Performance Measurement Using STAMP for Segment Routing Networks
draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Rakesh Gandhi , Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Mach Chen , Bart Janssens | ||
| Last updated | 2020-06-05 (Latest revision 2020-03-23) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm, draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-01
SPRING Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: December 7, 2020 D. Voyer
Bell Canada
M. Chen
Huawei
B. Janssens
Colt
June 5, 2020
Performance Measurement Using STAMP for Segment Routing Networks
draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-01
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. SR is
applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6
(SRv6) data planes. This document specifies procedure for sending
and processing probe query and response messages for Performance
Measurement (PM) in Segment Routing networks. The procedure uses the
mechanisms defined in RFC 8762 (Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol (STAMP)) for Delay Measurement, and uses the mechanisms
defined in this document for Loss Measurement. The procedure
specified is applicable to SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes and is used
for both Links and end-to-end SR Paths including SR Policies.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 7, 2020.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Example Provisioning Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Probe Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Probe Query Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Delay Measurement Query Message . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. Loss Measurement Query Message . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Probe Query for Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. Probe Query for End-to-end Measurement for SR Policy 9
4.1.5. Control Code Field for STAMP Messages . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.6. Loss Measurement Query Message Formats . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Probe Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1. One-way Measurement Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2. Two-way Measurement Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.3. Loss Measurement Response Message Formats . . . . . . 16
4.3. Node Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Return Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. Additional Probe Message Processing Rules . . . . . . . . 21
4.5.1. TTL and Hop Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.5.2. Router Alert Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.5.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Performance Measurement for P2MP SR Policies . . . . . . . . 22
6. ECMP Support for SR Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Performance Delay and Liveness Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm and
greatly simplifies network operations for Software Defined Networks
(SDNs). SR is applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-
MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes. SR takes advantage of the Equal-
Cost Multipaths (ECMPs) between source and transit nodes, between
transit nodes and between transit and destination nodes. SR Policies
as defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] are used to
steer traffic through a specific, user-defined paths using a stack of
Segments. Built-in SR Performance Measurement (PM) is one of the
essential requirements to provide Service Level Agreements (SLAs).
The Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) provides
capabilities for the measurement of various performance metrics in IP
networks using probe messages [RFC8762]. It eliminates the need for
control-channel signaling by using configuration data model to
provision a test-channel (e.g. UDP paths).
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] defines TLV extensions for STAMP
messages.
The STAMP message with a TLV for "direct measurement" can be used for
combined Delay + Loss measurement [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv].
However, in order to use only for loss measurement purpose, it
requires the node to support the delay measurement messages and
support timestamp for these messages (which may also require clock
synchronization). Furthermore, for hardware-based counter collection
for direct-mode loss measurement, the optional TLV based processing
adds unnecessary overhead (as counters are not at well-known
locations).
This document specifies procedures for sending and processing probe
query and response messages for Performance Measurement in SR
networks. The procedure uses the mechanisms defined in [RFC8762]
(STAMP) (including the TLV extensions) for Delay Measurement (DM),
and uses the mechanisms defined in this document for Loss
Measurement. The procedure specified is applicable to SR-MPLS and
SRv6 data planes and is used for both Links and end-to-end SR Paths
including SR Policies. This document also defines mechanisms for
handling ECMPs of SR Paths for performance delay measurement. Unless
otherwise specified, the mechanisms defined in [RFC8762] and
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] are not modified by this document.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
BSID: Binding Segment ID.
DM: Delay Measurement.
ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path.
HMAC: Hashed Message Authentication Code.
LM: Loss Measurement.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
NTP: Network Time Protocol.
OWAMP: One-Way Active Measurement Protocol.
PM: Performance Measurement.
PSID: Path Segment Identifier.
PTP: Precision Time Protocol.
SID: Segment ID.
SL: Segment List.
SR: Segment Routing.
SRH: Segment Routing Header.
SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.
SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane.
SSID: STAMP Session Identifier.
STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
TC: Traffic Class.
2.3. Reference Topology
In the reference topology shown below, the sender node R1 initiates a
probe query for performance measurement and the reflector node R5
sends a probe response for the query message received. The probe
response is sent to the sender node R1. The nodes R1 and R5 may be
directly connected via a Link or there exists a Point-to-Point (P2P)
SR Path e.g. SR Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] on
node R1 with destination to node R5. In case of Point-to-Multipoint
(P2MP), SR Policy originating from source node R1 may terminate on
multiple destination leaf nodes
[I-D.voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment].
+-------+ t1 Query t2 +-------+
| | - - - - - - - - - ->| |
| R1 |=====================| R5 |
| |<- - - - - - - - - - | |
+-------+ t4 Response t3 +-------+
Sender Reflector
Reference Topology
3. Overview
For one-way and two-way delay measurements in Segment Routing
networks, the probe messages defined in [RFC8762] are used. For
direct-mode and inferred-mode loss measurements in Segment Routing
networks, the messages defined in this document are used. Separate
UDP destination port numbers are user-configured for delay and loss
measurements from the range specified in [RFC8762]. As specified in
[RFC8762], the reflector supports the destination UDP port 862 for
delay measurement probe messages by default. This UDP port however,
is not used for loss measurement probe messages defined in this
document. The sender uses the UDP port number following the
guidelines specified in Section 6 in [RFC6335]. For both Links and
end-to-end SR Paths including SR Policies, no PM session for delay or
loss measurement is created on the reflector node R5 [RFC8762].
For Performance Measurement, probe query and response messages are
sent as following:
o For Delay Measurement, the probe messages are sent on the
congruent path of the data traffic by the sender node, and are
used to measure the delay experienced by the actual data traffic
flowing on the Links and SR Paths.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
o For Loss Measurement, the probe messages are sent on the congruent
path of the data traffic by the sender node, and are used to
collect the receive traffic counters for the incoming link or
incoming SID where the probe query messages are received at the
reflector node (incoming link or incoming SID needed since the
reflector node does not have PM session state present).
The In-Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)
mechanisms for SR-MPLS defined in [I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr] and for
SRv6 defined in [I-D.ali-spring-ioam-srv6] are used to carry PM
information such as timestamp in-band as part of the data packets,
and are outside the scope of this document.
3.1. Example Provisioning Model
An example of a provisioning model and typical measurement parameters
for each user-configured destination UDP port for performance delay
and loss measurements is shown in the following Figure 1:
+------------+
| Controller |
+------------+
Destination UDP Port / \ Destination UDP port
Measurement Protocol / \ Measurement Protocol
Measurement Type / \ Measurement Type
Delay/Loss / \ Delay/Loss
Authentication Mode & Key / \ Authentication Mode & Key
Timestamp Format / \ Loss Measurement Mode
Delay Measurement Mode / \
Loss Measurement Mode / \
v v
+-------+ +-------+
| | | |
| R1 |============| R5 |
| | SR Path | |
+-------+ Or Link +-------+
Sender Reflector
Figure 1: Example Provisioning Model
Example of Measurement Protocol is STAMP, example of the Timestamp
Format is PTPv2 [IEEE1588] or NTP and example of the Loss Measurement
mode is inferred-mode or direct-mode.
The mechanisms to provision the sender and reflector nodes are
outside the scope of this document.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
The reflector node R5 uses the parameters for the timestamp format
and delay measurement mode (i.e. one-way or two-way mode) from the
received probe query message.
4. Probe Messages
4.1. Probe Query Message
The probe messages defined in [RFC8762] are used for Delay
Measurement for Links and end-to-end SR Paths including SR Policies.
For Loss Measurement, the probe messages defined in this document are
used.
The Sender IPv4 or IPv6 address is used as the source address. The
reflector IPv4 or IPv6 address is used as the destination address.
In the case of SR Policy with IPv4 endpoint of 0.0.0.0 or IPv6
endpoint of ::0 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], the address
in the range of 127/8 for IPv4 or ::FFFF:127/104 for IPv6 is used as
the destination address, respectively.
4.1.1. Delay Measurement Query Message
The message content for Delay Measurement probe query message using
UDP header [RFC0768] is shown in Figure 2. The DM probe query
message is sent with user-configured Destination UDP port number for
DM. The Destination UDP port cannot be used as Source port, since
the message does not have any indication to distinguish between the
query and response message. The payload of the DM probe query
message contains the delay measurement message defined in [RFC8762].
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Sender IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Protocol = UDP .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Sender .
. Destination Port = User-configured Port for Delay Measurement.
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = DM Message as specified in Section 4.2 of RFC 8762 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: DM Probe Query Message
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
Timestamp field is eight bytes and use the format defined in
Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8762]. It is recommended to use the IEEE 1588v2
Precision Time Protocol (PTP) truncated 64-bit timestamp format
[IEEE1588] as specified in [RFC8186], with hardware support in
Segment Routing networks.
4.1.1.1. Delay Measurement Authentication Mode
When using the authenticated mode for delay measurement, the matching
authentication type (e.g. HMAC-SHA-256) and key are user-configured
on both the sender and reflector nodes. A separate user-configured
destination UDP port is used for the delay measurement in
authentication mode due to the different probe message format.
4.1.2. Loss Measurement Query Message
The message content for Loss Measurement probe query message using
UDP header [RFC0768] is shown in Figure 3. The LM probe query
message is sent with user-configured Destination UDP port number for
LM, which is a different Destination UDP port number than DM.
Separate Destination UDP ports are used for direct-mode and inferred-
mode loss measurements. The Destination UDP port cannot be used as
Source port, since the message does not have any indication to
distinguish between the query and response message. The LM probe
query message contains the payload for loss measurement as defined in
Figure 7 and Figure 8.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Sender IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Protocol = UDP .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Sender .
. Destination Port = User-configured Port for Loss Measurement .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = LM Message as specified in Figure 7 or 8 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: LM Probe Query Message
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
4.1.2.1. Loss Measurement Authentication Mode
When using the authenticated mode for loss measurement, the matching
authentication type (e.g. HMAC-SHA-256) and key are user-configured
on both the sender and reflector nodes. A separate user-configured
destination UDP port is used for the loss measurement in
authentication mode due to the different message format.
4.1.3. Probe Query for Links
The probe query message as defined in Figure 2 for delay measurement
and Figure 3 for loss measurement is sent on the congruent path of
the data traffic. The probe messages are routed over the Link for
both delay and loss measurement.
4.1.4. Probe Query for End-to-end Measurement for SR Policy
The performance delay and loss measurement for segment routing is
applicable to both SR-MPLS and SRv6 Policies.
4.1.4.1. Probe Query Message for SR-MPLS Policy
The probe query messages for end-to-end performance measurement of an
SR-MPLS Policy is sent using its SR-MPLS header containing the MPLS
segment list as shown in Figure 4.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PSID | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message as shown in Figure 2 for DM or Figure 3 for LM |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Example Probe Query Message for SR-MPLS Policy
The Segment List (SL) can be empty to indicate Implicit NULL label
case for a single-hop SR Policy.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
The Path Segment Identifier (PSID)
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] of the SR-MPLS Policy is used for
accounting received traffic on the egress node for loss measurement.
4.1.4.2. Probe Query Message for SRv6 Policy
An SRv6 Policy setup using the SRv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) and
a Segment List as defined in [RFC8754]. For SRv6, network
programming is defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming].
The probe query messages for end-to-end performance measurement of an
SRv6 Policy is sent using its SRH with Segment List as shown in
Figure 5.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Sender IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Destination IPv6 Address .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH as specified in RFC 8754 |
. <Segment List> .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header (Optional) |
. Source IP Address = Sender IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Reflector IPv6 Address .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Sender .
. Destination Port = User-configured Port .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = DM Message as specified in Section 4.2 of RFC 8762| |
. Payload = LM Message as specified in Figure 7 or 8 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Example Probe Query Message for SRv6 Policy
4.1.5. Control Code Field for STAMP Messages
The Control Code field is defined for delay and loss measurement
probe query messages for STAMP protocol in unauthenticated and
authenticated modes. The modified delay measurement probe query
message format is shown in Figure 6. This message format is
backwards compatible with the message format defined in STAMP
[RFC8762] as its reflector MUST ignore the received field (previously
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
identified as MBZ). The usage of the Control Code is not limited to
the SR paths and can be used for non-SR paths in a network.
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error Estimate | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |Se Control Code|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
Figure 6: Sender Control Code in STAMP DM Message
Sender Control Code: Set as follows in STAMP probe query message.
In a Query:
0x0: Out-of-band Response Requested. Indicates that the probe
response is not required over the same path in the reverse
direction. This is also the default behavior.
0x1: In-band Response Requested. Indicates that this query has
been sent over a bidirectional path and the probe response is
required over the same path in the reverse direction.
0x2: No Response Requested.
4.1.6. Loss Measurement Query Message Formats
In this document, STAMP probe query messages for loss measurement are
defined as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The message formats are
hardware efficient due to well-known locations of the counters and
payload small in size. They are stand-alone and similar to the delay
measurement message formats (e.g. location of the Counter and
Timestamp). They also do not require backwards compatibility and
support for the existing DM message formats from [RFC8762] as
different user-configured destination UDP port is used for loss
measurement.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved | Block Number | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |Se Control Code|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| MBZ (24 octets) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: STAMP LM Probe Query Message - Unauthenticated Mode
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved | Block Number | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |Se Control Code|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (64 octets) |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: STAMP LM Probe Query Message - Authenticated Mode
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
Sequence Number (32-bit): As defined in [RFC8762].
Transmit Counter (64-bit): The number of packets or octets sent by
the sender node in the query message and by the reflector node in the
response message. The counter is always written at the well-known
location in the probe query and response messages.
Receive Counter (64-bit): The number of packets or octets received at
the reflector node. It is written by the reflector node in the probe
response message.
Sender Counter (64-bit): This is the exact copy of the transmit
counter from the received query message. It is written by the
reflector node in the probe response message.
Sender Sequence Number (32-bit): As defined in [RFC8762].
Sender TTL: As defined in Section 7.1.
LM Flags: The meanings of the Flag bits are:
X: Extended counter format indicator. Indicates the use of
extended (64-bit) counter values. Initialized to 1 upon creation
(and prior to transmission) of an LM Query and copied from an LM
Query to an LM response. Set to 0 when the LM message is
transmitted or received over an interface that writes 32-bit
counter values.
B: Octet (byte) count. When set to 1, indicates that the Counter
1-4 fields represent octet counts. The octet count applies to all
packets within the LM scope, and the octet count of a packet sent
or received includes the total length of that packet (but excludes
headers, labels, or framing of the channel itself). When set to
0, indicates that the Counter fields represent packet counts.
Block Number (8-bit): The Loss Measurement using Alternate-Marking
method defined in [RFC8321] requires to color the data traffic. To
be able to compare the transmit and receive traffic counters of the
matching color, the Block Number (or color) of the traffic counters
is carried by the probe query and response messages for loss
measurement.
HMAC: The PM probe message in authenticated mode includes a key
Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [RFC2104] hash. Each probe
query and response messages are authenticated by adding Sequence
Number with Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) TLV. It can
use HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use of it in
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
IPSec defined in [RFC4868]); hence the length of the HMAC field is 16
octets.
HMAC uses its own key and the mechanism to distribute the HMAC key is
outside the scope of this document.
In authenticated mode, only the sequence number is encrypted, and the
other payload fields are sent in clear text. The probe message MAY
include Comp.MBZ (Must Be Zero) variable length field to align the
packet on 16 octets boundary.
4.2. Probe Response Message
The probe response message is sent using the IP/UDP information from
the received probe query message. The content of the probe response
message is shown in Figure 9.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Source IP Address from Query .
. Protocol = UDP .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Reflector .
. Destination Port = Source Port from Query .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = DM Message as specified in Section 4.3 of RFC 8762| |
. Payload = LM Message as specified in Figure 12 or 13 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 9: Probe Response Message
4.2.1. One-way Measurement Mode
In one-way performance measurement mode, the probe response message
as defined in Figure 9 is sent back out-of-band to the sender node,
for both Links and SR Policies. The Sender Control Code is set to
"Out-of-band Response Requested". In this delay measurement mode, as
per Reference Topology, all timestamps t1, t2, t3, and t4 are
collected by the probes. However, only timestamps t1 and t2 are used
to measure one-way delay.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
4.2.2. Two-way Measurement Mode
In two-way performance measurement mode, when using a bidirectional
path, the probe response message as defined in Figure 9 is sent back
to the sender node on the congruent path of the data traffic on the
same reverse direction Link or associated reverse SR Policy
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path]. The Sender Control Code is set to "In-
band Response Requested". In this delay measurement mode, as per
Reference Topology, all timestamps t1, t2, t3, and t4 are collected
by the probes. All four timestamps are used to measure two-way
delay.
Specifically, the probe response message is sent back on the incoming
physical interface where the probe query message is received. This
is required for example, in case of two-way measurement mode for Link
delay.
4.2.2.1. Probe Response Message for SR-MPLS Policy
The message content for sending probe response message for two-way
end-to-end performance measurement of an SR-MPLS Policy is shown in
Figure 10.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message as shown in Figure 9 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 10: Example Probe Response Message for SR-MPLS Policy
The Path Segment Identifier (PSID)
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] of the forward SR Policy in the
probe query can be used to find the associated reverse SR Policy
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path] to send the probe response message for
two-way measurement of SR Policy unless when using STAMP message with
Return Path TLV.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
4.2.2.2. Probe Response Message for SRv6 Policy
The message content for sending probe response message on the
congruent path of the data traffic for two-way end-to-end performance
measurement of an SRv6 Policy with SRH is shown in Figure 11.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Reflector IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Destination IPv6 Address .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| SRH as specified in RFC 8754 |
. <Segment List> .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header (Optional) |
. Source IP Address = Reflector IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address = Source IPv6 Address from Query .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Sender .
. Destination Port = User-configured Port .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = DM Message as specified in Section 4.3 of RFC 8762| |
. Payload = LM Message as specified in Figure 12 or 13 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 11: Example Probe Response Message for SRv6 Policy
4.2.3. Loss Measurement Response Message Formats
In this document, STAMP probe response message formats are defined
for loss measurement as shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved | Block Number | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved |Sender Block Nu| MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender TTL | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: STAMP LM Probe Response Message - Unauthenticated Mode
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transmit Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved | Block Number | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (8 octets) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Counter |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X|B| Reserved |Sender Block Nu| MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| MBZ (15 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: STAMP LM Probe Response Message - Authenticated Mode
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
4.3. Node Address TLV
In this document, Node Address TLV is defined for STAMP message
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] and has the following format shown
in Figure 14:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Address Family |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: Node Address TLV Format
The Address Family field indicates the type of the address, and it
SHALL be set to one of the assigned values in the "IANA Address
Family Numbers" registry.
The following Type is defined and it contains Node Address TLV:
Destination Node Address (value TBA1):
The Destination Node Address TLV is optional. The Destination Node
Address TLV indicates the address of the intended recipient node of
the probe message. The reflector node MUST NOT send response if it
is not the intended destination node of the probe query message.
This check is useful for example, for performance measurement of SR
Policy when using the destination address in 127/8 range for IPv4 or
in ::FFFF:127/104 range for IPv6.
4.4. Return Path TLV
For two-way performance measurement, the reflector node needs to send
the probe response message on a specific reverse path. The sender
node can request in the probe query message to the reflector node to
send a response back on a given reverse path (e.g. co-routed
bidirectional path). This way the destination node does not require
any additional SR Policy state.
For one-way performance measurement, the sender node address may not
be reachable via IP route from the reflector node. The sender node
in this case needs to send its reachability path information to the
reflector node.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] defines STAMP probe query messages
that can include one or more optional TLVs. The TLV Type (value
TBA2) is defined in this document for Return Path that carries
reverse path for STAMP probe response messages (in the payload of the
message). The format of the Return Path TLV is shown in Figure 15:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBA2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Return Path Sub-TLVs |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Return Path TLV
The following Type defined for the Return Path TLV contains the Node
Address sub-TLV using the format shown in Figure 14:
o Type (value 0): Return Address. Target node address of the
response different than the Source Address in the query
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment(1) |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Segment(n) |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 16: Segment List Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV
The Segment List Sub-TLV (shown in Figure 16) in the Return Path TLV
can be one of the following Types:
o Type (value 1): SR-MPLS Label Stack of the Reverse SR Path
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
o Type (value 2): SR-MPLS Binding SID
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] of the Reverse SR Policy
o Type (value 3): SRv6 Segment List of the Reverse SR Path
o Type (value 4): SRv6 Binding SID [I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid]
of the Reverse SR Policy
The Return Path TLV is optional. The PM sender node MUST only insert
one Return Path TLV in the probe query message and the reflector node
MUST only process the first Return Path TLV in the probe query
message and ignore other Return Path TLVs if present. The reflector
node MUST send probe response message back on the reverse path
specified in the Return Path TLV and MUST NOT add Return Path TLV in
the probe response message.
4.5. Additional Probe Message Processing Rules
The processing rules defined in this section are applicable to the
STAMP messages for delay and loss measurement for Links and end-to-
end SR Paths including SR Policies.
4.5.1. TTL and Hop Limit
The TTL field in the IPv4 and MPLS headers of the probe query
messages is set to 255 [RFC8762]. Similarly, the Hop Limit field in
the IPv6 and SRH headers of the probe query messages is set to 255
[RFC8762].
When using the Destination IPv4 Address from the 127/8 range, the TTL
in the IPv4 header is set to 1 [RFC8029]. Similarly, when using the
Destination IPv6 Address from the ::FFFF:127/104 range, the Hop Limit
field in the IPv6 header is set to 1.
For Link performance delay and loss measurements, the TTL or Hop
Limit field in the probe message is set to 1 in both one-way and two-
way measurement modes.
4.5.2. Router Alert Option
The Router Alert IP option (RAO) [RFC2113] is not set in the probe
messages.
4.5.3. UDP Checksum
The UDP Checksum Complement for delay and loss measurement messages
follows the procedure defined in [RFC7820] and can be optionally used
with the procedures defined in this document.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
For IPv4 and IPv6 probe messages, where the hardware is not capable
of re-computing the UDP checksum or adding checksum complement
[RFC7820], the sender node sets the UDP checksum to 0 [RFC6936]
[RFC8085]. The receiving node bypasses the checksum validation and
accepts the packets with UDP checksum value 0 for the UDP port being
used for PM delay and loss measurements.
5. Performance Measurement for P2MP SR Policies
The procedures for delay and loss measurement described in this
document for Point-to-Point (P2P) SR Policies
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] are also equally applicable
to the Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) SR Policies as following:
o The sender root node sends probe query messages using the
Replication Segment defined in
[I-D.voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment] for the P2MP SR Policy
as shown in Figure 17.
o Each reflector leaf node sends its IP address in the Source
Address of the probe response messages as shown in Figure 9. This
allows the sender root node to identify the reflector leaf nodes
of the P2MP SR Policy.
o The P2MP root node measures the end-to-end delay and loss
performance for each P2MP leaf node of the P2MP SR Policy.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Replication SID | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message as shown in Figure 2 for DM or Figure 3 for LM |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 17: Example Query with Replication Segment for SR-MPLS Policy
6. ECMP Support for SR Policies
An SR Policy can have ECMPs between the source and transit nodes,
between transit nodes and between transit and destination nodes.
Usage of Anycast SID [RFC8402] by an SR Policy can result in ECMP
paths via transit nodes part of that Anycast group. The PM probe
messages need to be sent to traverse different ECMP paths to measure
performance delay of an SR Policy.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
Forwarding plane has various hashing functions available to forward
packets on specific ECMP paths. The mechanisms described in
[RFC8029] and [RFC5884] for handling ECMPs are also applicable to the
performance measurement. In IPv4 header of the PM probe messages,
sweeping of Destination Address in 127/8 range can be used to
exercise particular ECMP paths. As specified in [RFC6437], Flow
Label field in the outer IPv6 header can also be used for sweeping.
The considerations for performance loss measurement for different
ECMP paths of an SR Policy are outside the scope of this document.
7. Performance Delay and Liveness Monitoring
The procedure defined in this document for delay measurement using
the STAMP probe messages can also be applied to liveness monitoring
of Links and SR Paths. The one-way or two-way measurement mode can
be used for liveness monitoring. Liveness failure is notified when
consecutive N number of probe response messages are not received back
at the sender node, where N is locally provisioned value. Note that
detection interval and scale for number of sessions need to account
for the processing of the probe messages which are punted out of fast
path in forwarding (to slow path or control plane), and re-injected
back on the reflector node.
8. Security Considerations
The performance measurement is intended for deployment in well-
managed private and service provider networks. As such, it assumes
that a node involved in a measurement operation has previously
verified the integrity of the path and the identity of the far-end
reflector node.
If desired, attacks can be mitigated by performing basic validation
and sanity checks, at the sender, of the counter or timestamp fields
in received measurement response messages. The minimal state
associated with these protocols also limits the extent of measurement
disruption that can be caused by a corrupt or invalid message to a
single query/response cycle.
Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data
integrity of the probe messages. SRv6 has HMAC protection
authentication defined for SRH [RFC8754]. Hence, PM probe messages
for SRv6 may not need authentication mode. Cryptographic measures
may be enhanced by the correct configuration of access-control lists
and firewalls.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
9. IANA Considerations
IANA will create a "STAMP TLV Type" registry for
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]. IANA is requested to allocate a
value for the following mandatory Destination Address TLV Type from
this registry. This TLV is to be carried in PM probe messages.
o Type TBA1: Destination Node Address TLV
IANA is also requested to allocate a value for the following
mandatory Return Path TLV Type from the same registry. This TLV is
to be carried in PM probe query messages.
o Type TBA2: Return Path TLV
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry for "Return Path Sub-TLV
Type". All code points in the range 1 through 32759 in this registry
shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as
specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the range 32760 through 65279
in this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come
First Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code
points are allocated according to Table 1:
+---------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| 0- 32767 | Mandatory TLV, | IETF Review |
| | unassigned | |
| 32768 - 65279 | Optional TLV, | First Come First Served |
| | unassigned | |
| 65280 - 65519 | Experimental | This document |
| 65520 - 65534 | Private Use | This document |
| 65535 | Reserved | This document |
+---------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
Table 1: Return Path Sub-TLV Type Registry
IANA is requested to allocate the values for the following Sub-TLV
Types from this registry.
o Type (value 0): Return Address
o Type (value 1): SR-MPLS Label Stack of the Reverse SR Path
o Type (value 2): SR-MPLS Binding SID
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] of the Reverse SR Policy
o Type (value 3): SRv6 Segment List of the Reverse SR Path
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
o Type (value 4): SRv6 Binding SID [I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid]
of the Reverse SR Policy
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]
Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
option-tlv-04 (work in progress), March 2020.
10.2. Informative References
[IEEE1588]
IEEE, "1588-2008 IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems", March 2008.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[RFC2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2113, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2113>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, DOI 10.17487/RFC5884,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.
[RFC7820] Mizrahi, T., "UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way
Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 7820,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7820, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7820>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
[RFC8186] Mirsky, G. and I. Meilik, "Support of the IEEE 1588
Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 8186, DOI 10.17487/RFC8186, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8186>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[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>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 (work in progress),
May 2020.
[I-D.voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment]
Voyer, D., Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., Bidgoli, H., and Z.
Zhang, "SR Replication Segment for Multi-point Service
Delivery", draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment-03
(work in progress), June 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler,
"Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network",
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-02 (work in progress),
February 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15 (work in
progress), March 2020.
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Hardwick, J.,
Previdi, S., and C. Li, "Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID
in PCE-based Networks.", draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-
sid-02 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr]
Gandhi, R., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Brockners, F., Wen, B.,
and V. Kozak, "MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ
OAM Data", draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-02 (work in
progress), March 2020.
[I-D.ali-spring-ioam-srv6]
Ali, Z., Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Brockners, F., Kumar,
N., Pignataro, C., Li, C., Chen, M., and G. Dawra,
"Segment Routing Header encapsulation for In-situ OAM
Data", draft-ali-spring-ioam-srv6-02 (work in progress),
November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong,
"PCEP Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment
Routing (SR) Paths", draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-02 (work
in progress), March 2020.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Thierry Couture for the discussions
on the use-cases for Performance Measurement in Segment Routing. The
authors would also like to thank Greg Mirsky for reviewing this
document and providing useful comments and suggestions. Patrick
Khordoc and Radu Valceanu, both from Cisco Systems have helped
significantly improve the mechanisms defined in this document. The
authors would like to acknowledge the earlier work on the loss
measurement using TWAMP described in draft-xiao-ippm-twamp-ext-
direct-loss. The authors would also like to thank Sam Aldrin for the
discussions to check for broken path.
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft STAMP for Segment Routing June 2020
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Daniel Voyer
Bell Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Bart Janssens
Colt
Email: Bart.Janssens@colt.net
Gandhi, et al. Expires December 7, 2020 [Page 29]