Cisco Service-Level Assurance Protocol
RFC 6812
Document | Type |
RFC - Informational
(January 2013; No errata)
Was draft-cisco-sla-protocol (tsv)
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Murtaza Chiba , Alexander Clemm , Steven Medley , Joseph Salowey , Sudhir Thombare , Eshwar Yedavalli | ||
Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
Stream | ISE | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
IETF conflict review | conflict-review-cisco-sla-protocol | ||
Stream | ISE state | (None) | |
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 6812 (Informational) | |
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Wesley Eddy | ||
Send notices to | rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org |
Independent Submission M. Chiba Request for Comments: 6812 A. Clemm Category: Informational S. Medley ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Salowey S. Thombare E. Yedavalli Cisco Systems January 2013 Cisco Service-Level Assurance Protocol Abstract Cisco's Service-Level Assurance Protocol (Cisco's SLA Protocol) is a Performance Measurement protocol that has been widely deployed. The protocol is used to measure service-level parameters such as network latency, delay variation, and packet/frame loss. This document describes the Cisco SLA Protocol Measurement-Type UDP-Measurement, to enable vendor interoperability. Status of This Memo This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6812. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 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 (http://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. Chiba, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 6812 Cisco Service-Level Assurance Protocol January 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Control Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.1. Control-Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1.1. Command-Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.1.2. CSLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.2. Control-Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2. Measurement Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.1. Message Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.2. IPsec Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.2.1. Control Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.2.2. Measurement Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.3. Replay Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Chiba, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 6812 Cisco Service-Level Assurance Protocol January 2013 1. Introduction Active network performance measurements are becoming critical data points for administrators monitoring the health of the network. As service providers look to differentiate their offerings, performance measurement is increasingly becoming an important tool to monitor service-level guarantees and, in general, to monitor the health of a network. Performance metrics, both one-way and two-way, can be used for pre- deployment validation as well as for measuring in-band live network- performance characteristics. It can be used to measure service levels in L2 and L3 networks as well as for applications running on top of L3. Active performance measurements are gathered by analyzing synthetically generated request and response packets or frames. This is in contrast to passive measurements that analyze live trafficShow full document text