Network Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen
Expires: January 7, 2021 Huawei
July 06, 2020
Performance Measurement on LAG
draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag-00
Abstract
This document defines extensions to One-way Active Measurement
Protocol (OWAMP), Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP), and
Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) to implement
performance measurement on every member link of a Link Aggregation
Group (LAG). With the measured metrics of each member links of a
LAG, it enables operators to enforce performance metric based traffic
steering policy among 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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2021.
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Micro TWAMP-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Micro TWAMP-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Sender Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Reflector Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Mirco STAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Micro STAMP-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.3. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Mico OWAMP-Control Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Mico TWAMP-Control Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Problem Statement
Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides
mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical
link. This logical link provides higher bandwidth and better
resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the
remaining operational physical member links.
Normally, when forwarding traffic over a LAG, a hash based or the
like mechanism is used to load balance the traffic among member links
of the LAG. In some cases, the link delays of the member links are
different because the member links are over different transport
paths. To provide low delay service to time sensitive traffic, we
have to know the link delay of each member link of a LAG and then
steer traffic accordingly. This requires a solution that could
measure the performance metrics of each member link of a LAG.
However, when using One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)
[RFC4656], Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357], or
Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] to
measure the performance of a LAG, the LAG is treated as a single
logical link/path. The measured metrics reflect the performance of
one member link or an average of some/all member links of the LAG.
This document defines extensions to OWAMP [RFC4656], TWAMP [RFC5357]
or STAMP [RFC8762] to implement performance measurement on every
member link of a LAG.
2. Micro Session on LAG
To measure performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
established between the two hosts that are connected by the LAG.
These sessions are called micro sessions in the remainder of this
document.
From the OWAMP/TWAMP-Control point of view, micro sessions of a LAG
share the same Sender Address, Receiver Address, have different
Session Identifiers (SID). As for the Sender Port and Receiver Port,
micro sessions may share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair,
or each micro session is configured with different Sender Port and
Receiver Port pair. But from simplifying operation point of view,
the former is recommended.
In addition, with micro sessions, there needs a way to correlate a
session with a member link. For example, when receives a Control or
Test packet, the Server/Reflector/Receiver needs to know from which
member link the packet is received, and then correlate the packet
with a micro session. This is different from the existing OWAMP
[RFC4656], TWAMP [RFC5357], or STAMP [RFC8762].
This document defines new command types to indicate that a session is
a micro session, the details are described in Section 3 and 4 of this
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
document. For a micro session, on receiving of a Control/Test
packet, the receiver uses the receiving link to correlate the packet
with a particular session. In the case of two-way measurement, Test
packets may need to carry the member link related information for
valid checking. For example, when a Sender receives a reflected Test
packet, it may needs 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 host.
3.1. Micro OWAMP-Control
To support micro OWAMP session, a new command, which is referred to
as 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.
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 host.
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
4.1. Micro TWAMP-Control
To support micro TWAMP session, a new command, which is referred to
as 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 Behavior
In addition to inheriting the TWAMP sender behavior as defined
Section 4.1 of [RFC5357], the micro TWAMP Session-Sender MUST send
the micro TWAMP-Test packets over the member link with which the
session is associated.
The micro TWAMP Session-Sender may carry an identifier of the member
link that is going to be measured by the micro TWAMP session. The
micro TWAMP Session-Reflector MUST copy the member link identifier in
the response Test packet. The micro TWAMP Sender can use it to check
whether the reflected Test packet is correctly transmitted over the
expected member link.
4.2.1.1. 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]. In addition, in order to carry the LAG member link
identifier, a new field is added. The formats are as below:
For unauthenticated mode:
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Session-Sender Packet format in Unauthenticated Mode
For authenticated mode:
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
Except for the Sender Member Link ID field, all the other fields are
the same as defined in Section 4.1.2 of TWAMP [RFC5357], which is
originally 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].
The Sender Member Link ID (6-octets in length): It is defined for the
Session-Sender to carry the identifier of the member link that is
being measured. The Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the
Session-Sender.
4.2.2. 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 receives a Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-
Reflector MUST use the member link from which the Test packet is
received to correlate to a micro TWAMP session. When sends a
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
response to a received Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-Reflector
MUST copy the LAG Member Link ID to the response Test packet.
4.2.2.1. 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]. In addition, in order to carry the LAG member link
identifier, a new field is added. The formats are as below:
For unauthenticated mode:
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 | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender TTL | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ .
. .
. Packet Padding .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
For authenticated and encrypted modes:
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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 .
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
Except for the Sender 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 (6-octets in length): it is defined for
carrying the LAG Member Link ID copied from the Session-Sender Test
packet.
5. Mirco STAMP Session
5.1. Micro STAMP-Test
The micro STAMP-Test protocol is based on the STAMP-Test protocol
[RFC8762] with the following extensions.
5.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format
The micro STAMP Session-Sender Test packet formats are based on the
STAMP Session-Sender Test packet formats and with some extensions (a
new field: LAG Member Link ID is introduced). The formats are as
follows:
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| MBZ (28 octets) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Session-Sender Test Packet in Unauthenticated Mode
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| MBZ (64 octets) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Session-Sender Test Packet in Authenticated Mode
Except for the Sender Member Link ID field, all the other fields are
the same as defined in Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of STAMP [RFC8762].
Sender Member Link ID (6-octets in length): it is defined for the
Session-Sender to carry the identifier of the member link that is
being measured. The Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the
Session-Sender.
5.1.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format
The micro STAMP Session-Reflector Test packet formats are based on
the STAMP Session-Reflector Test packet formats with a minor
extension (a new field: LAG Member Link ID is introduced). The
formats are as follows:
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
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 |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Error Estimate | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ses-Sender TTL | MBZ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| LAG Member Link ID (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Session-Reflector Test Packet in Unauthenticated Mode
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (8 octets) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Error Estimate | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| MBZ (6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ses-Sender TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
| MBZ (15 octets) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Session-Reflector Test Packet in Authenticated Mode
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
Except for the Sender Member Link ID field, all the other fields are
the same as defined in Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 of STAMP [RFC8762].
Sender Member Link ID (6-octets in length): it is defined for
carrying the Sender Member Link ID copied from the Session-Sender
Test packet.
5.1.3. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures
The micro STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of
STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions:
The micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro STAMP-Test packets
over the member link with which the session is associated. When
receives a Test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST use
the member link from which the Test packet is received to correlate
to a micro STAMP session.
The micro STAMP Session-Sender may carry an identifier of the member
link that is related to this micro STAMP session in the Session-
Sender Test packet. The micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST copy it
to the Session-Reflector Test packet (Section 5.1.2 of this document)
and send it back to the micro STAMP Session-Sender. The micro STAMP
Session-Sender can use it to check whether the reflected Test packet
is correctly transmitted over the expected member link.
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. 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
6.2. 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 & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations in [RFC4656], [RFC5357], [RFC8762] apply
to this document.
8. Acknowledgements
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
2008.
Authors' Addresses
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 17]