rfc9503.original   rfc9503.txt 
IPPM Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Request for Comments: 9503 C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 5 February 2024 M. Chen ISSN: 2070-1721 M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
B. Janssens B. Janssens
Colt Colt
R. Foote R. Foote
Nokia Nokia
4 August 2023 October 2023
Simple TWAMP (STAMP) Extensions for Segment Routing Networks Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-18 Segment Routing Networks
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. SR is Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. SR is
applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6
(SRv6) forwarding planes. This document specifies RFC 8762 (Simple (SRv6) forwarding planes. This document specifies Simple Two-Way
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP)) extensions for SR Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) extensions (as described in RFC
networks, for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 forwarding planes by augmenting 8762) for SR networks, for both the SR-MPLS and SRv6 forwarding
the optional extensions defined in RFC 8972. planes, by augmenting the optional extensions defined in RFC 8972.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 February 2024. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9503.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Requirements Language
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Abbreviations
2.3. Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Reference Topology
3. Destination Node Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Destination Node Address TLV
4. Return Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Return Path TLV
4.1. Return Path Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Return Path Sub-TLVs
4.1.1. Return Path Control Code Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.1. Return Path Control Code Sub-TLV
4.1.2. Return Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.2. Return Address Sub-TLVs
4.1.3. Return Segment List Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.3. Return Path Segment List Sub-TLVs
5. Interoperability with TWAMP Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Interoperability with TWAMP Light
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. IANA Considerations
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. References
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Destination Node Address TLV Use-case Example . . . 17 Appendix A. Destination Node Address TLV Use-Case Example
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Acknowledgments
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Contributors
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm for Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm for
Software Defined Networks (SDNs). SR is applicable to both Software-Defined Networks (SDNs). SR is applicable to both
Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) forwarding Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) forwarding
planes [RFC8402]. SR Policies as defined in [RFC9256] are used to planes [RFC8402]. SR Policies as defined in [RFC9256] are used to
steer traffic through a specific, user-defined paths using a stack of steer traffic through specific, user-defined paths using a stack of
Segments. A comprehensive SR Performance Measurement (PM) toolset is Segments. A comprehensive SR Performance Measurement (PM) toolset is
one of the essential requirements to measure network performance to one of the essential requirements to measure network performance to
provide Service Level Agreements (SLAs). provide Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) provides The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) provides
capabilities for the measurement of various performance metrics in IP capabilities for the measurement of various performance metrics in IP
networks [RFC8762] without the use of a control channel to pre-signal networks [RFC8762] without the use of a control channel to pre-signal
session parameters. [RFC8972] defines optional extensions, in the session parameters. [RFC8972] defines optional extensions, in the
form of TLVs, for STAMP. Note that the YANG data model defined in form of TLVs, for STAMP. Note that the YANG data model defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang] can be used to provision the STAMP [IPPM-STAMP-YANG] can be used to provision the STAMP Session-Sender
Session-Sender and STAMP Session-Reflector. and STAMP Session-Reflector.
The STAMP test packets are transmitted along an IP path between a STAMP test packets are transmitted along an IP path between a
Session-Sender and a Session-Reflector to measure performance delay Session-Sender and a Session-Reflector to measure performance delay
and packet loss along that IP path. It may be desired in SR networks and packet loss along that IP path. In SR networks, it may be
that the same path (same set of links and nodes) between the Session- desired that the same path (same set of links and nodes) between the
Sender and Session-Reflector is used for the STAMP test packets in Session-Sender and Session-Reflector be used for the STAMP test
both directions. This is achieved by using the STAMP [RFC8762] packets in both directions. This is achieved by using the STAMP
extensions for SR-MPLS and SRv6 networks specified in this document [RFC8762] extensions for SR-MPLS and SRv6 networks as specified in
by augmenting the optional extensions defined in [RFC8972]. this document by augmenting the optional extensions defined in
[RFC8972].
2. Conventions Used in This Document 2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Requirements Language 2.1. 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
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations 2.2. Abbreviations
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching. MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
SID: Segment Identifier. SID: Segment Identifier
SR: Segment Routing. SR: Segment Routing
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS forwarding plane. SR-MPLS: Segment Routing over MPLS
SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 forwarding plane. SRv6: Segment Routing over IPv6
SSID: STAMP Session Identifier. SSID: STAMP Session Identifier
STAMP: Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol. STAMP: Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
2.3. Reference Topology 2.3. Reference Topology
In the reference topology shown below, the STAMP Session-Sender S1 In the reference topology shown below, the STAMP Session-Sender S1
initiates a STAMP test packet and the STAMP Session-Reflector R1 initiates a STAMP test packet and the STAMP Session-Reflector R1
transmits a reply STAMP test packet. The reply test packet may be transmits a reply STAMP test packet. The reply test packet may be
transmitted to the Session-Sender S1 on the same path (same set of transmitted to the Session-Sender S1 on the same path (same set of
links and nodes) or a different path in the reverse direction from links and nodes) or a different path in the reverse direction from
the path taken towards the Session-Reflector R1. The T1 is a the path taken towards the Session-Reflector R1.
transmit timestamp and T4 is a receive timestamp added by node S1 in
the STAMP test packet. The T2 is a receive timestamp and T3 is a T1 is a transmit timestamp, and T4 is a receive timestamp added by
transmit timestamp added by node R1 in the STAMP test packet. node S1. T2 is a receive timestamp, and T3 is a transmit timestamp
added by node R1.
The nodes S1 and R1 may be connected via a link or an SR path The nodes S1 and R1 may be connected via a link or an SR path
[RFC8402]. The link may be a physical interface, virtual link, or [RFC8402]. The link may be a physical interface, virtual link, Link
Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX], or LAG member. The SR Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX], or LAG member. The SR path
path may be an SR Policy [RFC9256] on node S1 (called head-end) with may be an SR Policy [RFC9256] on node S1 (called "head-end") with a
destination to node R1 (called tail-end). destination to node R1 (called "tail-end").
T1 T2 T1 T2
/ \ / \
+-------+ Test Packet +-------+ +-------+ Test Packet +-------+
| | - - - - - - - - - ->| | | | - - - - - - - - - ->| |
| S1 |=====================| R1 | | S1 |=====================| R1 |
| |<- - - - - - - - - - | | | |<- - - - - - - - - - | |
+-------+ Reply Test Packet +-------+ +-------+ Reply Test Packet +-------+
\ / \ /
T4 T3 T4 T3
STAMP Session-Sender STAMP Session-Reflector STAMP Session-Sender STAMP Session-Reflector
Reference Topology Figure 1: Reference Topology
3. Destination Node Address TLV 3. Destination Node Address TLV
The Session-Sender may need to transmit test packets to the Session- The Session-Sender may need to transmit test packets to the Session-
Reflector with a destination address that is not a routable (i.e., Reflector with a Destination Address that is not a routable address
suitable for use as the Source Address of the reply test packet) (i.e., not suitable for use as the Source Address of the reply test
address of the Session-Reflector. This can be facilitated, for packet) of the Session-Reflector. This can be facilitated, for
example, by encapsulating the STAMP packet by a tunneling protocol, example, by encapsulating the STAMP packet by a tunneling protocol;
see Appendix A, for a worked example. see Appendix A for an example.
[RFC8972] defines STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test [RFC8972] defines STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test
packets that can include one or more optional TLVs. In this packets that can include one or more optional TLVs. In this
document, the TLV type (value 9 for IPv4 and IPv6) is defined for the document, the TLV Type (value 9 for IPv4 and IPv6) is defined for the
Destination Node Address TLV for the STAMP test packet [RFC8972]. Destination Node Address TLV for the STAMP test packet [RFC8972].
The formats of the Destination Node Address TLVs are shown in The formats of the Destination Node Address TLVs are shown in
Figure 1: Figure 2:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type=9 | Length=4 | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type=9 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address | | IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type=9 | Length=16 | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type=9 | Length=16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| IPv6 Address | | IPv6 Address |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Destination Node Address TLV Format Figure 2: Destination Node Address TLV Formats
TLV fields are defined as follows: The TLV fields are defined as follows:
STAMP TLV Flags : The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described
in [RFC8972] and this document. in [RFC8972] and this document.
Type : Type (value 9) for IPv4 Destination Node Address TLV or IPv6 Type: Type (value 9) for the IPv4 Destination Node Address TLV or
Destination Node Address TLV. IPv6 Destination Node Address TLV.
Length : A two-octet field equal to the length of the Address field Length: A 2-octet field equal to the length of the Address field in
in octets. The length is 4 octets for IPv4 address and 16 octets for octets. The length is 4 octets for an IPv4 address and 16 octets
IPv6 address. for an IPv6 address.
The Destination Node Address TLV indicates an address of the intended The Destination Node Address TLV indicates an address of the intended
Session-Reflector node of the test packet. If the received Session-Reflector node of the test packet. If the received
Destination Node Address is one of the addresses of the Session- Destination Node Address is one of the addresses of the Session-
Reflector, it SHOULD be used as the Source Address in the IP header Reflector, it SHOULD be used as the Source Address in the IP header
of the reply test packet. If the Destination Node Address TLV is of the reply test packet. If the Destination Node Address TLV is
sent, the SSID MUST also be sent. sent, the SSID MUST also be sent.
A Session-Reflector that recognizes this TLV, MUST set the U flag A Session-Reflector that recognizes this TLV MUST set the U flag
[RFC8972] in the reply test packet to 1 if the Session-Reflector [RFC8972] in the reply test packet to 1 if the Session-Reflector
determined that it is not the intended Destination as identified in determined that it is not the intended destination as identified in
the Destination Node Address TLV. In this case, the Session- the Destination Node Address TLV. In this case, the Session-
Reflector does not use the received Destination Node Address as the Reflector does not use the received Destination Node Address as the
Source Address in the IP header of the reply test packet. Otherwise, Source Address in the IP header of the reply test packet. Otherwise,
the Session-Reflector MUST set the U flag in the Destination Node the Session-Reflector MUST set the U flag in the Destination Node
Address TLV in the reply test packet to 0. Address TLV in the reply test packet to 0.
4. Return Path TLV 4. Return Path TLV
For end-to-end SR paths, the Session-Reflector may need to transmit For end-to-end SR paths, the Session-Reflector may need to transmit
the reply test packet on a specific return path. The Session-Sender the reply test packet on a specific Return Path. The Session-Sender
can request this in the test packet to the Session-Reflector using a can request this in the test packet to the Session-Reflector using a
Return Path TLV. With this TLV carried in the Session-Sender test Return Path TLV. With this TLV carried in the Session-Sender test
packet, signaling and maintaining dynamic SR network state for the packet, signaling and maintaining dynamic SR network state for the
STAMP sessions on the Session-Reflector are avoided. STAMP sessions on the Session-Reflector are avoided.
There are two modes defined for the behaviors on the Session- There are two modes defined for the behaviors on the Session-
Reflector in Section 4 of [RFC8762]. A Stateful Session-Reflector Reflector in Section 4 of [RFC8762]: Stateless and Stateful. A
that requires configuration that must match all Session-Sender Stateful Session-Reflector requires configuration that must match all
parameters, including Source Address, Destination Address, Source UDP Session-Sender parameters, including the Source Address, Destination
Port, Destination UDP Port, and possibly SSID (assuming the SSID is Address, Source UDP Port, Destination UDP Port, and possibly SSID
configurable and not auto-generated). In this case, a local policy (assuming the SSID is configurable and not auto-generated). In this
can be used to direct the test packet by creating additional states case, a local policy can be used to direct the test packet by
for the STAMP sessions on the Session-Reflector. In the case of creating additional states for the STAMP sessions on the Session-
promiscuous operation, the Stateless Session-Reflector will require Reflector. In the case of promiscuous operation, the Stateless
an indication of how to return the test packet on a specific path, Session-Reflector will require an indication of how to return the
for example, for measurement in an ECMP environment. test packet on a specific path, for example, for measurement in an
ECMP environment.
For links, the Session-Reflector may need to transmit the reply test For links, the Session-Reflector may need to transmit the reply test
packet on the same incoming link in the reverse direction. The packet on the same incoming link in the reverse direction. The
Session-Sender can request this in the test packet to the Session- Session-Sender can request this in the test packet to the Session-
Reflector using a Return Path TLV. Reflector using a Return Path TLV.
[RFC8972] defines STAMP test packets that can include one or more [RFC8972] defines STAMP test packets that can include one or more
optional TLVs. In this document, the TLV Type (value 10) is defined optional TLVs. In this document, the TLV Type (value 10) is defined
for the Return Path TLV that carries the return path for the Session- for the Return Path TLV that carries the Return Path for the Session-
Sender test packet. The format of the Return Path TLV is shown in Sender test packet. The format of the Return Path TLV is shown in
Figure 2: Figure 3:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type=10 | Length | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type=10 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Return Path Sub-TLVs | | Return Path Sub-TLVs |
. . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Return Path TLV Figure 3: Return Path TLV Format
TLV fields are defined as follows: The TLV fields are defined as follows:
STAMP TLV Flags : The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described
in [RFC8972] and this document. in [RFC8972] and this document.
Type : Type (value 10) for Return Path TLV. Type: Type (value 10) for the Return Path TLV.
Length : A two-octet field equal to the length of the Return Path Length: A 2-octet field equal to the length of the Return Path Sub-
Sub-TLVs field in octets. TLVs field in octets.
Return Path Sub-TLVs : As defined in Section 4.1. Return Path Sub-TLVs: As defined in Section 4.1.
A Session-Sender MUST NOT insert more than one Return Path TLV in the A Session-Sender MUST NOT insert more than one Return Path TLV in the
STAMP test packet. A Session-Reflector that supports this TLV MUST STAMP test packet. A Session-Reflector that supports this TLV MUST
only process the first Return Path TLV in the test packet and ignore only process the first Return Path TLV in the test packet and ignore
other Return Path TLVs if present. A Session-Reflector that supports other Return Path TLVs if present. A Session-Reflector that supports
this TLV MUST reply using the Return Path received in the Session- this TLV MUST reply using the Return Path received in the Session-
Sender test packet, if no error was encountered while processing the Sender test packet, if no error was encountered while processing the
TLV. TLV.
A Session-Reflector that recognizes this TLV, MUST set the U flag A Session-Reflector that recognizes this TLV MUST set the U flag
[RFC8972] in the reply test packet to 1 if the Session-Reflector [RFC8972] in the reply test packet to 1 if the Session-Reflector
determined that it cannot use the return path in the test packet to determined that it cannot use the Return Path in the test packet to
transmit the reply test packet. Otherwise, the Session-Reflector transmit the reply test packet. Otherwise, the Session-Reflector
MUST set the U flag in the reply test packet to 0. MUST set the U flag in the reply test packet to 0.
4.1. Return Path Sub-TLVs 4.1. Return Path Sub-TLVs
The Return Path TLV contains one or more Sub-TLVs to carry the The Return Path TLV contains one or more Sub-TLVs to carry the
information for the requested return path. A Return Path Sub-TLV can information for the requested Return Path. A Return Path Sub-TLV can
carry Return Path Control Code, Return Path IP Address or Return Path carry a Return Path Control Code, Return Path IP Address, or Return
Segment List. Path Segment List.
The STAMP Sub-TLV Flags are set using the procedures described in The STAMP Sub-TLV Flags are set using the procedures described in
[RFC8972]. [RFC8972].
A Return Path TLV MUST NOT contain more than one Control Code Sub-TLV A Return Path TLV MUST NOT contain more than one Control Code Sub-
or more than one Return Address Sub-TLV or more than one Segment List TLV, Return Address Sub-TLV, or Return Path Segment List Sub-TLV in a
Sub-TLV in Session-Sender test packet. Session-Sender test packet.
A Return Path TLV MUST NOT contain both Control Code Sub-TLV as well A Return Path TLV MUST NOT contain both a Control Code Sub-TLV and a
as Return Address or Return Segment List Sub-TLV in Session-Sender Return Address or Return Path Segment List Sub-TLV in a Session-
test packet. Sender test packet.
A Return Path TLV MAY contain both Return Address as well as Return A Return Path TLV MAY contain both a Return Address and a Return Path
Segment List Sub-TLV in Session-Sender test packet. Segment List Sub-TLV in a Session-Sender test packet.
4.1.1. Return Path Control Code Sub-TLV 4.1.1. Return Path Control Code Sub-TLV
The format of the Return Path Control Code Sub-TLV is shown in The format of the Control Code Sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV is
Figure 3. shown in Figure 4.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type=1 | Length=4 | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type=1 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Control Code Flags | | Control Code Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Control Code Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV Figure 4: Format of the Control Code Sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV
TLV fields are defined as follows: The TLV fields are defined as follows:
* Type (value 1): Return Path Control Code. The Session-Sender can Type: Type (value 1) for the Return Path Control Code. The Session-
request the Session-Reflector to transmit the reply test packet Sender can request the Session-Reflector to transmit the reply
based on the flags defined in the Control Code Flags field. test packet based on the flags defined in the Control Code Flags
field.
STAMP TLV Flags : The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described
in [RFC8972] and this document. in [RFC8972] and this document.
Length : A two-octet field equal to the length of the Control Code Length: A 2-octet field equal to the length of the Control Code
flags which is 4 octets. flags, which is 4 octets.
Control Code Flags (32-bit): Reply Request Flag at bit 31 (least Control Code Flags (32 bits): Reply Request Flag at bit 31 (least
significant bit) is defined as follows. significant bit) is defined as follows.
0x0 : No Reply Requested. 0x0: No Reply Requested
0x1 : Reply Requested on the Same Link. 0x1: Reply Requested on the Same Link
All other bits are reserved and must be transmitted as 0 and ignored All other bits are reserved and must be transmitted as 0 and ignored
by the receiver. by the receiver.
When Control Code flag for Reply Request is set to 0x0 in the When Control Code flag for Reply Request is set to 0x0 in the
Session-Sender test packet, the Session-Reflector does not transmit Session-Sender test packet, the Session-Reflector does not transmit a
reply test packet to the Session-Sender and terminates the STAMP test reply test packet to the Session-Sender and terminates the STAMP test
packet. Only the one-way measurement is applicable in this case. packet. Only the one-way measurement is applicable in this case.
Optionally, the Session-Reflector may locally stream performance Optionally, the Session-Reflector may locally stream performance
metrics via telemetry using the information from the received test metrics via telemetry using the information from the received test
packet. All other Return Path Sub-TLVs MUST be ignored in this case. packet. All other Return Path Sub-TLVs MUST be ignored in this case.
When Control Code flag for Reply Request is set to 0x1 in the When Control Code flag for Reply Request is set to 0x1 in the
Session-Sender test packet, the Session-Reflector transmits the reply Session-Sender test packet, the Session-Reflector transmits the reply
test packet over the same incoming link where the test packet is test packet over the same incoming link where the test packet is
received in the reverse direction towards the Session-Sender. The received in the reverse direction towards the Session-Sender. The
link may be a physical interface, virtual link, or Link Aggregation link may be a physical interface, virtual link, LAG [IEEE802.1AX], or
Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX], or LAG member. All other Return Path Sub- LAG member. All other Return Path Sub-TLVs MUST be ignored in this
TLVs MUST be ignored in this case. When using LAG member links, case. When using LAG member links, the STAMP extension for the
STAMP extension for Micro-Session ID TLV defined in Micro-Session ID TLV defined in [STAMP-ON-LAG] can be used to
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag] can be used to identify the link. identify the link.
4.1.2. Return Address Sub-TLV 4.1.2. Return Address Sub-TLVs
The STAMP reply test packet may be transmitted to the Session-Sender The STAMP reply test packet may be transmitted to the Session-Sender
to the specified Return Address in the Return Address Sub-TLV instead to the specified Return Address in the Return Address Sub-TLV instead
of transmitting to the Source Address in the Session-Sender test of transmitting to the Source Address in the Session-Sender test
packet. packet.
The formats of the IPv4 and IPv6 Return Address Sub-TLVs are shown in The formats of the IPv4 and IPv6 Return Address Sub-TLVs in the
Figure 4. Return Path TLV are shown in Figure 5.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type=2 | Length=4 | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type=2 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Return IPv4 Address | | Return IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type=2 | Length=16 | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type=2 | Length=16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Return IPv6 Address | | Return IPv6 Address |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Return Address Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV Figure 5: Formats of the Return Address Sub-TLVs in the Return
Path TLV
The TLV fields are defined as follows: The TLV fields are defined as follows:
* Type : Type (value 2) for IPv4 Return Address or IPv6 Return Type: Type (value 2) for the Return IPv4 Address or Return IPv6
Address. Address.
The Return Address requests that the Session-Reflector reply test The Return Address requests that the Session-Reflector reply test
packet be sent to the specified address, rather than to the Source packet be sent to the specified address rather than to the Source
Address in the Session-Sender test packet. Address in the Session-Sender test packet.
STAMP TLV Flags : The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described
in [RFC8972] and this document. in [RFC8972] and this document.
Length : A two-octet field equal to the length of the Return Address Length: A 2-octet field equal to the length of the Return Address
field in octets. The length is 4 octets for IPv4 address and 16 field in octets. The length is 4 octets for an IPv4 address and
octets for IPv6 address. 16 octets for an IPv6 address.
4.1.3. Return Segment List Sub-TLVs 4.1.3. Return Path Segment List Sub-TLVs
The format of the Segment List Sub-TLVs in the Return Path TLV is The format of the Segment List Sub-TLVs in the Return Path TLV is
shown in Figures 5 and 6. The Segments carried in Segment List Sub- shown in Figures 6 and 7. The Segments carried in Segment List Sub-
TLVs are described in [RFC8402]. The segment entries MUST be in TLVs are described in [RFC8402]. The segment entries MUST be in
network order. network order.
The Session-Sender MUST only insert one Segment List Return Path Sub- The Session-Sender MUST only insert one Return Path Segment List Sub-
TLV in the test packet and Segment List MUST contain at least one TLV in the test packet, and the Segment List MUST contain at least
Segment. The Session-Reflector MUST only process the first Segment one Segment. The Session-Reflector MUST only process the first
List Return Path Sub-TLV in the test packet and ignore other Segment Return Path Segment List Sub-TLV in the test packet and ignore other
List Return Path Sub-TLVs if present. Return Path Segment List Sub-TLVs if present.
TLV fields are defined as follows: The TLV fields are defined as follows:
The Segment List Sub-TLV can be one of the following Types: The Return Path Segment List Sub-TLV can be one of the following
Types:
* Type (value 3): SR-MPLS Label Stack of the Return Path Type (value 3): SR-MPLS Label Stack of the Return Path
* Type (value 4): SRv6 Segment List of the Return Path Type (value 4): SRv6 Segment List of the Return Path
STAMP TLV Flags : The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described
in [RFC8972] and this document. in [RFC8972] and this document.
Length : A two-octet field equal to the length of the Segment List Length: A 2-octet field equal to the length of the Segment List
field in octets. Length MUST NOT be 0. field in octets. The length MUST NOT be 0.
4.1.3.1. Return Path SR-MPLS Segment-List Sub-TLV 4.1.3.1. Return Path SR-MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV
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
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type=3 | Length | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type=3 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment(1) | TC |S| TTL | | Segment(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment(n) (bottom of stack) | TC |S| TTL | | Segment(n) (bottom of stack) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: SR-MPLS Segment List Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV Figure 6: Format of the SR-MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV in the Return
Path TLV
The SR-MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit Label Stack Entry The SR-MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit Label Stack Entries
(LSE) that includes a 20-bit label value, 8-bit Time-To-Live (TTL) (LSEs) that includes a 20-bit label value, an 8-bit Time-To-Live
value, 3-bit Traffic Class (TC) value and 1-bit End-Of-Stack (S) (TTL) value, a 3-bit Traffic Class (TC) value, and a 1-bit End-of-
field. Length of the Sub-TLV modulo 4 MUST be 0. Stack (S) field. The length of the Sub-TLV modulo 4 MUST be 0.
As an example, an SR-MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV could carry only the As an example, an SR-MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV could carry only the
Binding SID Label [I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] of the Return SR- Binding SID Label [PCE-BINDING-LABEL-SID] of the Return SR-MPLS
MPLS Policy. The Binding SID Label of the Return SR-MPLS Policy is Policy. The Binding SID Label of the Return SR-MPLS Policy is local
local to the Session-Reflector. The mechanism to signal the Binding to the Session-Reflector. The mechanism to signal the Binding SID
SID Label to the Session-Sender is outside the scope of this Label to the Session-Sender is outside the scope of this document.
document.
As another example, an SR-MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV could include the As another example, an SR-MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV could include the
Path Segment Identifier Label of the Return SR-MPLS Policy in the Path Segment Identifier Label of the Return SR-MPLS Policy in the
Segment List of the SR-MPLS Policy. Segment List of the SR-MPLS Policy.
4.1.3.2. Return Path SRv6 Segment-List Sub-TLV 4.1.3.2. Return Path SRv6 Segment List Sub-TLV
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
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type=4 | Length | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type=4 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Segment(1) (128-bit IPv6 address) | | Segment(1) (128-bit IPv6 Address) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Segment(n) (128-bit IPv6 address) (bottom of stack) | | Segment(n) (128-bit IPv6 Address) (bottom of stack) |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: SRv6 Segment List Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV Figure 7: Format of the SRv6 Segment List Sub-TLV in the Return
Path TLV
The SRv6 Segment List contains a list of 128-bit IPv6 addresses The SRv6 Segment List contains a list of 128-bit IPv6 addresses
representing the SRv6 SIDs. Length of the Sub-TLV modulo 16 MUST be representing the SRv6 SIDs. The length of the Sub-TLV modulo 16 MUST
0. be 0.
As an example, an SRv6 Segment List Sub-TLV could carry only the SRv6 As an example, a Return Path SRv6 Segment List Sub-TLV could carry
Binding SID [I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] of the Return SRv6 only the SRv6 Binding SID [PCE-BINDING-LABEL-SID] of the Return SRv6
Policy. The SRv6 Binding SID of the Return SRv6 Policy is local to Policy. The SRv6 Binding SID of the Return SRv6 Policy is local to
the Session-Reflector. The mechanism to signal the SRv6 Binding SID the Session-Reflector. The mechanism to signal the SRv6 Binding SID
to the Session-Sender is outside the scope of this document. to the Session-Sender is outside the scope of this document.
As another example, an SRv6 Segment List Sub-TLV could include the As another example, a Return Path SRv6 Segment List Sub-TLV could
SRv6 Path Segment Identifier of the Return SRv6 Policy in the Segment include the SRv6 Path Segment Identifier of the Return SRv6 Policy in
List of the SRv6 Policy. the Segment List of the SRv6 Policy.
5. Interoperability with TWAMP Light 5. Interoperability with TWAMP Light
This document does not introduce any additional considerations for This document does not introduce any additional considerations for
interoperability with TWAMP Light than those described in Section 4.6 interoperability with the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
of [RFC8762]. Light than those described in Section 4.6 of [RFC8762].
As described in [RFC8762], there are two possible combinations for As described in [RFC8762], there are two possible combinations for
such an interoperability use case: such an interoperability use case:
- STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector * STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector
- TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector * TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector
If any of STAMP extensions defined in this document are used by STAMP
Session-Sender, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them as If any of the STAMP extensions defined in this document are used by
the Packet Padding field. STAMP Session-Sender, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view
them as the Packet Padding field.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The security considerations specified in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] also The security considerations specified in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] also
apply to the extensions defined in this document. Specifically, the apply to the extensions defined in this document. Specifically, the
authenticated mode and the message integrity protection using HMAC, authenticated mode and the message integrity protection using Hashed
as defined in [RFC8762] Section 4.4, also apply to the procedure Message Authentication Code (HMAC), as defined in Section 4.4 of
described in this document. [RFC8762], also apply to the procedures described in this document.
STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number that could become a target STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number that could become a target
of denial of service (DoS) or could be used to aid on-path attacks. of denial of service (DoS) or could be used to aid on-path attacks.
Thus, the security considerations and measures to mitigate the risk Thus, the security considerations and measures to mitigate the risk
of the attack documented in Section 6 of [RFC8545] equally apply to of the attack documented in Section 6 of [RFC8545] equally apply to
the STAMP extensions in this document. the STAMP extensions in this document.
If desired, attacks can be mitigated by performing basic validation If desired, attacks can be mitigated by performing basic validation
checks of the timestamp fields (such as T2 is later than T1 in the checks of the timestamp fields (such as T2 is later than T1 in the
Reference Topology in Section 2.3) in received reply test packets at reference topology in Section 2.3) in received reply test packets at
the Session-Sender. The minimal state associated with these the Session-Sender. The minimal state associated with these
protocols also limit the extent of measurement disruption that can be protocols also limit the extent of measurement disruption that can be
caused by a corrupt or invalid test packet to a single test cycle. caused by a corrupt or invalid test packet to a single test cycle.
The usage of STAMP extensions defined in this document is intended The usage of STAMP extensions defined in this document is intended
for deployment in a single network administrative domain. As such, for deployment in a single network administrative domain. As such,
the Session-Sender address, Session-Reflector address, and Return the Session-Sender address, Session-Reflector address, and Return
Path are provisioned by the operator for the STAMP session. It is Path are provisioned by the operator for the STAMP session. It is
assumed that the operator has verified the integrity of the Return assumed that the operator has verified the integrity of the Return
Path and identity of the far-end Session-Reflector. Path and identity of the far-end Session-Reflector.
The STAMP extensions defined in this document may be used for The STAMP extensions defined in this document may be used for
potential address spoofing. For example, a Session-Sender may potential address spoofing. For example, a Session-Sender may
specify a Return Path IP Address that is different from the Session- specify a Return Path IP Address that is different from the Session-
Sender address. The Session-Reflector MAY drop the Session-Sender Sender address. The Session-Reflector MAY drop the Session-Sender
test packet when it cannot determine whether the Return Path IP test packet when it cannot determine whether the Return Path IP
Address is local on the Session-Sender. To help Session-Reflector to Address is local on the Session-Sender. To help the Session-
make that determination, the Return Path IP Address may also be Reflector to make that determination, the Return Path IP Address may
provisioned by the operator, for example, in an access control list. also be provisioned by the operator, for example, in an access
control list.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA has created the "STAMP TLV Types" registry for [RFC8972]. IANA IANA has allocated a value for the Destination Address TLV Type and a
has early allocated a value for the Destination Address TLV Type and value for the Return Path TLV Type from the IETF Review TLV range in
a value for the Return Path TLV Type from the IETF Review TLV range the "STAMP TLV Types" registry [RFC8972] as follows.
of the same registry.
+======================+======================+===========+ +=======+=======================================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+======================+======================+===========+ +=======+=======================================+===========+
| 9 (Early Allocation) | Destination Node | This | | 9 | Destination Node IPv4 or IPv6 Address | RFC 9503 |
| | IPv4 or IPv6 Address | document | +-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------+ | 10 | Return Path | RFC 9503 |
| 10 (Early | Return Path | This | +-------+---------------------------------------+-----------+
| Allocation) | | document |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------+
Table 1: STAMP TLV Types Table 1: STAMP TLV Types
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry for "Return Path Sub-TLV IANA has created the "Return Path Sub-TLV Types" registry. All code
Type". All code points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be allocated
shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126].
specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the range 176 through 239 in Code points in the range 176 through 239 shall be allocated according
this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come, First to the "First Come First Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126].
Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code points Remaining code points shall be allocated according to Table 2:
are allocated according to Table 2:
+===========+==========================+===============+ +=========+=========================+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Range | Registration Procedures |
+===========+==========================+===============+ +=========+=========================+
| 0 - 175 | IETF Review | This document | | 1-175 | IETF Review |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+ +---------+-------------------------+
| 176 - 239 | First Come, First Served | This document | | 176-239 | First Come First Served |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+ +---------+-------------------------+
| 240 - 251 | Experimental Use | This document | | 240-251 | Experimental Use |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+ +---------+-------------------------+
| 252 - 255 | Private Use | This document | | 252-254 | Private Use |
+-----------+--------------------------+---------------+ +---------+-------------------------+
Table 2: Return Path Sub-TLV Type Registry Table 2: Return Path Sub-TLV
Types Registry
IANA is requested to allocate the values for the following Sub-TLV IANA has allocated values for the following Sub-TLV Types in the
Types from this registry. "Return Path Sub-TLV Types" registry.
+======+========================================+===============+ +=======+========================================+===========+
| Type | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+======+========================================+===============+ +=======+========================================+===========+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | | 0 | Reserved | RFC 9503 |
+------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1 | Return Path Control Code | This document | | 1 | Return Path Control Code | RFC 9503 |
+------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 2 | Return IPv4 or IPv6 Address | This document | | 2 | Return IPv4 or IPv6 Address | RFC 9503 |
+------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 3 | SR-MPLS Label Stack of the Return Path | This document | | 3 | SR-MPLS Label Stack of the Return Path | RFC 9503 |
+------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 4 | SRv6 Segment List of the Return Path | This document | | 4 | SRv6 Segment List of the Return Path | RFC 9503 |
+------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 255 | Reserved | This document | | 255 | Reserved | RFC 9503 |
+------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 3: Return Path Sub-TLV Types Table 3: Return Path Sub-TLV Types
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry for "Return Path Control IANA has created the "Return Path Control Code Flags" registry for
Code Flags" for the Return Path Control Code Sub-TLV. All code Return Path Control Code Sub-TLVs. All code points in the bit
points in the bit position 31 (counting from bit 31 as the least position 31 (counting from bit 31 as the least significant bit)
significant bit) through 12 in this registry shall be allocated through 12 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF
according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the bit
Code points in the bit position 11 through 8 in this registry shall position 11 through 8 shall be allocated according to the "First Come
be allocated according to the "First Come, First Served" procedure as First Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code
specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code points are allocated points shall be allocated according to Table 4:
according to Table 4:
+=========+==========================+===============+ +=======+=========================+
| Bit | Description | Reference | | Range | Registration Procedures |
+=========+==========================+===============+ +=======+=========================+
| 31 - 12 | IETF Review | This document | | 31-12 | IETF Review |
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------------------+
| 11 - 8 | First Come, First Served | This document | | 11-8 | First Come First Served |
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------------------+
| 7 - 4 | Experimental Use | This document | | 7-4 | Experimental Use |
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------------------+
| 3 - 0 | Private Use | This document | | 3-0 | Private Use |
+---------+--------------------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------------------+
Table 4: Return Path Control Code Flags Registry Table 4: Return Path Control
Code Flags Registry
IANA is requested to allocate the value for the following Return Path IANA has allocated a value in the "Return Path Control Code Flags"
Control Code Flag from this registry. registry as follows.
+=====+===============+===============+ +=======+===============+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+=====+===============+===============+ +=======+===============+===========+
| 31 | Reply Request | This document | | 31 | Reply Request | RFC 9503 |
+-----+---------------+---------------+ +-------+---------------+-----------+
Table 5: Return Path Control Code Flags Table 5: Return Path Control Code
Flags
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[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 16, line 39 skipping to change at line 703
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A., [RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972, Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., [IEEE802.1AX]
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2014,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.7055197, December 2014,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.7055197>.
[IPPM-STAMP-YANG]
Mirsky, G., Min, X., and W. S. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-11,
13 March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-11>.
[PCE-BINDING-LABEL-SID]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Previdi, S.,
and C. Li, Ed., "Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier
(SID) in PCE-based Networks.", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-16, 27 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
binding-label-sid-16>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8545] Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port [RFC8545] Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port
Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 8545, DOI 10.17487/RFC8545, March 2019, (TWAMP)", RFC 8545, DOI 10.17487/RFC8545, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and [RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022, RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] [STAMP-ON-LAG]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Previdi, S.,
and C. L. (editor), "Carrying Binding Label/Segment
Identifier in PCE-based Networks.", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-16, 27
March 2023, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
pce-binding-label-sid-16.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]
Mirsky, G., Min, X., and W. S. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-11,
13 March 2023, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-11.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag]
Li, Z., Zhou, T., Guo, J., Mirsky, G., and R. Gandhi, Li, Z., Zhou, T., Guo, J., Mirsky, G., and R. Gandhi,
"Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for
Performance Measurement on LAG", Work in Progress, Performance Measurement on LAG", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-03, 2 July Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05, 17
2023, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm- October 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
stamp-on-lag-03.txt>. draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05>.
[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
2008.
Appendix A. Destination Node Address TLV Use-case Example Appendix A. Destination Node Address TLV Use-Case Example
The STAMP test packets can be encapsulated with an SR-MPLS Segment STAMP test packets can be encapsulated with 1) an SR-MPLS Label Stack
List and IPv4 header containing destination IPv4 address from 127/8 and IPv4 header containing an IPv4 Destination Address from the 127/8
range or STAMP test packets encapsulated with outer IPv6 header and range or 2) an outer IPv6 header and a Segment Routing Header (SRH)
Segment Routing Header (SRH) with inner IPv6 header containing IPv6 with an inner IPv6 header containing an IPv6 Destination Address from
destination IPv6 address ::1/128. the ::1/128 range.
In an ECMP environment, the hashing function in forwarding may decide In an ECMP environment, the hashing function in forwarding may decide
the outgoing path using the source address, destination address, UDP the outgoing path using the Source Address, Destination Address, UDP
ports, IPv6 flow-label, etc. from the packet. Hence, for IPv4, for ports, IPv6 flow-label, etc. from the packet. Hence, for IPv4, for
example, different values of IPv4 destination address from 127/8 example, different values of an IPv4 Destination Address from the
range may be used in the IPv4 header of the STAMP test packets to 127/8 range may be used in the IPv4 header of the STAMP test packets
measure different ECMP paths. For IPv6, for example, different to measure different ECMP paths. For IPv6, for example, different
values of flow-label may be used in the IPv6 header of the STAMP test values of flow-label may be used in the IPv6 header of the STAMP test
packets to measure different ECMP paths. packets to measure different ECMP paths.
In those cases, the STAMP test packets may reach a node that is not In those cases, the STAMP test packets may reach a node that is not
the Session-Reflector for this STAMP session in an error condition, the Session-Reflector for this STAMP session in an error condition,
and this un-intended node may transmit reply test packet that can and this unintended node may transmit a reply test packet that can
result in reporting of invalid measurement metrics. The intended result in the reporting of invalid measurement metrics. The intended
Session-Reflector address can be carried in the Destination Node Session-Reflector address can be carried in the Destination Node
Address TLV to help detect this error. Address TLV to help detect this error.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Thierry Couture for the discussions The authors would like to thank Thierry Couture for the discussions
on the use-cases for Performance Measurement in Segment Routing. The on the use cases for Performance Measurement in Segment Routing. The
authors would also like to thank Greg Mirsky, Mike Koldychev, Gyan authors would also like to thank Greg Mirsky, Mike Koldychev, Gyan
Mishra, Tianran Zhou, Al Mortons, Reshad Rahman, Zhenqiang Li, Frank Mishra, Tianran Zhou, Al Morton, Reshad Rahman, Zhenqiang Li, Frank
Brockners, Henrik Nydell, and Cheng Li for providing comments and Brockners, Henrik Nydell, and Cheng Li for providing comments and
suggestions. Thank you Joel Halpern for Gen-ART review, Martin Duke suggestions. Thank you to Joel Halpern for the Gen-ART review,
for AD review, and Kathleen Moriarty for Security review. The Martin Duke for the AD review, and Kathleen Moriarty for the Security
authors would like to thank Robert Wilton, Eric Vyncke, Paul Wouters, review. The authors would also like to thank Robert Wilton, Éric
John Scudder, Roman Danyliw, and Jim Guichard for IESG review. Vyncke, Paul Wouters, John Scudder, Roman Danyliw, Lars Eggert, Erik
Kline, Warren Kumari, and Jim Guichard for the IESG review.
Contributors Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document: The following person has contributed substantially to this document:
Daniel Voyer Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada Bell Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor) Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada Canada
 End of changes. 129 change blocks. 
359 lines changed or deleted 368 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.