Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on a Link Aggregation Group
RFC 9534



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                             Z. Li
Request for Comments: 9534                                  China Mobile
Category: Standards Track                                        T. Zhou
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Huawei
                                                                  J. Guo
                                                               ZTE Corp.
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                                Ericsson
                                                               R. Gandhi
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            January 2024

 Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
                Measurement on a Link Aggregation Group

Abstract

   This document extends Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
   (STAMP) 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-based
   traffic steering policy across the member links.

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://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9534.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Requirements Language
   2.  Micro Sessions on a LAG
   3.  Member Link Validation
     3.1.  Micro-session ID TLV
     3.2.  Micro STAMP-Test Procedures
   4.  Applicability
   5.  IANA Considerations
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  References
     7.1.  Normative References
     7.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   A 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 mechanism
   is used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links.  The
   link delay might vary between member links because of different
   transport paths, especially when a LAG is used in a wide area
   network.  To provide low-latency service for time-sensitive traffic,
   we need to explicitly steer the traffic across the LAG member links
   based on the link delay, loss, and so on.  That requires a solution
   to measure the performance metrics of each member link of a LAG.
   Hence, the measured performance metrics can work together with Layer
   2 bundle member link attributes advertisement [RFC8668] for traffic
   steering.

   According to the classifications in [RFC7799], Simple Two-way Active
   Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is an active measurement
   method, and it can complement passive and hybrid methods.  It
   provides a mechanism to measure both one-way and round-trip
   performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.  A
   STAMP test session over the LAG can be used to measure the
   performance of a member link using a specially constructed 5-tuple.
   The session can be used to measure an average of some or all member
   links of the LAG by varying one or more elements of that 5-tuple.
   However, without the knowledge of each member link, a STAMP test
   session cannot measure the performance of every physical member link.

   This document extends STAMP to implement performance measurement on
   every member link of a LAG.  It can provide the same metrics as
   One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656] and Two-Way
   Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] can measure, such as
   delay, jitter, and packet loss.

1.1.  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.

2.  Micro Sessions on a LAG

   This document addresses the scenario where a LAG directly connects
   two nodes.  An example of this is in Figure 1, where the LAG
   consisting of four links connects nodes A and B.  The goal is to
   measure the performance of each link of the LAG.

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

                 Figure 1: Performance Measurement on a LAG

   To measure the performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
   multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
   established between the two endpoints that are connected by the LAG.
   These sessions are called "micro sessions" in the remainder of this
   document.  Although micro sessions are in fact STAMP sessions
   established on member links of a LAG, test packets of micro sessions
   MUST carry member link information for validation.

   All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
   Receiver IP Address.  As for the UDP port, the micro sessions may
   share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair or each micro
   session may be configured with a different Sender Port and Receiver
   Port pair.  From the operational point of view, the former is simpler
   and is RECOMMENDED.

   Test packets of a micro session MUST carry the member link
   information for validation checks.  For example, when a micro STAMP
   Session-Sender receives a reflected test packet, it checks whether
   the test packet is from the expected member link.  The member link
   information is encoded in the Micro-session ID TLV introduced in
   Section 3, which also provides a detailed description about member
   link validation.

   A micro STAMP Session-Sender MAY include the Follow-Up Telemetry TLV
   [RFC8972] to request information from the micro Session-Reflector.
   This timestamp might be important for the micro Session-Sender, as it
   improves the accuracy of network delay measurement by minimizing the
   impact of egress queuing delays on the measurement.

3.  Member Link Validation

   Test packets MUST carry member link information in the Micro-session
   ID TLV introduced in this section for validation checks.  The micro
   Session-Sender verifies whether the test packet is received from the
   expected member link.  It also verifies whether the packet is sent
   from the expected member link at the Reflector side.  The micro
   Session-Reflector verifies whether the test packet is received from
   the expected member link.

3.1.  Micro-session ID TLV

   The STAMP TLV mechanism [RFC8972] extends STAMP test packets with one
   or more optional TLVs.  This document defines the TLV Type (value 11)
   for the Micro-session ID TLV that carries the micro STAMP Session-
   Sender member link identifier and Session-Reflector member link
   identifier in the Sender Micro-session ID field and the Reflector
   Micro-session ID field, respectively.  The format of the Micro-
   session ID TLV is shown as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |STAMP TLV Flags|  Type = 11    |           Length              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Sender Micro-session ID   |   Reflector Micro-session ID  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 2: Micro-session ID TLV

   Type (1 octet in length):  This field is defined to indicate this TLV
      is a Micro-session ID TLV.  Value 11 has been allocated by IANA
      (Section 5).

   Length (2 octets in length):  This field is defined to carry the
      length of the Value field in octets.  The Length field value MUST
      be 4.

   Sender Micro-session ID (2 octets in length):  This field is defined
      to carry the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side.  In
      the future, it may be used generically to cover use cases beyond
      LAGs.  The value of this field MUST be unique within a STAMP
      session at the Session-Sender.

   Reflector Micro-session ID (2 octets in length):  This field is
      defined to carry the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector
      side.  In the future, it may be used generically to cover use
      cases beyond LAGs.  The value of this field MUST be unique within
      a STAMP session at the Session-Reflector.

3.2.  Micro STAMP-Test Procedures

   The micro STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of
   STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions.

   The micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro STAMP-Test packets
   over the member link with which the session is associated.  The
   mapping between a micro STAMP session and the Sender/Reflector member
   link identifiers can be configured by augmenting the STAMP YANG
   [STAMP-YANG].  The detailed augmentation is not in the scope of this
   document.

   When sending a test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST set
   the Sender Micro-session ID field with the member link identifier
   associated with the micro STAMP session.  If the Session-Sender knows
   the Reflector member link identifier, the Reflector Micro-session ID
   field MUST be set.  Otherwise, the Reflector Micro-session ID field
   MUST be zero.  The Reflector member link identifier can be obtained
   from preconfiguration or learned from data plane (e.g., the reflected
   test packet).  This document does not specify the way to obtain the
   Reflector member link identifier.

   When the micro STAMP Session-Reflector receives a test packet, if the
   Reflector Micro-session ID is not zero, the micro STAMP Session-
   Reflector MUST use the Reflector member link identifier to check
   whether it is associated with the micro STAMP session.  If the
   validation fails, the test packet MUST be discarded.  If the
   Reflector Micro-session ID is zero, it will not be verified.  If all
   validations passed, the Session-Reflector sends a reflected test
   packet to the Session-Sender.  The micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST
   put the Sender and Reflector member link identifiers that are
   associated with the micro STAMP session in the Sender Micro-session
   ID and Reflector Micro-session ID fields, respectively.  The Sender
   member link identifier is copied from the received test packet.

   When receiving a reflected test packet, the micro Session-Sender MUST
   use the Sender Micro-session ID to validate whether the reflected
   test packet is correctly received from the expected member link.  If
   the validation fails, the test packet MUST be discarded.  The micro
   Session-Sender MUST use the Reflector Micro-session ID to validate
   the Reflector's behavior.  If the validation fails, the test packet
   MUST be discarded.

   Two modes of the STAMP Session-Reflector, stateless and stateful,
   characterize the expected behavior as described in Section 4 of STAMP
   [RFC8762].  The micro STAMP-Test also supports both stateless and
   stateful modes.  However, the micro STAMP-Test does not introduce any
   additional state to STAMP, i.e., any procedure with regard to the
   Micro-session ID is stateless.

4.  Applicability

   The micro STAMP Session-Sender sends micro Session-Sender packets
   with the Micro-session ID TLV.  The micro Session-Reflector checks
   whether a test packet is received from the member link associated
   with the correct micro STAMP session if the Reflector Micro-session
   ID field is set.  When reflecting, the micro STAMP Session-Reflector
   copies the Sender Micro-session ID from the received micro Session-
   Sender packet to the micro Session-Reflector packet and sets the
   Reflector Micro-session ID field with the member link identifier that
   is associated with the micro STAMP session.  When receiving the micro
   Session-Reflector packet, the micro Session-Sender uses the Sender
   Micro-session ID to check whether the packet is received from the
   member link associated with the correct micro STAMP session.  The
   micro Session-Sender also use the Reflector Micro-session ID to
   validate the Reflector's behavior.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has allocated the following STAMP TLV Type for the Micro-session
   ID TLV in the "STAMP TLV Types" registry [RFC8972]:

               +=======+==================+===============+
               | Value | Description      | Reference     |
               +=======+==================+===============+
               | 11    | Micro-session ID | This Document |
               +-------+------------------+---------------+

                       Table 1: New STAMP TLV Type

6.  Security Considerations

   The STAMP extension defined in this document is intended for
   deployment in the LAG scenario where Session-Sender and Session-
   Reflector are directly connected.  As such, it's assumed that a node
   involved in a STAMP operation has previously verified the integrity
   of the LAG connection and the identity of its one-hop-away peer node.

   This document does not introduce any additional security issues, and
   the security mechanisms defined in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] apply in
   this document.

7.  References

7.1.  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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8972]  Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
              and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
              Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [IEEE802.1AX]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2020,
              DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034, May 2020,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7799]  Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
              Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
              May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.

   [RFC8668]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri,
              M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link
              Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668,
              December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668>.

   [STAMP-YANG]
              Mirsky, G., Min, X., Luo, W. S., and R. Gandhi, "Simple
              Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
              yang-12, 5 November 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
              stamp-yang-12>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Mach Chen, Min Xiao, Fang Xin, Marcus
   Ihlar, and Richard Foote for the valuable comments to this work.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhenqiang Li
   China Mobile
   No. 29 Finance Avenue
   Xicheng District
   Beijing
   China
   Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com

   Tianran Zhou
   Huawei
   China
   Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com

   Jun Guo
   ZTE Corp.
   China
   Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn

   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson
   United States of America
   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

   Rakesh Gandhi
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Canada
   Email: rgandhi@cisco.com