One-way/Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-03
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zhenqiang Li , Tianran Zhou , Guo Jun , Greg Mirsky , Rakesh Gandhi | ||
| Last updated | 2022-03-06 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| 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-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-03
Network Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track T. Zhou
Expires: 8 September 2022 Huawei
J. Guo
ZTE Corp.
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
R. Gandhi
Cisco
7 March 2022
One-way/Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-03
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 the performance 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."
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Packet Format and Content . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Sender Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.3. Reflector Packet Format and Content . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4. Reflector Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Mico OWAMP-Control Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Mico TWAMP-Control Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
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.
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
Usually, when forwarding traffic over LAG, the hash-based mechanism
is used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links.
Link delay of each member link varies because of different transport
paths. 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 every 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.
OWAMP [RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357] are two active measurement
methods according to the classification given in [RFC7799], which can
complement passive and hybrid methods. With both methods, running a
single test session over the aggregation without the knowledge of
each member link would make it impossible to measure the performance
of a given physical member link. The measured metrics can only
reflect the performance of one member link or an average of some/all
member links of the LAG.
This document extends OWAMP and TWAMP to implement performance
measurement on every member link of a LAG. The proposed method could
also potentially apply to layer 3 ECMP (Equal Cost Multi-Path), e.g.,
with SR-Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
2. Micro Session on LAG
This document intends to address the scenario (e.g., Figure 1) where
a LAG (e.g., the LAG includes four 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 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 end points that are connected by the LAG.
These sessions are called micro sessions in the remainder of this
document.
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
Receiver IP Address. As for the UDP layer, the micro sessions may
share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or each micro
session is configured with a different Sender Port and Receiver Port
pair. But from the operational point of view, the former is simpler
and is RECOMMENDED.
The micro sessions need to associate with the corresponding member
links. For example, when the Server/Reflector/Receiver receives a
Test packet, it needs to know from which member link the packet is
received, and correlate it with a micro session.
This document defines new command types to indicate the set of micro
sessions of a LAG. The details are described in Sections 3 and 4 of
this document. Upon receiving a Test packet, the receiver uses the
receiving link's identifier to correlate the packet to a particular
micro session. In addition, Test packets MAY carry the member link
information for validation check. For example, when a micro Session-
Sender receives a reflected 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 end point.
3.1. Micro OWAMP-Control
To support the micro OWAMP session, a new command, Request-OW-Micro-
Sessions (TBD1), is defined in this document. The Request-OW-Micro-
Sessions 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 an OWAMP Server receives a Request-OW-Micro-Sessions command, if
the request is accepted, the OWAMP Server MUST build a set of micro
sessions for all the member links of the LAG from which the Request-
OW-Micro-Sessions 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:
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
The micro OWAMP Sender MUST send the micro OWAMP-Test packets over
the member link with which the session is associated. When receives
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 end point.
4.1. Micro TWAMP-Control
To support the micro TWAMP session, a new command, Request-TW-Micro-
Sessions (TBD2), is defined in this document. The Request-TW-Micro-
Sessions 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 TWAMP Server receives a Request-TW-Micro-Sessions command, if
the request is accepted, the TWAMP Server MUST build a set of micro
sessions for all the member links of the LAG from which the Request-
TW-Micro-Sessions 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 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 Micro-session ID and Reflector
Micro-session ID) are added to carry the LAG member link identifiers.
For unauthenticated mode, the format is as below:
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
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 Micro-session ID | Reflector Micro-session ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Micro Session-Sender Packet format in Unauthenticated Mode
For authenticated mode, the format is as below:
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 Micro-session ID | Reflector Micro-session ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
Figure 3: Micro Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
Except for the Sender/Reflector Micro-session 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 Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
carry the Micro-session identifier of the Sender side. The value
of the Sender Micro-session ID MUST be unique at the Session-
Sender.
* Reflector Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
carry the Micro-session identifier of the Reflector side. The
value of the Reflector Micro-session ID MUST be unique at the
Session-Reflector.
4.2.2. Sender Behavior
The micro TWAMP Session-Sender inherits the behaviors of the TWAMP
Session-Reflector as defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC5357]. In
addition, 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 Micro-session ID. If the Session-Sender
knows the Reflector member link identifier, the Reflector Micro-
session ID field (see Figure 2 and Figure 3) MUST be set. Otherwise,
the Reflector Micro-session ID field MUST be zero.
A Test packet with Sender member link identifier is sent to the
Session-Reflector, and then is reflected with the same Sender member
link identifier. So the Session-Sender can use 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.
The Reflector member link identifier carried in the Reflector Micro-
session 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 Micro-session ID field (see Figure 2 or
Figure 3) of the Test packets that will be sent to the Session-
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
Reflector. The Reflector member link identifier can be obtained from
pre-configuration or learned from the data plane (e.g., the reflected
Test packet). How to obtain/learn the Reflector member link
identifier is out of the scope of this document.
When receiving 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 micro Session-Sender MUST use the Sender Micro-session ID
to validate whether the reflected Test packet is correctly
transmitted over 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.
4.2.3. Reflector 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 Micro-session ID)
are added to carry the LAG member link identifiers.
For unauthenticated mode, the format is as below:
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
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 Micro-session ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender TTL | MBZ | Reflector Micro-session ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Micro Session-Reflector Packet Format in
Unauthenticated Mode
For authenticated mode, the format is as below:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
| Sender Micro-session ID | Reflector Micro-session ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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: Micro Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
Except for the Sender/Reflector Micro-session 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].
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
* Sender Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
carry the Micro-session identifier of the Sender side. The value
of the Sender Micro-session ID MUST be unique at the Session-
Sender.
* Reflector Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): it is defined to
carry the Micro-session identifier of the Reflector side. The
value of the Reflector Micro-session ID MUST be unique at the
Session-Reflector.
4.2.4. Reflector Behavior
The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector inherits the behaviors of a TWAMP
Session-Reflector as defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC5357].
In addition, when receiving 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 the Reflector Micro-session ID is
not zero, the Reflector MUST use the Reflector Micro-session ID to
validate whether it associates with the receiving member link. If
the validation fails, the Test packet MUST be discarded.
When sending a response to the received Test packet, the micro TWAMP
Session-Reflector MUST copy the Sender member link identifier from
the received Test packet and put it in the Sender Micro-session ID
field of the reflected Test packet (see Figure 4 and Figure 5). In
addition, the micro TWAMP Session-Reflector MUST fill the Reflector
Micro-session ID field (see Figure 2 and Figure 3) of the reflected
Test packet with the member link identifier that is associated with
the micro TWAMP session.
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-Sessions 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.
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
Value Description Semantics Definition
TBD2 Request-TW-Micro-Sessions 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 Fang Xin, Henrik Nydell, Mach Chen,
Min Xiao, Jeff Tantsura 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG March 2022
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
routing-policy-18, 17 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
segment-routing-policy-18.txt>.
[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
2008.
Authors' Addresses
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
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
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Li, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 13]