to David Ball for his thorough review and
helpful comments.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[BBF.TR-390]
"Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer
Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test]
Morton, A. and G. Mirsky, "OWAMP and TWAMP Well-Known Port
Assignments", draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03 (work in
progress), November 2018.
[IEEE.1588.2008] [IEEE.1588.2008]
"Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol "Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol
for Networked Measurement and Control Systems", for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE Standard 1588, March 2008. IEEE Standard 1588, March 2008.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 24 skipping to change at page 13, line 34
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8186] Mirsky, G. and I. Meilik, "Support of the IEEE 1588 [RFC8186] Mirsky, G. and I. Meilik, "Support of the IEEE 1588
Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 8186, DOI 10.17487/RFC8186, June 2017, (TWAMP)", RFC 8186, DOI 10.17487/RFC8186, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8186>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8186>.
[RFC8545] Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port
Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 8545, DOI 10.17487/RFC8545, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[BBF.TR-390]
"Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer
Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang] [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]
Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm- Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm-
stamp-yang-02 (work in progress), September 2018. stamp-yang-03 (work in progress), March 2019.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
98 lines changed or deleted 100 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/