IP Performance Measurement Group G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft K. Zhu
Intended status: Informational T. Zhou
Expires: 20 April 2026 Huawei Technologies
Y. Zhu
China Telecom
X. Min
ZTE Corporation
17 October 2025
On-Path Telemetry for Active Performance Measurements
draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-active-measurements-01
Abstract
This document describes how to employ active test packets in
combination with Hybrid Methods to perform On-path Active Performance
Measurements. This procedure allows Hop-By-Hop measurements in
addition to the Edge-To-Edge measurements.
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 20 April 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
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. On-path Telemetry Options with Active Measurement Tools . . . 3
2.1. ICMP and ICMPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. OWAMP, TWAMP and STAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Telemetry Methods for On-path Active Metrics . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Alternate-Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Example of On-path STAMP Performance Measurements . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
[RFC7799] defines the Active Metric or Method, which depends on a
dedicated measurement packet stream and observations of the stream.
Commonly, the packet stream of interest is generated as the basis of
measurement and sometimes is also classified as a "synthetic" stream.
The Source and Destination of the packet stream of interest are
usually known a priori. The characteristics of the packet stream of
interest are known at the Source, and may be communicated to the
Destination as part of the method. An accompanying packet stream or
streams may be generated to increase overall traffic load, though the
loading stream(s) may not be measured.
There are several active tools: Internet Control Message Protocol
(ICMP) [RFC792], ICMP version 6 (ICMPv6) [RFC4443], MPLS echo
request/reply [RFC8029], MPLS Loss and Delay Measurement [RFC6374],
One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656], Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357], Simple Two-way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762]. In a test session, the
unidirectional or bidirectional packet flow is transmitted between a
Source and a Destination. However, the performance of intermediate
nodes and links that the test packets traverse are not visible.
In several scenarios it is beneficial to perform Hop-By-Hop (HBH) and
Edge-To-Edge (E2E) active measurements. Alternate Marking (AltMark)
[RFC9341] and In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
(IOAM) [RFC9197] are Hybrid Methods, which can be employed to perform
HBH and E2E active measurements by using synthetic test packets and
by leveraging the existing AltMark and IOAM options. AltMark and
IOAM data fields can be encoded in the Options Headers (Hop-by-Hop or
Destination), according to [RFC8200]. The AltMark IPv6 HBH option
[RFC9343] and the IOAM IPv6 HBH option [RFC9486] can be coupled with
a packet stream of interest and carried in each test packet to enable
HBH measurements. Similarly to IPv6, MPLS packets can carry MPLS
Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr].
2. On-path Telemetry Options with Active Measurement Tools
As defined in [RFC7799], Hybrid Methods are characterized by the
augmentation or modification of the stream of interest. AltMark and
IOAM are two examples of Hybrid Methods. For IPv6, [RFC9343] and
[RFC9486] define the IPv6 HBH options of AltMark and IOAM
respectively.
The next sections explain how the packets look like in case of ICMP,
ICMPv6, OWAMP, TWAMP and STAMP.
2.1. ICMP and ICMPv6
ICMPv6 is an integral part of IPv6 and performs error reporting and
diagnostic functions. The ICMPv6 Echo ("Ping") checks whether a
specified IPv6 address is reachable and exports corresponding
statistics. The packet also contains the IPv6 Extension Headers, if
present. In particular it may contain an IPv6 HBH Option for On-Path
Telemetry (e.g. AltMark [RFC9343], [I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark] or
IOAM [RFC9486]).
+------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
+------------------------------------+
| IPv6 HBH Option |
+------------------------------------+
| ICMPv6 Header + Data |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 1: ICMPv6 Packet with IPv6 HbH Option
Figure 1 represents an example ICMPv6 packet, which includes an IPv6
HBH option. The intermediate nodes can read and handle the IPv6 HBH
Option if they are configured to do so. In this way, it can be
possible to perform On-path measurements with ICMPv6.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
Note that the same applies to the MPLS data plane with MNA Sub-Stacks
in the MPLS header, as showed in Figure 2 in case of MPLS LSP Ping
operation. MNA Sub-Stacks for Performance Measurement are described
in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ioam] and [I-D.cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm].
+------------------------------------+
| MPLS Header |
+------------------------------------+
| MNA Sub-Stack |
+------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
+------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
+------------------------------------+
| MPLS echo request/reply |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 2: MPLS echo request/reply Packet with MNA Sub-Stack
2.2. OWAMP, TWAMP and STAMP
The OWAMP protocol provides a way for measuring one-way metrics
between network devices. OWAMP can be used bidirectionally to
measure one-way metrics in both directions between two network
elements.
Since OWAMP does not accommodate round-trip or two-way measurements,
the TWAMP protocol is also specified. It is based on the OWAMP and
adds two-way or round-trip measurement capabilities. The TWAMP
measurement architecture is usually comprised of two hosts with
specific roles, and this allows for some protocol simplifications,
making it an attractive alternative in some circumstances. Similarly
to OWAMP, TWAMP control packets are carried by TCP, and test packets
are carried by UDP. The port numbers can be changed by
configuration.
Over time, there has been interest in using a simpler mechanism for
active performance monitoring that can provide deterministic behavior
and inherent separation of vendor-specific control and test
functions. Therefore, STAMP has been defined and it enables the
measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance metrics, such
as delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
Figure 3 represents an example test packet, which includes an IPv6
HBH option. Note that the test packet can be an OWAMP test packet or
a TWAMP test packet or a STAMP test packet, depending on whether it
is considered an OWAMP session or a TWAMP session or a STAMP session.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
The intermediate nodes do not need to perform any processing of OWAMP
or TWAMP or STAMP. But the intermediate nodes can read and handle
the IPv6 HBH Option (i.e. [RFC9343], [RFC9486]), if they are
configured to do so.
+------------------------------------+
| IPv6 Header |
+------------------------------------+
| IPv6 HBH Option |
+------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
+------------------------------------+
| OWAMP/TWAMP/STAMP Packet |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 3: OWAMP/TWAMP/STAMP Test Packet with IPv6 HbH Option
Considering the example of STAMP, it is possible to explain what
happens if it is used a STAMP test packet with the IPv6 HbH Option.
The STAMP Session-Sender initiates a Session-Sender test packet and
the STAMP Session-Reflector transmits a reply Session-Reflector test
packet. The STAMP Session-Sender also adds the IPv6 HBH option in
the Session-Sender test packets to enable HBH measurements in the
forward direction. Intermediate nodes do not perform any STAMP
processing, but must support the IPv6 HBH option related methodology.
The STAMP Session-Reflector receives test packets transmitted from
Session-Sender and acts according to the configuration. The Session-
Reflector also adds the IPv6 HBH option in the reply Session-
Reflector test packets to enable HBH measurements in the backward
direction as well.
Note that the same applies to the MPLS data plane with MNA Sub-Stacks
([I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ioam] and [I-D.cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm]) in the
MPLS header, as showed in Figure 4.
+------------------------------------+
| MPLS Header |
+------------------------------------+
| MNA Sub-Stack |
+------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
+------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
+------------------------------------+
| OWAMP/TWAMP/STAMP Packet |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 4: OWAMP/TWAMP/STAMP Test Packet with MNA Sub-Stack
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
3. Telemetry Methods for On-path Active Metrics
3.1. Alternate-Marking
The Alternate Marking method can be used in combination with the
active methods. [RFC9343] defines the Hop-by-Hop Options Header and
the Destination Options Header to carry AltMark data fields.
The addition of the AltMark IPv6 HBH option augments the active
measurement method by enabling on-path HBH measurements together with
the usual E2E measurements. It is worth highlighting that this
approach is not adding any new functionalities to ICMPv6, OWAMP,
TWAMP or STAMP. But it is only leveraging the existing AltMark
mechanisms to measure the performance of intermediate nodes and links
that the test packets traverse.
Also, [RFC9714], [RFC9571] and [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr] are based
on the Alternate Marking method. Therefore, they can be combined
with the MPLS LSP Ping.
it is possible to use YANG [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang] to configure
and IPFIX [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark] or YANG notifications
[I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang] to report AltMark telemetry
information from each intermediate node to a collector.
3.2. IOAM
IOAM can also be used in combination with the active methods.
[RFC9486] defines the Hop-by-Hop Options Header and the Destination
Options Header to carry IOAM data fields.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr] extends STAMP to reflect back from the
Session-Reflector to the Session-Sender any IPv6 options and MPLS
Network Action Sub-Stacks for hop-by-hop and edge-to-edge active
measurements. [I-D.ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection] can also be used for
this purpose.
It is also be possible to use IPFIX/YANG notifications/IOAM DEX to
report AltMark telemetry information from each intermediate node to a
collector.
4. Example of On-path STAMP Performance Measurements
Figure 5 presents the STAMP Session-Sender, Intermediate-Node(s) and
Session-Reflector with a measurement session. A measurement session
is also referred to as a STAMP session and it is the bidirectional
packet flow between one specific Session-Sender and one particular
Session-Reflector for a time duration.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
The Intermediate-Nodes are nodes which do not necessarily need to
perform any STAMP processing.
The configuration and management of the STAMP Session-Sender,
Intermediate-Node(s), Session-Reflector, and sessions are outside the
scope of this document and can be achieved through various means, as
mentioned in [RFC8762].
o------------------------------------------------------------o
| Configuration and |
| Management |
o------------------------------------------------------------o
|| || ||
|| || ||
|| || ||
+--------------+ +--------------------+ +-----------------+
|Session-Sender| ... |Intermediate-Node(s)| ... |Session-Reflector|
+--------------+ +------------- ------+ +-----------------+
<---------------------------- STAMP ---------------------------->
Figure 5: HbH STAMP Reference Model
If the Intermediate-Nodes support the AltMark method, the STAMP
Session-Sender and Session-Reflector add the AltMark IPv6 HBH option
[RFC9343] to the STAMP test packets. The intermediate nodes can
apply the methodology according to [RFC9341] to perform loss and
delay measurements. For Alternate Marking, the source node is the
only one that writes the IPv6 HBH Option while the intermediate nodes
can only read the IPv6 HBH Option, without modifying the packet.
If the Intermediate-Nodes support the IOAM methods, the STAMP
Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets carry the IOAM IPv6
HBH option for recording and collecting HBH and E2E operational and
telemetry information for active measurement. The intermediate nodes
process the IOAM data fields. For IOAM, the source node and the
intermediate nodes modify the IPv6 HBH Option to include the needed
information.
As already mentioned, it is possible to use YANG to configure and
IPFIX or YANG notifications to report telemetry information from each
intermediate node to a collector.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations specified in [RFC4443], [RFC4656],
[RFC5357], [RFC8762] apply to the stream of interest generated to
enable the On-path Active performance measurements.
In addition, the security considerations specified in [RFC9341] for
AltMark and in [RFC9197] for IOAM also apply when using the Hybrid
methods in combination with the Active tools.
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Greg Mirsky for the precious comments
and suggestions.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[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>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
[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>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[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>.
[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.
[RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.
[RFC9343] Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate-Marking Method",
RFC 9343, DOI 10.17487/RFC9343, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9343>.
[RFC9486] Bhandari, S., Ed. and F. Brockners, Ed., "IPv6 Options for
In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(IOAM)", RFC 9486, DOI 10.17487/RFC9486, September 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9486>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm]
Cheng, W., Min, X., Gandhi, R., Mirsky, G., and G.
Fioccola, "MNA for Performance Measurement with Alternate
Marking Method", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm-07, 11 September 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cx-mpls-mna-
inband-pm-07>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
[I-D.fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Mishra, G. S., wang, X., Zhang,
G., and M. Cociglio, "Application of the Alternate Marking
Method to the Segment Routing Header", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-17, 27
August 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-17>.
[I-D.ietf-6man-icmpv6-reflection]
Mizrahi, T., hexiaoming, X., Zhou, T., Bonica, R., and X.
Min, "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)
Reflection", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
6man-icmpv6-reflection-11, 3 September 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-
icmpv6-reflection-11>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang]
Graf, T., Wang, M., Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., and X. Min, "A
YANG Data Model for the Alternate Marking Method", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang-
01, 2 July 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-yang-01>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Zhu, Y., Zhang, W., and K. Zhu,
"On-Path Telemetry YANG Data Model", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-01,
2 July 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-ippm-on-path-telemetry-yang-01>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr]
Gandhi, R., Zhou, T., Li, Z., and W. Hawkins, "Simple Two-
Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for
Reflecting STAMP Packet IP Headers", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr-06, 5
October 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr-06>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-hdr]
Rajamanickam, J., Gandhi, R., Zigler, R., Song, H., and K.
Kompella, "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-
16, 3 October 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-hdr-16>.
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ioam]
Gandhi, R., Mirsky, G., Li, T., Song, H., and B. Wen,
"Supporting In Situ Operations, Administration and
Maintenance Using MPLS Network Actions", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-ioam-03, 30 May 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-ioam-03>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr]
Gandhi, R., Filsfils, C., Voyer, D., Salsano, S., and M.
Chen, "Performance Measurement for Segment Routing
Networks with MPLS Data Plane", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17, 17 October
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
mpls-rfc6374-sr-17>.
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark]
Graf, T., Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Zhu, Y., and M.
Cociglio, "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Alternate-
Marking Information Elements", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-03, 22 May 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-
ipfix-alt-mark-03>.
[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>.
[RFC9571] Bryant, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Chen, M., Fioccola, G., and
G. Mirsky, "Extension of RFC 6374-Based Performance
Measurement Using Synonymous Flow Labels", RFC 9571,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9571, May 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9571>.
[RFC9714] Cheng, W., Ed., Min, X., Ed., Zhou, T., Dai, J., and Y.
Peleg, "Encapsulation for MPLS Performance Measurement
with the Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9714,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9714, February 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9714>.
Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft on-path-active-pm October 2025
Keyi Zhu
Huawei Technologies
Email: zhukeyi@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei Technologies
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Yongqing Zhu
China Telecom
Email: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn
Xiao Min
ZTE Corporation
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Fioccola, et al. Expires 20 April 2026 [Page 12]
