One-way/Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Zhenqiang Li  , Mach Chen  , Greg Mirsky 
Last updated 2021-02-07
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                              Z. Li
Internet-Draft                                              China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track                                 M. Chen
Expires: August 12, 2021                                          Huawei
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                               ZTE Corp.
                                                        February 8, 2021

 One-way/Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
                           Measurement on LAG
                     draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-00

Abstract

   This document defines extensions to One-way Active Measurement
   Protocol (OWAMP), and Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) to
   implement performance measurement on every member link of a Link
   Aggregation Group (LAG).  Knowing the measured metrics of each member
   link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a performance metric-based
   traffic steering policy across the member links.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
   as shown here.

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 August 12, 2021.

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Micro Session on LAG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Mirco OWAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Micro OWAMP-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Micro OWAMP-Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Mirco TWAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Micro TWAMP-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Micro TWAMP-Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.1.  Sender Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.2.  Reflector Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  Mico OWAMP-Control Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Mico TWAMP-Control Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Problem Statement

   Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides
   mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical
   link.  This logical link offers higher bandwidth and better
   resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the
   aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the
   remaining operational physical member links.

   Usually, when forwarding traffic over a LAG, a hash-based or similar
   mechanism is used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

   links.  In some cases, the link delays of the member links are
   different because they are over different transport paths.  To
   provide low delay service to time sensitive traffic, we have to know
   the link delay of each member link of a LAG and then steer traffic
   accordingly.  That requires a solution that could measure the
   performance metrics of each member link of a LAG.

   However, when using One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)
   [RFC4656], or Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357]
   to measure the performance of a LAG, the LAG is treated as a single
   logical link/path.  The measured metrics reflect the performance of
   one member link or an average of some/all member links of the LAG.

   In addition, for LAG, using passive or hybrid methods (like
   alternative marking[RFC8321] or iOAM [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]) can
   only monitor the link crossed by traffic.  It means that the measured
   metrics reflect the performance of some member links or an average of
   some/all member links of the LAG.  Therefore, in order to measure
   every link of a LAG, using active methods would be more appropriate.

   This document defines extensions to OWAMP [RFC4656], and TWAMP
   [RFC5357] to implement performance measurement on every member link
   of a LAG.

2.  Micro Session on LAG

   This document intends to address the scenario (e.g., Figure 1) where
   a LAG (e.g., the LAG includes three member links) directly connects
   two nodes (A and B) . The goal is to measure the performance of each
   link of the LAG.

                     +---+                       +---+
                     |   |-----------------------|   |
                     | A |-----------------------| B |
                     |   |-----------------------|   |
                     +---+                       +---+

                           Figure 1: PM for LAG

   To measure performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
   multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
   established between the two hosts that are connected by the LAG.
   These sessions are called micro sessions for the remainder of this
   document.

   All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender Address, Receiver
   Address.  As for the Sender Port and Receiver Port, the micro
   sessions may share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

   each micro session is configured with a different Sender Port and
   Receiver Port pair.  But from simplifying operation point of view,
   the former is recommended.

   In addition, with micro sessions, there needs a way to correlate a
   session with a member link.  For example, when the Server/Reflector/
   Receiver receives a Control or Test packet, it needs to know from
   which member link the packet is received, and correlate it with a
   micro session.  This is different from the existing OWAMP [RFC4656],
   or TWAMP [RFC5357]

   This document defines new command types to indicate that a session is
   a micro session.  The details are described in Sections 3 and 4 of
   this document.  Upon receiving a Control/Test packet, the receiver
   uses the receiving link's identifier to correlate the packet to a
   particular micro session.  In addition, Test packets may need to
   carry the member link information for validation checking.  For
   example, when a Session-Sender receives a Test packet, it may need to
   check whether the Test packet is from the expected member link.

3.  Mirco OWAMP Session

   This document assumes that the OWAMP Server and the OWAMP Receiver of
   an OWAMP micro session are at the same host.

3.1.  Micro OWAMP-Control

   To support the micro OWAMP session, a new command, referred to as
   Request-OW-Micro-Session (TBD1), is defined in this document.  The
   Request-OW-Micro-Session command is based on the OWAMP Request-
   Session command, and uses the message format as described in
   Section 3.5 of OWAMP [RFC4656].  Test session creation of micro OWAMP
   session follows the same procedure as defined in Section 3.5 of OWAMP
   [RFC4656] with the following additions:

   When a OWAMP Server receives a Request-OW-Micro-Session command, if
   the Session is accepted, the OWAMP Server MUST build an association
   between the session and the member link from which the Request-
   Session message is received.

3.2.  Micro OWAMP-Test

   Micro OWAMP-Test reuses the OWAMP-Test packet format and procedures
   as defined in Section 4 of OWAMP [RFC4656] with the following
   additions:

   The micro OWAMP Sender MUST send the micro OWAMP-Test packets over
   the member link with which the session is associated.  When receives

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

   a Test packet, the micro OWAMP receiver MUST use the member link from
   which the Test packet is received to correlate the micro OWAMP
   session.  If there is no such a session, the Test packet MUST be
   discarded.

4.  Mirco TWAMP Session

   As above, this document assumes that the TWAMP Server and the TWAMP
   Session-Reflector of a micro OWAMP session are at the same host.

4.1.  Micro TWAMP-Control

   To support the micro TWAMP session, a new command, referred to as
   Request-TW-Micro-Session (TBD2), is defined in this document.  The
   Request-TW-Micro-Session command is based on the TWAMP Request-
   Session command, and uses the message format as described in
   Section 3.5 of TWAMP [RFC5357].  Test session creation of micro TWAMP
   session follows the same procedure as defined in Section 3.5 of TWAMP
   [RFC5357] with the following additions:

   When a micro TWAMP Server receives a Request-TW-Micro-Session
   command, if the micro TWAMP Session is accepted, the micro TWAMP
   Server MUST build an association between the session and the member
   link from which the Request-Session message is received.

4.2.  Micro TWAMP-Test

   The micro TWAMP-Test protocol is based on the TWAMP-Test protocol
   [RFC5357] with the following extensions.

4.2.1.  Sender Behavior

   In addition to inheriting the TWAMP sender behavior as defined
   Section 4.1 of [RFC5357], the micro TWAMP Session-Sender MUST send
   the micro TWAMP-Test packets over the member link with which the
   session is associated.

   When sending the Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-Sender MUST put
   the Sender member link identifier that is associated with the micro
   TWAMP session in the Sender Member Link ID.  If the Session-Sender
   knows the Reflector member link identifier, it MUST put it in the
   Reflector Member Link ID fields (see Figure 2 and Figure 3).
   Otherwise, the Reflector Member Link ID field MUST be set to zero.

   The Session-Sender uses the Sender member link identifier to check
   whether a reflected Test packet is received from the member link
   associated with the correct micro TWAMP session.  Therefore, it is
   carried in the Sender Member Link ID field of a Test packet and sent

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

   to the Session-Reflector.  Then it will be sent back by the Session-
   Reflector with the reflected Test packet.

   The Reflector member link identifier carried in the Reflector Member
   Link ID field is used by the Session-Receiver to check whether a Test
   packet is received from the member link associated with the correct
   micro TWAMP session.  It means that the Session-Sender has to learn
   the Reflector member link identifier.  Once the Session-Sender knows
   the Reflector member link identifier, it MUST put the identifier in
   the Reflector Member Link ID field (see Figure 2 or Figure 3) of the
   Test packets that will be sent to the Session-Reflector.  The
   Reflector member link identifier can be obtained from pre-
   configuration or learned through the control plane or data plane
   (e.g., learned from a reflected Test packet).  How to obtain/learn
   the Reflector member link identifier is out of the scope of this
   document.

   When receives a reflected Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-Sender
   MUST use the receiving member link to correlate the reflected Test
   packet to a micro TWAMP session.  If there is no such a session, the
   reflected Test packet MUST be discarded.  If a matched session
   exists, the Session-Sender MUST use the identifier carried in the
   Sender Member Link ID field to validate whether the reflected Test
   packet is correctly transmitted over the expected member link.  If
   the validation failed, the Test packet MUST be discarded.

4.2.1.1.  Packet Format and Content

   The micro TWAMP Session-Sender packet format is based on the TWAMP
   Session-Sender packet format as defined in Section 4.1.2 of
   [RFC5357].  Two new fields (Sender Member Link ID and Reflector
   Member Link ID) are added to carry the LAG member link identifiers.
   The formats are as below:

   For unauthenticated mode:

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

        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                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Timestamp                            |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |        Error Estimate         |             MBZ               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Sender Member Link ID      |   Reflector Member Link ID    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       .                         Packet Padding                        .
       .                                                               .
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 2: Session-Sender Packet format in Unauthenticated Mode

   For authenticated mode:

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

        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)                        |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Timestamp                            |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |        Error Estimate         |              MBZ              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Sender Member Link ID      |   Reflector Member Link ID    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                       HMAC (16 octets)                        |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       .                        Packet Padding                         .
       .                                                               .
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Figure 3: Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode

   Except for the Sender/Reflector Member Link ID field, all the other
   fields are the same as defined in Section 4.1.2 of TWAMP [RFC5357],
   which is defined in Section 4.1.2 of OWAMP [RFC4656].  Therefore, it
   follows the same procedure and guidelines as defined in Section 4.1.2
   of TWAMP [RFC5357].

   Sender Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
   the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side.  The value of the
   Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender.

   Reflector Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
   the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector side.  The value of
   the Reflector Member ID MUST be unique at the Session-Reflector.

4.2.2.  Reflector Behavior

   The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector inherits the behaviors of a TWAMP
   Session-Reflector as defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC5357].

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

   In addition, when receives a Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-
   Reflector MUST use the receiving member link to correlate the Test
   packet to a micro TWAMP session.  If there is no such a session, the
   Test packet MUST be discarded.  If Reflector Member Link ID is not
   zero, the Reflector MUST use the Reflector member link identifier to
   check whether it associates with the receiving member link.  If it
   does not, the Test packet MUST be discarded.

   When sends a response to the received Test packet, the micro TWAMP
   Session-Sender MUST copy the Sender member link identifier from the
   received Test packet and put it in the Sender Member Link ID field of
   the reflected Test packet (see Figure 4 and Figure 5).  In addition,
   the micro TWAMP Session-Reflector MUST fill the Reflector Member Link
   ID field (see Figure 2 or Figure 3) of the reflected Test packet with
   the member link identifier that is associated with the micro TWAMP
   session.

4.2.2.1.  Packet Format and Content

   The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector packet format is based on the TWAMP
   Session-Reflector packet format as defined in Section 4.2.1 of
   [RFC5357].  Two new fields (Sender and Reflector Member Link ID) are
   added to carry the LAG member link identifiers.  The formats are as
   below:

   For unauthenticated mode:

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

      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                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Timestamp                            |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Error Estimate        |               MBZ             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Receive Timestamp                       |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Sender Sequence Number                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Sender Timestamp                        |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Sender Error Estimate    |    Sender Member Link ID      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Sender TTL   |      MBZ      |   Reflector Member Link ID    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      .                                                               .
      .                         Packet Padding                        .
      .                                                               .
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Figure 4: Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode

   For authenticated and encrypted modes:

      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)                        |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Timestamp                            |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Error Estimate        |               MBZ             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Sender Member Link ID      |   Reflector Member Link ID    |

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Receive Timestamp                      |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        MBZ (8 octets)                         |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Sender Sequence Number                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        MBZ (12 octets)                        |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Sender Timestamp                         |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Sender Error Estimate    |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      |                        MBZ (6 octets)                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Sender TTL   |                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               +
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      |                        MBZ (15 octets)                        |
      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      |                        HMAC (16 octets)                       |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      .                         Packet Padding                        .
      .                                                               .
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 5: Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode

   Except for the Sender/Reflector Member Link ID field, all the other
   fields are the same as defined in Section 4.2.1 of TWAMP [RFC5357].
   Therefore, it follows the same procedure and guidelines as defined in
   Section 4.2.1 of TWAMP [RFC5357].

   Sender Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
   the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side.  The value of the
   Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender.

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

   Reflector Member Link ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to carry
   the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector side.  The value of
   the Reflector Member ID MUST be unique at the Session-Reflector.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  Mico OWAMP-Control Command

   This document requires the IANA to allocate the following command
   type from OWAMP-Control Command Number Registry.

   Value  Description                   Semantics Definition
   TBD1   Request-OW-Micro-Session      This document, Section 3.1

5.2.  Mico TWAMP-Control Command

   This document requires the IANA to allocate the following command
   type from TWAMP-Control Command Number Registry.

   Value  Description                   Semantics Definition
   TBD1   Request-TW-Micro-Session      This document, Section 4.1

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce additional security requirements and
   mechanisms other than those described in [RFC4656], and [RFC5357].

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Min Xiao, Fang Xin for the valuable
   comments to this work.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC4656]  Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
              Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
              (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG              February 2021

   [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
              Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
              RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.

   [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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
              for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11 (work in
              progress), November 2020.

   [IEEE802.1AX]
              IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
              2008.

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhenqiang Li
   China Mobile

   Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

   Greg Mirsky
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

Li, et al.               Expires August 12, 2021               [Page 13]