Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-09
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Greg Mirsky , Li Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2024-09-01 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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-mirsky-mpls-stamp-09
MPLS Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track L. Zhang
Expires: 5 March 2025 Huawei
1 September 2024
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-mirsky-mpls-stamp-09
Abstract
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), defined in RFC
8762 and RFC 8972, is expected to be able to monitor the performance
of paths between systems that use a wide variety of encapsulations.
This document defines encapsulation and bootstrapping of a STAMP test
session over an MPLS Label Switched Path.
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 5 March 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft STAMP for MPLS LSPs September 2024
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
1.1. Conventions Used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Encapsulation of a STAMP Test Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bootstrap STAMP Using LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. STAMP Session Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. STAMP Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. STAMP Session Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
[RFC8762] and [RFC8972] defined the base specification and extensions
of the Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP). The
reader is expected to be familiar with the terminology of [RFC8762]
and [RFC8972]. STAMP can be used to measure packet loss, and packet
delay, detect packet re-ordering, and unwanted multiple copies of a
STAMP packet. This document defines the encapsulation of the STAMP
test message over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Path (LSP). Also, the use of LSP Ping [RFC8029] to
bootstrap and control the path for the reflected STAMP test packet is
discussed in the document. [RFC8762] defined two modes of a STAMP
Session-Reflector - Stateful and Stateless. While using the LSP Ping
extension to bootstrap a STAMP test session applies for both Session-
Reflector modes, controlling the path for the reflected STAMP test
packet is appropriate for the Stateful mode of the Session-Reflector
only.
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft STAMP for MPLS LSPs September 2024
This document defines the STAMP Session Identifier TLV as an
extension to LSP Ping [RFC8029]. It is to be used to instruct the
STAMP Session-Reflector how to demultiplex incoming STAMP test
sessions and a path to use for the reflected STAMP test packets. The
TLV will be allocated from the TLV and sub-TLV registry defined in
[RFC8029]. As a special case, forward and reverse directions of the
STAMP test session can form a bi-directional co-routed associated
channel.
1.1. Conventions Used in this Document
1.1.1. Abbreviations
STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
LSP: Label Switched Path
LSR: Label Switching Router
SSID: STAMP Session Identifier
1.1.2. 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.
2. Encapsulation of a STAMP Test Packet
STAMP can be used to measure one-way packet loss and packet delay,
and detect packet re-ordering, and unwarranted replication of a STAMP
test packet. [RFC8762] defined formats of a STAMP test packet and
reflected STAMP test packet in unauthenticated and authenticated
modes, respectively. These STAMP test packets can be encapsulated in
IP/UDP to be transmitted over an MPLS LSP as follows:
* The STAMP test packet sent by the ingress Label Switching Router
(LSR) SHOULD be a UDP packet with a well-known destination port
862 [RFC8762] and a source port assigned by the sender. The
destination UDP port MAY be selected from the Dynamic UDP ports
range. The mechanism used to select the port number from the
Dynamic range is outside the scope of this document.
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft STAMP for MPLS LSPs September 2024
* The destination IP address MUST be randomly chosen from the 127/8
range for IPv4. For IPv6, the ::1/128 address MUST be used.
* For the STAMP test packet, the sender MUST set the IP TTL or hop
limit to 255 [RFC5082].
* The source IP address is a routable address of the sender.
* The reflected STAMP test packets are UDP packets.
* The source IP address of a reflected STAMP test packet is a
routable address of the STAMP Session-Reflector.
3. Bootstrap STAMP Using LSP Ping
A STAMP test session over an MPLS LSP can be bootstrapped using LSP
Ping, defined in [RFC8029]. To bootstrap a STAMP test session, STAMP
Session Identifier TLV MUST be used. When LSP Ping is used to
bootstrap a STAMP test session, the Reply Mode field SHOULD be set to
"Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet" (2) value. In some environments,
e.g., point-to-multipoint LSP, the Reply Mode field MAY be set to "Do
not reply" (1). The value of the Reply Mode field MUST NOT be set to
"Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert" (3) [RFC9570].
This document defines a new SSID TLV. The STAMP Session Identifier
TLV MUST contain the STAMP Session Identifier (SSID) [RFC8972] value
and MAY contain none, one or more sub-TLVs that can be used to carry
information about the path for reflected STAMP test packet.
3.1. STAMP Session Identifier TLV
The STAMP Session Identifier TLV is an optional TLV within the LSP
Ping [RFC8029]. The STAMP Session Identifier TLV carries SSID value
and, optionally, information about the path onto which the STAMP
Session-Reflector MUST transmit reflected STAMP test packets for the
given STAMP test session. The format of the STAMP Session Identifier
TLV is as presented in Figure 1.
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft STAMP for MPLS LSPs September 2024
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 Session Id TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Destination Port Number | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Reflected Packet Path (optional) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: STAMP Session Identifier TLV
STAMP Session Identifier Type is a two-octet field and has a value of
TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA as requested in Section 5).
Length is a two-octet field equal to the length in octets of the
SSID, UDP Destination Port Number, Reserved, and Reflected Packet
Path fields. The minimum value MUST be eight.
SSID field is a four-octet field that identifies the STAMP test
session at the STAMP Session-Sender.
UDP Destination Port Number is a two-octet field. The field
indicates the value of the UDP destination port in test packet
transmitted by the Session-Sender for the test session with SSID.
The Session-Sender MAY set the value of the field to 862 that is
assigned by IANA as TWAMP-Test Receiver Port. If the value of the
field is not equal to 862 then it MUST be one from the range of
Dynamic ports, i.e., from 49152 to 65535. Any other value of the UDP
Destination Port Number field is invalid and the Session-Reflector
MUST send an Echo Reply message with the received STAMP Session
Identifier TLV and set the Return Code field to "UDP Destination Port
Unavailable" (Section 5.2).
Reserved is a two-octet field. It MUST be zeroed on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
Reflected Packet Path field contains zero or more sub-TLVs, i.e.,
nested TLVs that have independent types and MUST be four-octet
aligned. Any Target FEC Stack sub-TLV (already defined, or to be
defined in the future) for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21 of MPLS LSP Ping
Parameters registry group's TLVs and sub-TLVs registry MAY be used in
this field. The Non-FEC Path TLV, defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-bfd],
MAY be used to specify the path for a STAMP reflected test packet in
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft STAMP for MPLS LSPs September 2024
the SR-MPLS environment. If no sub-TLVs are found in the STAMP
Session Identifier TLV, the STAMP Session-Reflector MUST revert to
transmitting the STAMP reflected packets over the IP network.
If the STAMP Session-Reflector cannot find the path specified in the
STAMP Session Identifier TLV, it MUST send Echo Reply with the
received STAMP Session Identifier TLV and set the Return Code to "The
specified Reflected Packet Path was not found" (Section 5.2).
The STAMP Session Identifier TLV MAY be used in the bootstrapping of
a STAMP test session. A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this
specification MUST support subsequent STAMP Session Identifier TLVs
after the STAMP test session with the given SSID has been
established. The system that receives a new path as sub-TLVs in the
Reflected Packet Path field for the established STAMP test session
MUST use the new path for the reflected STAMP test packets. Suppose
a system that supports this specification receives an LSP Ping with
the STAMP Session Identifier TLV with no sub-TLVs in the Reflected
Packet Path field, even though the reflected test packets for the
specified STAMP test session has been transmitted according to the
previously received STAMP Session Identifier TLV. In that case, the
egress LSR MUST transition to transmitting reflected STAMP packets
over an IP network.
3.2. Return Codes
This document defines the following Return Codes for MPLS LSP Echo
Reply:
* "The specified Reflected Packet Path was not found", (TBD2). When
a specified reverse path is not available at the STAMP Session-
Reflector an Echo Reply with the Return Code set to "The specified
Reflected Packet Path was not found" MUST be sent back to the
STAMP Session-Sender Section 3.1.
* "UDP Destination Port Unavailable" (TBD3). If the value of the
Destination UDP Port Number field is not 862, nor is from the
Dynamic ports range, the Session-Reflector MUST send an Echo Reply
to the Session-Sender with the Return Code set to "UDP Destination
Port Unavailable".
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft STAMP for MPLS LSPs September 2024
4. STAMP Session Establishment
A STAMP test session can be bootstrapped using LSP Ping. To monitor
performance for a particular MPLS LSP and FEC combination LSP Ping
Echo request and Echo reply packets, in the ping mode, exchanged
between the STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector for that MPLS
LSP and FEC combination. If LSP Ping is used to establishing a STAMP
test session, an LSP Ping Echo request message MUST carry the SSID
value assigned by the Session-Sender for the STAMP test session.
This MUST subsequently be used as the SSID field in the STAMP test
session packets sent by the STAMP Session-Sender.
On receipt of the LSP Ping Echo request message, the STAMP Session-
Reflector MUST send an LSP Ping Echo reply if the validation of the
FEC in the LSP Ping Echo request message succeeds. The Session-
Reflector SHOULD use the value in the SSID field and source IP
address in the received LSP Ping Echo request message to demultiplex
STAMP test sessions. The Session-Reflector MAY use a combination of
other values in IP/UDP headers instead of using SSID to demultiplex
STAMP test sessions.
If the MPLS network includes an equal-cost multipath environment, a
STAMP Session-Sender MUST use the same value of an Entropy Label
([RFC6790] and [RFC8662]) in the LSP Ping Echo request that
bootstraps the STAMP test session and consecutive STAMP test packets.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. STAMP Session Identifier TLV
The IANA is requested to assign a new value for the “STAMP Session
Identifier TLV” from the Standard Action range (0-16383), that
requires a response if not recognized, from the “TLVs registry” in
the “Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters” registry group.
+=========+==============================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=========+==============================+===============+
| (TBD1) | STAMP Session Identifier TLV | This document |
+---------+------------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: New BFD Reverse Type TLV
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft STAMP for MPLS LSPs September 2024
5.2. Return Codes
IANA is requested to assign two new Return Codes from the Standards
Action range of the Return Codes registry in the “Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters”
registry group.
+=========+============================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=========+============================+===============+
| (TBD2) | The specified Reflected | This document |
| | Packet Path was not found. | |
+---------+----------------------------+---------------+
| (TBD3) | UDP Destination Port | This document |
| | Unavailable. | |
+---------+----------------------------+---------------+
Table 2: New Return Code
6. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in [RFC8029], [RFC8762], and
[RFC8972] apply to this document.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely appreciate Richard "Footer" Foote's thoughtful
comments. The authors express their sincere appreciation of the
thorough review and text contributed by Loa Andersson.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-bfd]
Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., Chen, M., and J.
Wenying, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in
Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-bfd-10, 17
April 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-spring-bfd-10>.
[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>.
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft STAMP for MPLS LSPs September 2024
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[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>.
[RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>.
[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>.
[RFC9570] Kompella, K., Bonica, R., and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Deprecating
the Use of Router Alert in LSP Ping", RFC 9570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9570, May 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9570>.
8.2. Informational References
[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft STAMP for MPLS LSPs September 2024
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Li Zhang
Huawei
China
Email: zhangli344@huawei.com
Mirsky & Zhang Expires 5 March 2025 [Page 10]