RFC 8762: Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
- G. Mirsky,
- G. Jun,
- H. Nydell,
- R. Foote
This RFC was updated
Abstract
This document describes the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
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://
1. Introduction
Development and deployment of the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions (e.g., [RFC6038], which defines Symmetrical Size for TWAMP) provided invaluable experience. Several independent implementations of both TWAMP and TWAMP Light exist, have been deployed, and provide important operational performance measurements.¶
At the same time, there has been noticeable interest in using a more straightforward
mechanism for active performance monitoring that can provide deterministic
behavior and inherent separation of control
This document defines an active performance measurement test protocol, Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), that enables measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. Support of some optional TWAMP extensions, e.g., [RFC7750], is discussed in [STAMP-OPTION].¶
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Terminology
2.2. 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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
3. Operation and Management of Performance Measurement Based on STAMP
Figure 1 presents the Simple Two-way
Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP)
Session-Sender and Session
4. Theory of Operation
The STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport
toward the STAMP Session
- Stateless:
- The STAMP Session
-Reflector does not maintain test state and will use the value in the Sequence Number field in the received packet as the value for the Sequence Number field in the reflected packet. As a result, values in the Sequence Number and Session-Sender Sequence Number fields are the same, and only round-trip packet loss can be calculated while the reflector is operating in stateless mode.¶ - Stateful:
- STAMP Session
-Reflector maintains the test state, thus allowing the Session-Sender to determine directionality of loss using the combination of gaps recognized in the Session Sender Sequence Number and Sequence Number fields, respectively. As a result, both near-end (forward) and far-end (backward) packet loss can be computed. That implies that the STAMP Session -Reflector MUST maintain a state for each configured STAMP-Test session, thereby uniquely associating STAMP-Test packets with one such session instance and, thus, enabling the addition of a sequence number in the test reply that is individually incremented by one on a per-session basis.¶
STAMP supports two authentication modes: unauthenticated and authenticated. Unauthenticated STAMP-Test packets, defined in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1, ensure interworking between STAMP and TWAMP Light, as described in Section 4.6 regarding packet formats.¶
By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets, i.e., the size of the packet
transmitted by the Session
4.1. UDP Port Numbers in STAMP Testing
A STAMP Session-Sender MUST use UDP port 862 (TWAMP-Test Receiver Port) as the default destination UDP port number. A STAMP implementation of the Session-Sender MUST be able to be used as the destination UDP port numbers from the User Ports (aka Registered Ports) and Dynamic Ports (aka Private or Ephemeral Ports) ranges defined in [RFC6335]. Before using numbers from the User Ports range, the possible impact on the network MUST be carefully studied and agreed on by all users of the network domain where the test has been planned.¶
By default, an implementation of the STAMP Session
4.2. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format
A STAMP Session
4.2.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
The fields are defined as following:¶
4.2.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, listed in Section 4.2.1. Also, MBZ fields are used to make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets. The value of the field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Note, that both MBZ fields are used to calculate a key hashed message authentication code (HMAC) [RFC2104] hash. Also, the packet includes an HMAC hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is described in Section 4.4.¶
4.3. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format
The Session
4.3.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
Fields are defined as the following:¶
4.3.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, listed in
Section 4.3.1.
Additionally, the MBZ field is used to make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets.
The value of the field MUST be zeroed on transmission and
MUST be ignored on receipt.
Note that the MBZ field is used to calculate the HMAC hash value.
Also, the STAMP Session
4.4. Integrity Protection in STAMP
Authenticated mode provides integrity protection to each STAMP message by adding Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC). STAMP uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use of it in IPsec defined in [RFC4868]); hence, the length of the HMAC field is 16 octets. In the authenticated mode, HMAC covers the first six blocks (96 octets). HMAC uses its own key, which may be unique for each STAMP-Test session; key management and the mechanisms to distribute the HMAC key are outside the scope of this specification. One example is to use an orchestrator to configure the HMAC key based on the STAMP YANG data model [STAMP-YANG]. HMAC MUST be verified as early as possible to avoid using or propagating corrupted data.¶
Future specifications may define the use of other, more advanced cryptographic algorithms, possibly providing an update to the STAMP YANG data model [STAMP-YANG].¶
4.5. Confidentiality Protection in STAMP
If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, a STAMP-Test session MUST use a secured transport. For example, STAMP packets could be transmitted in the dedicated IPsec tunnel or share the IPsec tunnel with the monitored flow. Also, the Datagram Transport Layer Security protocol would provide the desired confidentiality protection.¶
4.6. Interoperability with TWAMP Light
One of the essential requirements to STAMP is the ability to interwork with a
TWAMP Light device. Because STAMP and TWAMP use different algorithms in
authenticated mode (HMAC-SHA-256 versus HMAC-SHA-1), interoperabilit
In the former case, the Session-Sender might not be aware that its Session
In the latter scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender does not support
the use of UDP port 862, the test management system MUST set
the STAMP Session
A STAMP Session
5. Operational Considerations
STAMP is intended to be used on production networks to enable
the operator to assess service level agreements based on packet delay,
delay variation, and loss. When using STAMP over the Internet, especially
when STAMP-Test packets are transmitted with the destination UDP port number from
the User Ports range, the possible impact of the STAMP-Test packets
MUST be thoroughly analyzed.
The use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by users of
nodes hosting the Session-Sender and Session
Also, the use of the well-known port number as the destination UDP port number in STAMP-Test packets transmitted by a Session-Sender would not impede the ability to measure performance in an Equal-Cost Multipath environment, and analysis in Section 5.3 of [RFC8545] fully applies to STAMP.¶
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.¶
7. Security Considerations
[RFC5357] does not identify security considerations specific to TWAMP-Test but refers to security considerations identified for OWAMP in [RFC4656]. Since both OWAMP and TWAMP include control-plane and data-plane components, only security considerations related to OWAMP-Test discussed in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of [RFC4656] apply to STAMP.¶
STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the
OWAMP
Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data integrity of the STAMP-Test packets.¶
8. References
8.1. Normative References
- [IEEE.1588.2008]
- IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems", IEEE Standard 1588, .
- [RFC2104]
-
Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2104 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2104 - [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 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 , , <https:///RFC4656 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4656 - [RFC5357]
-
Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5357 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5357 - [RFC5905]
-
Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5905 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5905 - [RFC6038]
-
Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features", RFC 6038, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6038 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6038 - [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 , , <https:///RFC6335 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6335 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [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 , , <https:///RFC8186 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8186 - [RFC8545]
-
Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 8545, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8545 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8545
8.2. Informative References
- [BBF.TR-390]
- Broadband Forum, "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light", TR-390 Issue 1, .
- [RFC4868]
-
Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4868 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4868 - [RFC7750]
-
Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon, "Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7750 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7750 - [RFC8085]
-
Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8085 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8085 - [STAMP-OPTION]
-
Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A., and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Optional Extensions", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-ippm -stamp -option -tlv -03 tools >..ietf .org /html /draft -ietf -ippm -stamp -option -tlv -03 - [STAMP-YANG]
-
Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-ippm -stamp -yang -05 tools >..ietf .org /html /draft -ietf -ippm -stamp -yang -05
Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin and Brian Weis for their great insights into the security and identity protection as well as the most helpful and practical suggestions. Also, our sincere thanks to David Ball, Rakesh Gandhi, and Xiao Min for their thorough reviews and helpful comments.¶