Network Working Group                                              Z. Li
Internet-Draft                                              China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track                                 T. Zhou
Expires: 28 July 2022                                             Huawei
                                                                  J. Guo
                                                               ZTE Corp.
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                                Ericsson
                                                               R. Gandhi
                                                                   Cisco
                                                         24 January 2022


 One-way/Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
                           Measurement on LAG
                     draft-li-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-02

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 the performance 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."



Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


   This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 July 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   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 Packet Format and Content  . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.2.  Sender Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.3.  Reflector Packet Format and Content . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.4.  Reflector Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Mico OWAMP-Control Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  Mico TWAMP-Control Command  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   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.



Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


   Usually, when forwarding traffic over LAG, the hash-based mechanism
   is used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links.
   Link delay of each member link varies because of different transport
   paths.  To provide low latency service for time sensitive traffic, we
   need to explicitly steer the traffic across the LAG member links
   based on the link delay, loss and so on.  That requires a solution to
   measure the performance metrics of every member link of a LAG.

   OWAMP [RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357] are two active measurement
   methods according to the classification given in RFC7799 [RFC7799].
   With both methods, running a single test session over the aggregation
   without the knowledge of each member link would make it impossible to
   measure the performance of a given physical member link.  The
   measured metrics can only reflect the performance of one member link
   or an average of some/all member links of the LAG.

   This document extends OWAMP and TWAMP to implement performance
   measurement on every member link of a LAG.  The proposed method could
   also potentially apply to layer 3 ECMP (Equal Cost Multi-Path), e.g.,
   with SR-Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].

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 the performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
   multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
   established between the two end points that are connected by the LAG.
   These sessions are called micro sessions in the remainder of this
   document.

   The micro sessions need to correlate with the corresponding member
   links.  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.




Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


   All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
   Receiver IP Address.  As for the UDP Port, the micro sessions may
   share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or each micro
   session is configured with a different Sender Port and Receiver Port
   pair.  But from the operational point of view, the former is simpler
   and is recommended.

   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 end point.

3.1.  Micro OWAMP-Control

   To support the micro OWAMP session, a new command, 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
   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.



Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


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 end point.

4.1.  Micro TWAMP-Control

   To support the micro TWAMP session, a new command, 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 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.

   For unauthenticated mode, the format is as below:


















Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


        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, the format is as below:

        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                         .
       .                                                               .
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


       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.  Sender Behavior

   The micro TWAMP Session-Sender inherits the behaviors of the TWAMP
   Session-Reflector as defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC5357].  In
   addition, 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.

   A Test packet with Sender member link identifier is sent to the
   Session-Reflector, and then is reflected with the same Sender member
   link identifier.  So the Session-Sender can use 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.

   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-



Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


   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 Sender Member Link ID to
   validate whether the reflected Test packet is correctly transmitted
   over the expected member link.  If the validation fails, the Test
   packet MUST be discarded.  The Session-Sender MUST use the Reflector
   Member Link ID to validate the Reflector's behavior.If the validation
   fails, the Test packet MUST be discarded.

4.2.3.  Reflector 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.

   For unauthenticated mode, the format is as below:



























Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


      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 mode, the format is as below:

      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 28 July 2022                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        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 28 July 2022                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


   *  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.

4.2.4.  Reflector Behavior

   The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector inherits the behaviors of a TWAMP
   Session-Reflector as defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC5357].

   In addition, when receiving 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 the Reflector Member Link ID is
   not zero, the Reflector MUST use the Reflector Member Link ID to
   validate whether it associates with the receiving member link.  If
   the validation fails, the Test packet MUST be discarded.

   When sending 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 and Figure 3) of the reflected Test packet
   with the member link identifier that is associated with the micro
   TWAMP session.

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







Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7130]  Bhatia, M., Ed., Chen, M., Ed., Boutros, S., Ed.,
              Binderberger, M., Ed., and J. Haas, Ed., "Bidirectional
              Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
              Interfaces", RFC 7130, DOI 10.17487/RFC7130, February
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7130>.

   [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>.

   [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-spring-segment-routing-policy]
              Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
              P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in



Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              O/TWAMP PM on LAG               January 2022


              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
              routing-policy-14, 25 October 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
              segment-routing-policy-14.txt>.

   [IEEE802.1AX]
              IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
              2008.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhenqiang Li
   China Mobile
   China

   Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com


   Tianran Zhou
   Huawei
   China

   Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com


   Jun Guo
   ZTE Corp.
   China

   Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn


   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson
   United States of America

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com


   Rakesh Gandhi
   Cisco
   Canada

   Email: rgandhi@cisco.com






Li, et al.                Expires 28 July 2022                 [Page 13]