One-way/Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zhenqiang Li , Mach Chen , Greg Mirsky | ||
| Last updated | 2021-08-11 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text 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-01
Network Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen
Expires: February 12, 2022 Huawei
G. Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
August 11, 2021
One-way/Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-01
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 February 12, 2022.
Li, et al. Expires February 12, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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 February 12, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft O/TWAMP PM on LAG August 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-14 (work in
progress), June 2021.
[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 February 12, 2022 [Page 13]