Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extension for Co-routed Bidirectional Path
draft-zhang-ippm-stamp-co-routed-path-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.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Li Zhang , Tianran Zhou | ||
| Last updated | 2024-06-29 | ||
| 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-zhang-ippm-stamp-co-routed-path-00
IPPM Working Group L. Zhang
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: 31 December 2024 29 June 2024
Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extension for Co-
routed Bidirectional Path
draft-zhang-ippm-stamp-co-routed-path-00
Abstract
This document extends STAM Return Path TLV with a Co-routed
Bidirectional Path flag to implement the round-trip performance
measurement for specific 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 31 December 2024.
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.
Zhang & Zhou Expires 31 December 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protoc June 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Co-routed Bidirectional Path Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is an
active performance measurement test protocol, which enables
measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance metrics, like
delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
Based on that, [RFC8972] specifies the use of optional extensions
that use Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoding，these extensions enhance
the STAMP base functions.
[RFC9503] specifies Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(STAMP) extensions for SR networks, which can transmit the reply test
packet on a specific return path. This extension requires the
Session-Sender to indicate the return path explicitly in the Return
Path TLV.
However, in some scenarios, the Session-Sender can’t know the return
path in advance, but it requires the return path to be the same as
the forward path to do a round-trip performance measurement for a
path.
This document extends STAM Return Path TLV with a Co-routed
Bidirectional Path flag to implement the round-trip performance
measurement for a specific path.
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.
Zhang & Zhou Expires 31 December 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protoc June 2024
1.2. Terminology
The abbreviations used in this document are:
STAMP: Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
IOAM: In-band Operation, Administration, and Maintenance
LAG: Link Aggregation Group
2. Motivation
When the STAMP is used to locate a network failure or measure network
performance, it is usually required to ensure that the forward path
is consistent with the return path, so as to obtain stable
performance data or locate a fault quickly. However, the existing
measurement manner cannot ensure that the forward path is consistent
with a return path. Consider a scenario with LAG links, as shown in
Figure 1:
+------+ +------+ 10% packet loss rate +------+ +------+
| N1 |----| N2 |======================| N3 |-----| N4 |
+------+ +------+ 0% packet loss rate +------+ +------+
SRC DST
Figure 1: A topology with LAG
There are four nodes in the topology, and N1 connect to N2 by one
physical link, N2 connect to N3 by two physical links, N3 connect to
N4 by one Link. The packet loss rate of the first link between N2
and N3 is 10%, and the second link is 0%.
Node N1 want to measure the packet loss between N1 and N4, and it
does not know that there are two links between N2 and N3.
N1 send a set of test packets, when these packets arrive at N2, half
of them will be forward by the first link and the others are
forwarded by the second link. The reflected packets are forwarded
with the same rule.
The result is that N1 find the packet loss rate of both forward path
and backward path are 5%. However, there is one route path with 0
packet loss which can be used for forwarding.
3. Co-routed Bidirectional Path Flag
This document defines a new flag in the STAMP Return Path Control
Code Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV:
Zhang & Zhou Expires 31 December 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protoc June 2024
Bit X: Co-routed Bidirectional Path flag.
When Co-routed Bidirectional Path flag in Control Code Sub-TLV is set
to 1 in the Session-Sender test packet, the Session-Sender MUST
insert the IOAM IPv6 option in the test packet.
When the transit node receives a test packet with Co-routed
Bidirectional Path flag set and has an IOAM IPv6 option, it MUST
insert its ingress interface id, node id and egress id to the IOAM
IPv6 option in the test packet.
When the transit node receives a test packet with Co-routed
Bidirectional Path flag set, but no IOAM IPv6 option in the test
packet, it SHOULD drop this test packet.
When the Session-Reflector receives a test packet with Co-routed
Bidirectional Path flag set and has IOAM IPv6 option, it SHOULD exact
all the route path information from the IOAM IPv6 option and
encapsulate it in the SRH of reflected test packet. Thereby, the
reflected packet will be transit along the path same as the forward
path.
When the Session-Reflector receives a test packet with Co-routed
Bidirectional Path flag set, but no IOAM IPv6 option, it SHOULD drop
this test packet.
4. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new bit in the registry "IOAM Trace-Flags"
registry as follows:
+=======+===================================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+===================================+===============+
| bit X | Co-routed Bidirectional Path flag | This document |
+-------+-----------------------------------+---------------+
Table 1
5. Security Considerations
TBD
6. References
6.1. Normative References
Zhang & Zhou Expires 31 December 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protoc June 2024
[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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc8972>.
[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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc8174>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC9503] Gandhi, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Chen, M., Janssens, B., and
R. Foote, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(STAMP) Extensions for Segment Routing Networks",
RFC 9503, DOI 10.17487/RFC9503, October 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9503>.
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
Li Zhang
Huawei
China
Email: zhangli344@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Zhang & Zhou Expires 31 December 2024 [Page 5]