Update of the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Class-of-Service Extension - ECN
draft-whimir-ippm-stamp-cos-ecn-00
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.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Greg White , Greg Mirsky , Xiao Min | ||
| Last updated | 2025-08-21 (Latest revision 2025-06-24) | ||
| Replaces | draft-white-ippm-stamp-ecn, draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-cos-ext | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Candidate for WG Adoption | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-whimir-ippm-stamp-cos-ecn-00
IP Performance Measurement G. White
Internet-Draft CableLabs
Updates: 8972 (if approved) G. Mirsky
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: 26 December 2025 X. Min
ZTE Corp.
24 June 2025
Update of the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Class-of-
Service Extension - ECN
draft-whimir-ippm-stamp-cos-ecn-00
Abstract
The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) enables one-
way and round-trip measurement of network metrics between IP hosts,
and has a facility for defining optional extensions. This document
updates the definition of the Class of Service TLV (originally
defined in RFC 8972) to enable the measurement of manipulation of the
value of the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) field of the IP
header by middleboxes between two STAMP hosts, and to enable
discovery and measurement of paths that provide differential
treatment of packets depending on the value of their ECN field.
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 26 December 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
White, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft STAMP CoS ECN Update June 2025
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. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Class of Service TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Interoperability with RFC 8972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
[RFC8972] defined several extensions to the Simple Two-way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP). Among those is a Class of Service
(CoS) TLV that enables measurements that utilize the Differentiated
Services Code Point (DSCP) marking in both directions. Also, the CoS
TLV supports outbound measurements that utilize the Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) field, but it lacked support for such
measurements on the return path. Experience deploying STAMP and its
extensions demonstrated that it is helpful to an operator to monitor
ECN's consistency in both directions. This specification updates the
definition of the CoS TLV in a backward compatible manner to support
monitoring of ECN in the return path of the STAMP test session.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Acronyms
CoS: Class of Service
DSCP: Differentiated Services Code Point
White, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft STAMP CoS ECN Update June 2025
ECN: Explicit Congestion Notification
STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
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. Class of Service TLV
The STAMP Session-Sender MAY include a CoS TLV in the STAMP test
packet. The format of the CoS TLV is presented in Figure 1.
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| CoS Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DSCP1 | DSCP2 |EC2|RPD|EC1|RPE| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Class of Service TLV
Where the fields are defined as follows.
* STAMP TLV Flags: eight-bit field; format presented in Section 4 of
[RFC8972].
* CoS (Class of Service) Type: one-octet field; the value MUST be
set to 4.
* Length: two-octet field; set equal to the value 4 (octets).
* DSCP1: DSCP value intended by the Session-Sender to be used as the
DSCP value of the reflected test packet.
* DSCP2: received value in the DSCP field at the ingress of the
Session-Reflector.
* EC2: received value in the ECN field at the ingress of the
Session-Reflector.
White, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft STAMP CoS ECN Update June 2025
* RPD (reverse path DSCP): two-bit field indicating whether the
Session-Reflector used DSCP1 or DSCP2 as the DSCP value of the
reflected test packet; a Session-Sender MUST set the value of the
RPD field to 0b00 on transmission.
* EC1: ECN value intended by the Session-Sender to be used as the
ECN value of the reflected test packet.
* RPE (reverse path ECN): two-bit field indicating whether the
Session-Reflector used EC1 as the ECN value of the reflected test
packet; a Session-Sender MUST set the value of the RPE field to
0b00 on transmission.
* Reserved: twelve-bit field; MUST be zeroed on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
A STAMP Session-Reflector that receives a test packet with the CoS
TLV MUST include the CoS TLV in the reflected test packet. The
Session-Reflector MUST copy the value of the DSCP and ECN fields of
the IP header of the received STAMP test packet into the DSCP2 and
EC2 fields, respectively, in the CoS TLV in the reflected test
packet.
The Session-Reflector MUST use the local policy to verify whether the
use of the value of the DSCP1 field is permitted in the domain. If
it is, the Session-Reflector MUST set the DSCP field's value in the
IP header of the reflected test packet equal to the value of the
DSCP1 field of the received test packet. Otherwise, the Session-
Reflector MUST use the DSCP value of the received STAMP packet and
set the value of the RPD field to 0b01. Upon receiving the reflected
packet, if the value of the RPD field is 0b00, the Session-Sender
will save the DSCP value for analysis of the CoS in the reverse
direction. If the value of the RPD field in the received reflected
packet is 0b01, only CoS in the forward direction can be analyzed.
The Session-Reflector MUST set the ECN value in the IP header of the
reflected STAMP test packet to the value of the EC1 field. The
Session-Reflector MUST set the RPE field in the CoS TLV in the
reflected test packet to the value 0b01. As a result, the Session-
Sender can detect whether the recommended value for ECN field in the
reflected packet was used by inspecting the value of the RPE field in
the received reflected test packet.
White, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft STAMP CoS ECN Update June 2025
3.1. Interoperability with RFC 8972
The extended CoS TLV defined in this draft is backward compatible
with the specification in Section 4.4 of [RFC8972]. The handling of
the DSCP1, DSCP2, EC2 and RPD fields defined here is identical to the
handling defined for the equivalent fields in Section 4.4 of
[RFC8972].
Consider a case when an implementation that supports this
specification performs as Session-Sender, and the intended Session-
Reflector's support of the CoS TLV is according to Section 4.4 of
[RFC8972]. If the operator requires monitoring ECN in the reverse
direction, the value of the EC1 field will be set to a non-zero
value. Because the Session-Reflector would treat the EC1 field as
part of the Reserved field, it would ignore its value as per
Section 4.4 of [RFC8972]. Further, the Session-Reflector would treat
the RPE field as part of the Reserved field and thus it would send
the value 0b00 in the reflected STAMP packet, rather than sending the
value 0b01. Consequently, the Session-Sender will determine that the
ECN value in the IP header of the reflected test packet was not set
as requested.
Also, this specification supports the case when the Session-Reflector
supports the extended CoS TLV as defined in this specification and
the Session-Sender supports the CoS TLV according to Section 4.4 of
[RFC8972]. In that scenario, the Session-Sender will set its
[RFC8972] Reserved field to zeros. The Session-Reflector will
interpret the first two bits of that field as the EC1 field, as shown
in Figure 1 and thus will set the value of the ECN field in the IP
header of the reflected packet to 0b00. Further the Session-
Reflector will set the RPE field to 0b01. The Session-Sender will
treat the RPE field as part of the Reserved field and will ignore its
value.
4. IANA Considerations
This document includes no request to IANA.
5. Security Considerations
This document extends the functionality of the CoS TLV ([RFC8972])
and inherits all the security considerations applicable to the base
STAMP specification [RFC8762] and [RFC8972].
White, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft STAMP CoS ECN Update June 2025
As this specification defines a mechanism to set ECN values, this
document inherits all the security considerations discussed in
[RFC3168] and [RFC9330]. Monitoring and optional control of ECN for
a reflected STAMP test packet using the extended CoS TLV may be used
across the Internet such that the Session-Sender and the Session-
Reflector are located in different domains.
6. References
6.1. 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>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[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>.
[RFC9330] Briscoe, B., Ed., De Schepper, K., Bagnulo, M., and G.
White, "Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput
(L4S) Internet Service: Architecture", RFC 9330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9330, January 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9330>.
White, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft STAMP CoS ECN Update June 2025
6.2. Informative References
[RFC8311] Black, D., "Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) Experimentation", RFC 8311,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8311, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8311>.
[RFC9331] De Schepper, K. and B. Briscoe, Ed., "The Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) Protocol for Low Latency,
Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S)", RFC 9331,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9331, January 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9331>.
Acknowledgements
TBD
Contributors
Karthik Sundaresan, William Hawkins III
Authors' Addresses
Greg White
CableLabs
858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, Colorado 80027
United States of America
Email: g.white@cablelabs.com
URI: http://www.cablelabs.com
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
White, et al. Expires 26 December 2025 [Page 7]