Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv
Network Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft X. Min
Updates: 8762 (if approved) ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track H. Nydell
Expires: May 19, 2021 Accedian Networks
R. Foote
Nokia
A. Masputra
Apple Inc.
E. Ruffini
OutSys
November 15, 2020
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Optional Extensions
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-10
Abstract
This document describes optional extensions to Simple Two-way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) that enable measurement of performance
metrics. The document also defines a STAMP Test Session Identifier
and thus updates RFC 8762.
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 May 19, 2021.
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
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
(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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. STAMP Test Session Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. TLV Extensions to STAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Extra Padding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Location TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1. Location Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Theory of Operation of Location TLV . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Timestamp Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. Class of Service TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5. Direct Measurement TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6. Access Report TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.7. Follow-up Telemetry TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.8. HMAC TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1. STAMP TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2. STAMP TLV Flags Sub-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3. Sub-TLV Type Sub-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4. Synchronization Source Sub-registry . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.5. Timestamping Method Sub-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.6. Return Code Sub-registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] defined
the STAMP base functionalities. This document specifies the use of
optional extensions that use Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoding. Such
extensions enhance the STAMP base functions, such as measurement of
one-way and round-trip delay, latency, packet loss, packet
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
duplication, and out-of-order delivery of test packets. This
specification defines optional STAMP extensions, their formats, and
the theory of operation. Also, a STAMP Test Session Identifier is
defined as an update of the base STAMP specification [RFC8762].
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Acronyms
BDS BeiDou Navigation Satellite System
BITS Building Integrated Timing Supply
CoS Class of Service
DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point
ECN Explicit Congestion Notification
GLONASS Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System
GPS Global Positioning System [GPS]
HMAC Hashed Message Authentication Code
LORAN-C Long Range Navigation System Version C
MBZ Must Be Zero
NTP Network Time Protocol [RFC5905]
PMF Performance Measurement Function
PTP Precision Time Protocol [IEEE.1588.2008]
TLV Type-Length-Value
SSID STAMP Session Identifier
SSU Synchronization Supply Unit
STAMP Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
2.2. 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
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. STAMP Test Session Identifier
The STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets to the STAMP Session-
Reflector. The STAMP Session-Reflector receives the Session-Sender's
packet and acts according to the configuration and optional control
information communicated in the Session-Sender's test packet. STAMP
defines two different test packet formats, one for packets
transmitted by the STAMP Session-Sender and one for packets
transmitted by the STAMP Session-Reflector. STAMP supports two
modes: unauthenticated and authenticated. Unauthenticated STAMP test
packets are compatible on the wire with unauthenticated TWAMP-Test
[RFC5357] packets.
By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets, i.e., the size of the
packet transmitted by the Session-Reflector equals the size of the
packet received by the Session-Reflector.
A STAMP Session is identified by the 4-tuple (source and destination
IP addresses, source and destination UDP port numbers). A STAMP
Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier
(SSID). The SSID is a two-octet-long non-zero unsigned integer.
SSID generation policy is implementation-specific.
[I-D.gont-numeric-ids-generation] thoroughly analyzes common
algorithms for identifier generation and their vulnerabilities. For
example, an implementation can use algorithms described in
Section 7.1 of [I-D.gont-numeric-ids-generation]. An implementation
MUST NOT assign the same identifier to different STAMP test sessions.
A Session-Sender MAY use the SSID to identify a STAMP test session.
If the SSID is used, it MUST be present in each test packet of the
given test session. In the unauthenticated mode, the SSID is located
as displayed in Figure 1.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 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 | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
| MBZ (28 octets) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: The format of an extended STAMP Session-Sender test packet
in unauthenticated mode
An implementation of the STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this
specification MUST identify a STAMP Session using the SSID in
combination with elements of the usual 4-tuple for the session.
Before a test session commences, a Session-Reflector MUST be
provisioned with all the elements that identify the STAMP Session. A
STAMP Session-Reflector MUST discard non-matching STAMP test
packet(s). The means of provisioning the STAMP Session
identification is outside the scope of this specification. A
conforming implementation of STAMP Session-Reflector MUST copy the
SSID value from the received test packet and put it into the
reflected packet, as displayed in Figure 2.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 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 | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Error Estimate | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ses-Sender TTL | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: The format of an extended STAMP Session-Reflector test
packet in unauthenticated mode
A STAMP Session-Reflector that does not support this specification
will return the zeroed SSID field in the reflected STAMP test packet.
The Session-Sender MAY stop the session if it receives a zeroed SSID
field. An implementation of a Session-Sender MUST support control of
its behavior in such a scenario. If the test session is not stopped,
the Session-Sender, can, for example, send a base STAMP packet
[RFC8762] or continue transmitting STAMP test packets with the SSID.
Location of the SSID field in the authenticated mode is shown in
Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 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 | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| MBZ (68 octets) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| HMAC (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Base STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in
authenticated 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error Estimate | SSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receive Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
| 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) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Base STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in
authenticated mode
4. TLV Extensions to STAMP
The Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoding scheme provides a flexible
extension mechanism for optional informational elements. TLV is an
optional field in the STAMP test packet. Multiple TLVs MAY be placed
in a STAMP test packet. Additional TLVs may be enclosed within a
given TLV, subject to the semantics of the (outer) TLV in question.
TLVs have a one-octet-long STAMP TLV Flags field, a one-octet-long
Type field, and a two-octet-long Length field that is equal to the
length of the Value field in octets. If a Type value for TLV or sub-
TLV is in the range for Vendor Private Use, the Length MUST be at
least 4, and the first four octets MUST be that vendor's Structure of
Management Information (SMI) Private Enterprise Code, as recorded in
IANA's SMI Private Enterprise Codes sub-registry, in network octet
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
order. The rest of the Value field is private to the vendor. The
following sections describe the use of TLVs for STAMP that extend the
STAMP capability beyond its base specification.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: TLV Format in a STAMP Extended Packet
where fields are defined as the following:
o STAMP TLV Flags - eight-bit-long field. Detailed format and
interpretation of flags defined in this specification is below.
o Type - one-octet-long field that characterizes the interpretation
of the Value field. It is allocated by IANA, as specified in
Section 5.1.
o Length - two-octet-long field equal to the length of the Value
field in octets.
o Value - a variable-length field. Its interpretation and encoding
is determined by the value of the Type field.
All multibyte fields in TLVs defined in this specification are in
network byte order.
The format of the STAMP TLV Flags displayed in Figure 6 and the
location of flags is according to Section 5.2.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|M|I|R|R|R|R|R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: STAMP TLV Flags Format
where fields are defined as the following:
o U (Unrecognized) is a one-bit flag. A Session-Sender MUST set the
U flag to 1 before transmitting an extended STAMP test packet. A
Session-Reflector MUST set the U flag to 1 if the Session-
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
Reflector has not understood the TLV. Otherwise, the Session-
Reflector MUST set the U flag in the reflected packet to 0.
o M (Malformed) is a one-bit flag. A Session-Sender MUST set the M
flag to 0 before transmitting an extended STAMP test packet. A
Session-Reflector MUST set the M flag to 1 if the Session-
Reflector determined the TLV is malformed, i.e., the Length field
value is not valid for the particular type, or the remaining
length of the extended STAMP packet is less than the size of the
TLV. Otherwise, the Session-Reflector MUST set the M flag in the
reflected packet to 0.
o I (Integrity) is a one-bit flag. A Session-Sender MUST set the I
flag to 0 before transmitting an extended STAMP test packet. A
Session-Reflector MUST set the I flag to 1 if the STAMP extensions
have failed HMAC verification (Section 4.8). Otherwise, the
Session-Reflector MUST set the I flag in the reflected packet to
0.
o R - reserved flags for future use. These flags MUST be zeroed on
transmit and ignored on receipt.
A STAMP node, whether Session-Sender or Session-Reflector, receiving
a test packet MUST determine whether the packet is a base STAMP
packet or includes one or more TLVs. The node MUST compare the value
in the Length field of the UDP header and the length of the base
STAMP test packet in the mode, unauthenticated or authenticated based
on the configuration of the particular STAMP test session. If the
difference between the two values is larger than the length of the
UDP header, then the test packet includes one or more STAMP TLVs that
immediately follow the base STAMP test packet. A Session-Reflector
that does not support STAMP extensions will not process but copy them
into the reflected packet, as defined in Section 4.3 [RFC8762]. A
Session-Reflector that supports TLVs will indicate specific TLVs that
it did not process by setting the U flag to 1 in those TLVs.
A STAMP Session-Sender that has received a reflected STAMP test
packet with extension TLVs MUST validate each TLV:
If the U flag is set, the STAMP system MUST skip the processing of
the TLV.
If the M flag is set, the STAMP system MUST stop processing the
remainder of the extended STAMP packet.
If the I flag is set, the STAMP system MUST discard all TLVs and
MUST stop processing the remainder of the extended STAMP packet.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
If an implementation of a Session-Reflector does not recognize the
Type field value, it MUST include a copy of the TLV into the
reflected STAMP packet. The Session-Reflector MUST set the U flag
to 1. The Session-Reflector MUST skip the processing of the
unrecognized TLV.
If a TLV is malformed, the processing of extension TLVs MUST be
stopped. The Session-Reflector MUST copy the remainder of the
received extended STAMP packet into the reflected STAMP packet.
The Session-Reflector MUST set the M flag to 1.
4.1. Extra Padding TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags|Extra Pad Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Extra Padding ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Extra Padding TLV
where fields are defined as the following:
o STAMP TLV Flags - is an eight-bit-long field. Its format is
presented in Figure 6.
o Extra Padding Type - is a one-octet-long field, value TBA1
allocated by IANA Section 5.1.
o Length - two-octet-long field equal to the length of the Extra
Padding field in octets.
o Extra Padding - SHOULD be filled by a sequence of a pseudo-random
numbers. The field MAY be filled with all zeros. An
implementation MUST control the type of filling of the Extra
Padding field.
The Extra Padding TLV is similar to the Packet Padding field in a
TWAMP-Test packet [RFC5357]. The use of the Extra Padding TLV is
RECOMMENDED to perform a STAMP test using test packets of larger size
than the base STAMP packet [RFC8762]. The length of the base STAMP
packet is 44 octets in the unauthenticated mode or 112 octets in the
authenticated mode. The Extra Padding TLV MAY be present more than
one time in an extended STAMP test packet.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
4.2. Location TLV
STAMP Session-Senders MAY include the variable-size Location TLV to
query location information from the Session-Reflector. The Session-
Sender MUST NOT fill any information fields except for STAMP TLV
Flags, Type, and Length. The Session-Reflector MUST verify that the
TLV is well-formed. If it is not, the Session-Reflector follows the
procedure defined in Section 4 for a malformed TLV.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Location Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Port | Source Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sub-TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Location TLV
where fields are defined as the following:
o STAMP TLV Flags - is an eight-bit-long field. Its format is
presented in Figure 6.
o Location Type - is a one-octet-long field, value TBA2 allocated by
IANA Section 5.1.
o Length - two-octet-long field equal to the length of the Value
field in octets.
o Destination Port - two-octet-long UDP destination port number of
the received STAMP packet.
o Source Port - two-octet-long UDP source port number of the
received STAMP packet.
o Sub-TLVs - a sequence of sub-TLVs, as defined further in this
section. The sub-TLVs are used by the Session-Sender to request
location information with generic sub-TLV types, and the Session-
Reflector responds with the corresponding more-specific sub-TLVs
for the type of address (e.g., IPv4 or IPv6) used at the Session-
Reflector.
Note that all fields not filled by either a Session-Sender or
Session-Reflector are transmitted with all bits set to zero.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
4.2.1. Location Sub-TLVs
A sub-TLV in the Location TLV uses the format displayed in Figure 5.
Handling of the U and M flags in the sub-TLV is as defined in
Section 4. The I flag MUST be set by a Session-Sender and Session-
Reflector to 0 before transmission and its value ignored on receipt.
The following types of sub-TLV for the Location TLV are defined in
this specification (type values are assigned according to Table 5):
o Source MAC Address sub-TLV - is a 12-octet-long sub-TLV. The Type
value is TBA9. The value of the Length field MUST equal to 8.
The Value field is an 8-octet-long MBZ field that MUST be zeroed
on transmission and ignored on receipt.
o Source EUI-48 Address sub-TLV - is a 12-octet-long sub-TLV that
includes the EUI-48 source MAC address. The Type value is TBA10.
The value of the Length field MUST equal to 8.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| EUI-48 Address |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: The Value Field of the Source EUI-48 Address sub-TLV
The Value field consists of the following fields (Figure 9):
* The EUI-48 is a six-octet-long field.
* Two-octet-ling MBZ field MUST be zeroed on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
o Source EUI-64 Address sub-TLV - is a 12-octet-long sub-TLV that
includes the EUI-64 source MAC address. The Type value is TBA11.
The value of the Length field MUST equal to 8. The Value field
consists of an eight-octet-long EUI-64 field.
o Destination IP Address sub-TLV - is a 20-octet-long sub-TLV. The
Type value is TBA12. The value of the Length field MUST equal to
16. The Value field consists of a 16-octet-long MBZ field that
MUST be zeroed on transmit and ignored on receipt
o Destination IPv4 Address sub-TLV - is a 20-octet-long sub-TLV that
includes IPv4 destination address. The Type value is TBA13. The
value of the Length field MUST equal to 16.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ MBZ (12 octets) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: IPv4 Address in a Sub-TLV's Value Field
The Value field consists of the following fields (Figure 10):
* The IPv4 Address is a four-octet-long field.
* 12-octet-long MBZ field MUST be zeroed on transmit and ignored
on receipt.
o Destination IPv6 Address sub-TLV - is a 20-octet-long sub-TLV that
includes IPv6 destination address. The Type value is TBA14. The
value of the Length field MUST equal to 16. The Value field is a
16-octet-long IP v6 Address field.
o Source IP Address sub-TLV - is a 20-octet-long sub-TLV. The Type
value is TBA15. The value of the Length field MUST equal to 16.
The Value field is a 16-octet-long MBZ field that MUST be zeroed
on transmit and ignored on receipt
o Source IPv4 Address sub-TLV - is a 20-octet-long sub-TLV that
includes IPv4 source address. The Type value is TBA16. The value
of the Length field MUST equal to 16. The Value field consists of
the following fields (Figure 10):
* The IPv4 Address is a four-octet-long field.
* 12-octet-long MBZ field that MUST be zeroed on transmit and
ignored on receipt.
o Source IPv6 Address sub-TLV - is a 20-octet-long sub-TLV that
includes IPv6 source address. The Type value is TBA17. The value
of the Length field MUST equal to 16. The Value field is a 16-
octet-long IPv6 Address field.
4.2.2. Theory of Operation of Location TLV
The Session-Reflector that received an extended STAMP packet with the
Location TLV MUST include the Location TLV of the size equal to the
size of Location TLV in the received packet in the reflected packet.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
Based on the local policy, the Session-Reflector MAY leave some
fields unreported by filling them with zeroes. An implementation of
the stateful Session-Reflector MUST provide control for managing such
policies.
A Session-Sender MAY include the Source MAC Address sub-TLV in the
Location TLV. If the Session-Reflector receives the Location TLV
that includes the Source MAC Address sub-TLV, it MUST include the
Source EUI-48 Address sub-TLV if the source MAC address of the
received extended test packet is in EUI-48 format. And the Session-
Reflector MUST copy the value of the source MAC address in the EUI-48
field. Otherwise, the Session-Reflector MUST use the Source EUI-64
Address sub-TLV and MUST copy the value of the Source MAC address
from the received packet into the EUI-64 field. If the received
extended STAMP test packet does not have the Source MAC address, the
Session-Reflector MUST zero the EUI-64 field before transmitting the
reflected packet.
A Session-Sender MAY include the Destination IP Address sub-TLV in
the Location TLV. If the Session-Reflector receives the Location TLV
that includes the Destination IP Address sub-TLV, it MUST include the
Destination IPv4 Address sub-TLV if the source IP address of the
received extended test packet is of IPv4 address family. And the
Session-Reflector MUST copy the value of the destination IP address
in the IPv4 Address field. Otherwise, the Session-Reflector MUST use
the Destination IPv6 Address sub-TLV and MUST copy the value of the
destination IP address from the received packet into the IPv6 Address
field.
A Session-Sender MAY include the Source IP Address sub-TLV in the
Location TLV. If the Session-Reflector receives the Location TLV
that includes the Source IP Address sub-TLV, it MUST include the
Source IPv4 Address sub-TLV if the source IP address of the received
extended test packet is of IPv4 address family. And the Session-
Reflector MUST copy the value of the source IP address in the IPv4
Address field. Otherwise, the Session-Reflector MUST use the Source
IPv6 Address sub-TLV and MUST copy the value of the source IP address
from the received packet into the IPv6 Address field.
The Location TLV MAY be used to determine the last-hop IP addresses,
ports, and last-hop MAC address for STAMP packets. The MAC address
can indicate a path switch on the last hop. The IP addresses and UDP
ports will indicate if there is a NAT router on the path. It allows
the Session-Sender to identify the IP address of the Session-
Reflector behind the NAT, and detect changes in the NAT mapping that
could cause sending the STAMP packets to the wrong Session-Reflector.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
4.3. Timestamp Information TLV
The STAMP Session-Sender MAY include the Timestamp Information TLV to
request information from the Session-Reflector. The Session-Sender
MUST NOT fill any information fields except for STAMP TLV Flags,
Type, and Length. All other fields MUST be filled with zeroes. The
Session-Reflector MUST validate the Length value of the TLV. If the
value of the Length field is invalid, the Session-Reflector follows
the procedure defined in Section 4 for a malformed TLV.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags|Times Info Type| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sync. Src In | Timestamp In | Sync. Src Out | Timestamp Out |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Optional sub-TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: Timestamp Information TLV
where fields are defined as the following:
o STAMP TLV Flags - is an eight-bit-long field. Its format is
presented in Figure 6.
o Timestamp Information Type - is a one-octet-long field, value TBA3
allocated by IANA Section 5.1.
o Length - two-octet-long field, set equal to the length of the
Value field in octets (Figure 5).
o Sync Src In - one-octet-long field that characterizes the source
of clock synchronization at the ingress of a Session-Reflector.
There are several methods to synchronize the clock, e.g., Network
Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC5905]. The value is one of those listed
in Table 7.
o Timestamp In - one-octet-long field that characterizes the method
by which the ingress of the Session-Reflector obtained the
timestamp T2. A timestamp may be obtained with hardware
assistance, via software API from a local wall clock, or from a
remote clock (the latter is referred to as "control plane"). The
value is one of those listed in Table 9.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
o Sync Src Out - one-octet-long field that characterizes the source
of clock synchronization at the egress of the Session-Reflector.
The value is one of those listed in Table 7.
o Timestamp Out - one-octet-long field that characterizes the method
by which the egress of the Session-Reflector obtained the
timestamp T3. The value is one of those listed in Table 9.
o Optional sub-TLVs - optional variable-length field.
4.4. Class of Service TLV
The STAMP Session-Sender MAY include a Class of Service (CoS) TLV in
the STAMP test packet. The format of the CoS TLV is presented in
Figure 12.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| CoS Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DSCP1 | DSCP2 |ECN| RP| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: Class of Service TLV
where fields are defined as the following:
o STAMP TLV Flags - is an eight-bit-long field. Its format is
presented in Figure 6.
o CoS (Class of Service) Type - is a one-octet-long field, value
TBA4 allocated by IANA Section 5.1.
o Length - two-octet-long field, set equal to the value 4.
o DSCP1 - The Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) intended by
the Session-Sender to be used as the DSCP value of the reflected
test packet.
o DSCP2 - The received value in the DSCP field at the ingress of the
Session-Reflector.
o ECN - The received value in the ECN field at the ingress of the
Session-Reflector.
o RP (Reverse Path) - is a two-bit-long field. A Session-Sender
MUST set the value of the RP field to 0 on transmission.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
o Reserved - 16-bit-long field, MUST be zeroed on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
A STAMP Session-Reflector that receives a test packet with the CoS
TLV MUST include the CoS TLV in the reflected test packet. Also, the
Session-Reflector MUST copy the value of the DSCP and ECN fields of
the IP header of the received STAMP test packet into the DSCP2 field
in the reflected test packet. Finally, the Session-Reflector MUST
use the local policy to verify whether the CoS corresponding to the
value of the DSCP1 field is permitted in the domain. If it is, the
Session-Reflectorset MUST set the DSCP field's value in the IP header
of the reflected test packet equal to the value of the DSCP1 field of
the received test packet. Otherwise, the Session-Reflector MUST use
the DSCP value of the received STAMP packet and set the value of the
RP field to 1. Upon receiving the reflected packet, if the value of
the RP field is 0, the Session-Sender will save the DSCP and ECN
values for analysis of the CoS in the reverse direction. If the
value of the RP field in the received reflected packet is 1, only CoS
in the forward direction can be analyzed.
Re-mapping of CoS can be used to provide multiple services (e,g., 2G,
3G, LTE in mobile backhaul networks) over the same network. But if
it is misconfigured, then it is often difficult to diagnose the root
cause of excessive packet drops of higher-level service while packet
drops for lower service packets are at a normal level. Using a CoS
TLV in STAMP testing helps to troubleshoot the existing problem and
also verify whether DiffServ policies are processing CoS as required
by the configuration.
4.5. Direct Measurement TLV
The Direct Measurement TLV enables collection of the number of in-
profile packets, i.e., packets that form a specific data flow, that
had been transmitted and received by the Session-Sender and Session-
Reflector, respectively. The definition of "in-profile packet" is
outside the scope of this document and is left to the test operators
to determine.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Direct Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Sender Tx counter (S_TxC) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Reflector Rx counter (R_RxC) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Session-Reflector Tx counter (R_TxC) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: Direct Measurement TLV
where fields are defined as the following:
o STAMP TLV Flags - is an eight-bit-long field. Its format is
presented in Figure 6.
o Direct (Measurement) Type - is a one-octet-long field, value TBA5
allocated by IANA Section 5.1.
o Length - two-octet-long field equals the length of the Value field
in octets. The Length field value MUST equal 12 octets.
o Session-Sender Tx counter (S_TxC) is a four-octet-long field. The
Session-Sender MUST set its value equal to the number of the
transmitted in-profile packets.
o Session-Reflector Rx counter (R_RxC) is a four-octet-long field.
MUST be zeroed by the Session-Sender on transmit and ignored by
the Session-Reflector on receipt. The Session-Reflector MUST fill
it with the value of in-profile packets received.
o Session-Reflector Tx counter (R_TxC) is a four-octet-long field.
MUST be zeroed by the Session-Sender and ignored by the Session-
Reflector on receipt. The Session-Reflector MUST fill it with the
value of the transmitted in-profile packets.
A Session-Sender MAY include the Direct Measurement TLV in a STAMP
test packet. If the received STAMP test packet includes the Direct
Measurement TLV, the Session-Reflector MUST include it in the
reflected test packet. The Session-Reflector MUST copy the value
from the S_TxC field of the received test packet into the same field
of the reflected packet before its transmission.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
4.6. Access Report TLV
A STAMP Session-Sender MAY include an Access Report TLV (Figure 14)
to indicate changes to the access network status to the Session-
Reflector. The definition of an access network is outside the scope
of this document.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags|Acc Report Type| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ID | Resv | Return Code | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: Access Report TLV
where fields are defined as follows:
o STAMP TLV Flags - is an eight-bit-long field. Its format
presented in Figure 6.
o Access Report Type - is a one-octet-long field, value TBA6
allocated by IANA Section 5.1.
o Length - two-octet-long field, set equal to the value 4.
o ID (Access ID) - four-bit-long field that identifies the access
network, e.g., 3GPP (Radio Access Technologies specified by 3GPP)
or Non-3GPP (accesses that are not specified by 3GPP) [TS23501].
The value is one of those listed below:
* 1 - 3GPP Network
* 2 - Non-3GPP Network
All other values are invalid and the TLV that contains it MUST be
discarded.
o Resv - four-bit-long field, MUST be zeroed on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
o Return Code - one-octet-long field that identifies the report
signal, e.g., available or unavailable. The value is supplied to
the STAMP end-point through some mechanism that is outside the
scope of this document. The value is one of those listed in
Section 5.6.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
o Reserved - two-octet-long field, MUST be zeroed on transmission
and ignored on receipt.
The STAMP Session-Sender that includes the Access Report TLV sets the
value of the Access ID field according to the type of access network
it reports on. Also, the Session-Sender sets the value of the Return
Code field to reflect the operational state of the access network.
The mechanism to determine the state of the access network is outside
the scope of this specification. A STAMP Session-Reflector that
received the test packet with the Access Report TLV MUST include the
Access Report TLV in the reflected test packet. The Session-
Reflector MUST set the value of the Access ID and Return Code fields
equal to the values of the corresponding fields from the test packet
it has received.
The Session-Sender MUST also arm a retransmission timer after sending
a test packet that includes the Access Report TLV. This timer MUST
be disarmed upon reception of the reflected STAMP test packet that
includes the Access Report TLV. In the event the timer expires
before such a packet is received, the Session-Sender MUST retransmit
the STAMP test packet that contains the Access Report TLV. This
retransmission SHOULD be repeated up to four times before the
procedure is aborted. Setting the value for the retransmission timer
is based on local policies and network environment. The default
value of the retransmission timer for the Access Report TLV SHOULD be
three seconds. An implementation MUST provide control of the
retransmission timer value and the number of retransmissions.
The Access Report TLV is used by the Performance Measurement Function
(PMF) components of the Access Steering, Switching and Splitting
feature for 5G networks [TS23501]. The PMF component in the User
Equipment acts as the STAMP Session-Sender, and the PMF component in
the User Plane Function acts as the STAMP Session-Reflector.
4.7. Follow-up Telemetry TLV
A Session-Reflector might be able to put in the Timestamp field only
an "SW Local" (see Table 9) timestamp. But the hosting system might
provide a timestamp closer to the start of the actual packet
transmission even though it is not possible to deliver the
information to the Session-Sender in time for the packet itself.
This timestamp might nevertheless be important for the Session-
Sender, as it improves the accuracy of measuring network delay by
minimizing the impact of egress queuing delays on the measurement.
A STAMP Session-Sender MAY include the Follow-up Telemetry TLV to
request information from the Session-Reflector. The Session-Sender
MUST set the Follow-up Telemetry Type and Length fields to their
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
appropriate values. The Sequence Number and Timestamp fields MUST be
zeroed on transmission by the Session-Sender and ignored by the
Session-Reflector upon receipt of the STAMP test packet that includes
the Follow-up Telemetry TLV. The Session-Reflector MUST validate the
Length value of the STAMP test packet. If the value of the Length
field is invalid, the Session-Reflector MUST zero the Sequence Number
and Timestamp fields and set the M flag in the STAMP TLV Flags field
in the reflected packet. If the Session-Reflector is in stateless
mode (defined in Section 4.2 [RFC8762]), it MUST zero the Sequence
Number and Timestamp fields.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Follow-up Type| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Follow-up Timestamp |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Timestamp M | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Follow-up Telemetry TLV
where fields are defined as follows:
o STAMP TLV Flags - is an eight-bit-long field. Its format
presented in Figure 6.
o Follow-up (Telemetry) Type - is a one-octet-long field, value TBA7
allocated by IANA Section 5.1.
o Length - two-octet-long field, set equal to the value 16 octets.
o Sequence Number - four-octet-long field indicating the sequence
number of the last packet reflected in the same STAMP-test
session. Since the Session-Reflector runs in the stateful mode
(defined in Section 4.2 [RFC8762]), it is the Session-Reflector's
Sequence Number of the previous reflected packet.
o Follow-up Timestamp - eight-octet-long field, with the format
indicated by the Z flag of the Error Estimate field of the STAMP
base packet, which is contained in this reflected test packet
transmitted by a Session-Reflector, as described in Section 4.2.1
[RFC8762]. It carries the timestamp when the reflected packet
with the specified sequence number was sent.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
o Timestamp M(ode) - one-octet-long field that characterizes the
method by which the entity that transmits a reflected STAMP packet
obtained the Follow-up Timestamp. The value is one of those
listed in Table 9.
o Reserved - three-octet-long field. Its value MUST be zeroed on
transmission and ignored on receipt.
4.8. HMAC TLV
The STAMP authenticated mode protects the integrity of data collected
in the STAMP base packet. STAMP extensions are designed to provide
valuable information about the condition of a network, and protecting
the integrity of that data is also essential. All authenticated
STAMP base packets (per Section 4.2.2 and Section 4.3.2 [RFC8762])
compatible with this specification MUST additionally authenticate the
option TLVs by including the keyed Hashed Message Authentication Code
(HMAC) TLV, with the sole exception of when there is only one TLV
present, and it is the Extended Padding TLV. The HMAC TLV MUST
follow all TLVs included in a STAMP test packet, except for the Extra
Padding TLV. If the HMAC TLV appears in any other position in a
STAMP extended test packet, then the situation MUST be processed as
HMAC verification failure, as defined in this section, further below.
The HMAC TLV MAY be used to protect the integrity of STAMP extensions
in STAMP unauthenticated mode. An implementation of STAMP extensions
MUST provide controls to enable the integrity protection of STAMP
extensions in STAMP 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| HMAC Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| HMAC |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 16: HMAC TLV
where fields are defined as follows:
o STAMP TLV Flags - is an eight-bit-long field. Its format is
presented in Figure 6.
o HMAC Type - is a one-octet-long field, value TBA8 allocated by
IANA Section 5.1.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
o Length - two-octet-long field, set equal to 16 octets.
o HMAC - is a 16-octet-long field that carries HMAC digest of the
text of all preceding TLVs.
As defined in [RFC8762], STAMP uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128
bits ([RFC4868]). All considerations regarding using the key listed
in Section 4.4 of [RFC8762] are fully applicable to the use of the
HMAC TLV. Key management and the mechanisms to distribute the HMAC
key are outside the scope of this specification. HMAC TLV is
anticipated to track updates in the base STAMP protocol [RFC8762],
including the use of more advanced cryptographic algorithms. HMAC is
calculated as defined in [RFC2104] over text as the concatenation of
the Sequence Number field of the base STAMP packet and all preceding
TLVs. The digest then MUST be truncated to 128 bits and written into
the HMAC field. If the HMAC TLV is present in the extended STAMP
test packet, e.g., in the authenticated mode, HMAC MUST be verified
before using any data in the included STAMP TLVs. If HMAC
verification by the Session-Reflector fails, then the Session-
Reflector MUST stop processing the received extended STAMP test
packet. The Session-Reflector MUST copy the TLVs from the received
STAMP test packet into the reflected packet. The Session-Reflector
MUST set the I flag in each TLV copied over into the reflected packet
to 1 before transmitting the reflected test packet. If the Session-
Sender receives the extended STAMP test packet with I flag set to 1,
then the Session-Sender MUST stop processing TLVs in the reflected
test packet. If HMAC verification by the Session-Sender fails, then
the Session-Sender MUST stop processing TLVs in the reflected
extended STAMP packet.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. STAMP TLV Registry
IANA is requested to create the STAMP TLV Type registry. All code
points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be allocated
according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126].
Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure as
specified in [RFC8126]. The remaining code points are allocated
according to Table 1:
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1- 175 | Unassigned | This document |
| 176 - 239 | Unassigned | This document |
| 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document |
| 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
Table 1: STAMP TLV Type Registry
This document defines the following new values in the IETF Review
range of the STAMP TLV Type registry:
+-------+-----------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-----------------------+---------------+
| TBA1 | Extra Padding | This document |
| TBA2 | Location | This document |
| TBA3 | Timestamp Information | This document |
| TBA4 | Class of Service | This document |
| TBA5 | Direct Measurement | This document |
| TBA6 | Access Report | This document |
| TBA7 | Follow-up Telemetry | This document |
| TBA8 | HMAC | This document |
+-------+-----------------------+---------------+
Table 2: STAMP TLV Types
5.2. STAMP TLV Flags Sub-registry
IANA is requested to create the STAMP TLV Flags sub-registry as part
of the STAMP TLV Type registry. The registration procedure is "IETF
Review" [RFC8126]. Flags are 8 bits. This document defines the
following bit positions in the STAMP TLV Flags sub-registry:
+--------------+--------+------------------------+---------------+
| Bit position | Symbol | Description | Reference |
+--------------+--------+------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | U | Unrecognized TLV | This document |
| 1 | M | Malformed TLV | This document |
| 2 | I | Integrity check failed | This document |
+--------------+--------+------------------------+---------------+
Table 3: STAMP TLV Flags
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
5.3. Sub-TLV Type Sub-registry
IANA is requested to create the sub-TLV Type sub-registry as part of
the STAMP TLV Type registry. All code points in the range 1 through
175 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF
Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the
range 176 through 239 in this registry shall be allocated according
to the "First Come First Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126].
The remaining code points are allocated according to Table 4:
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1- 175 | Unassigned | This document |
| 176 - 239 | Unassigned | This document |
| 240 - 251 | Experimental | This document |
| 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
Table 4: Location Sub-TLV Type Sub-registry
This document defines the following new values in the IETF Review
range of the Location sub-TLV Type sub-registry:
+-------+--------------------------+----------+---------------+
| Value | Description | TLV Used | Reference |
+-------+--------------------------+----------+---------------+
| TBA9 | Source MAC Address | Location | This document |
| TBA10 | Source EUI-48 Address | Location | This document |
| TBA11 | Source EUI-64 Address | Location | This document |
| TBA12 | Destination IP Address | Location | This document |
| TBA13 | Destination IPv4 Address | Location | This document |
| TBA14 | Destination IPv6 Address | Location | This document |
| TBA15 | Source IP Address | Location | This document |
| TBA16 | Source IPv4 Address | Location | This document |
| TBA17 | Source IPv6 Address | Location | This document |
+-------+--------------------------+----------+---------------+
Table 5: STAMP sub-TLV Types
5.4. Synchronization Source Sub-registry
IANA is requested to create the Synchronization Source sub-registry
as part of the STAMP TLV Type registry. All code points in the range
1 through 127 in this registry shall be allocated according to the
"IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
the range 128 through 239 in this registry shall be allocated
according to the "First Come First Served" procedure as specified in
[RFC8126]. Remaining code points are allocated according to Table 6:
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1- 127 | Unassigned | This document |
| 128 - 239 | Unassigned | This document |
| 240 - 249 | Experimental | This document |
| 250 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
Table 6: Synchronization Source Sub-registry
This document defines the following new values in the Synchronization
Source sub-registry:
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | NTP | This document |
| 2 | PTP | This document |
| 3 | SSU/BITS | This document |
| 4 | GPS/GLONASS/LORAN-C/BDS/Galileo | This document |
| 5 | Local free-running | This document |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
Table 7: Synchronization Sources
5.5. Timestamping Method Sub-registry
IANA is requested to create the Timestamping Method sub-registry as
part of the STAMP TLV Type registry. All code points in the range 1
through 127 in this registry shall be allocated according to the
"IETF Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in
the range 128 through 239 in this registry shall be allocated
according to the "First Come First Served" procedure as specified in
[RFC8126]. Remaining code points are allocated according to Table 8:
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1- 127 | Unassigned | This document |
| 128 - 239 | Unassigned | This document |
| 240 - 249 | Experimental | This document |
| 250 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
Table 8: Timestamping Method Sub-registry
This document defines the following new values in the Timestamping
Methods sub-registry:
+-------+---------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+---------------+---------------+
| 1 | HW Assist | This document |
| 2 | SW local | This document |
| 3 | Control plane | This document |
+-------+---------------+---------------+
Table 9: Timestamping Methods
5.6. Return Code Sub-registry
IANA is requested to create the Return Code sub-registry as part of
the STAMP TLV Type registry. All code points in the range 1 through
127 in this registry shall be allocated according to the "IETF
Review" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the
range 128 through 239 in this registry shall be allocated according
to the "First Come First Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126].
Remaining code points are allocated according to Table 10:
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1- 127 | Unassigned | This document |
| 128 - 239 | Unassigned | This document |
| 240 - 249 | Experimental | This document |
| 250 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-----------+--------------+---------------+
Table 10: Return Code Sub-registry
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
This document defines the following new values in the Return Code
sub-registry:
+-------+---------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+---------------------+---------------+
| 1 | Network available | This document |
| 2 | Network unavailable | This document |
+-------+---------------------+---------------+
Table 11: Return Codes
6. Security Considerations
This document defines extensions to STAMP [RFC8762] and inherits all
the security considerations applicable to the base protocol.
Additionally, the HMAC TLV is defined in this document. Though the
HMAC TLV protects the integrity of STAMP extensions; it does not
protect against a replay attack. The use of HMAC TLV is discussed in
detail in Section 4.8.
To protect against a malformed TLV an implementation of a Session-
Sender and Session-Reflector MUST:
o check the setting of the M flag;
o validate the Length field value.
As this specification defined the mechanism to test DSCP mapping,
this document inherits all the security considerations discussed in
[RFC2474]. Monitoring and optional control of DSCP using the CoS TLV
may be used across the Internet so that the Session-Sender and the
Session-Reflector are located in domains that use different CoS
profiles. Thus, it is essential that an operator verifies the set of
CoS values that are used in the Session-Reflector's domain. Also, an
implementation of a Session-Reflector SHOULD support a local policy
to confirm whether the value sent by the Session-Sender can be used
as the value of the DSCP field. Section 4.4 defines the use of that
local policy.
7. Acknowledgments
Authors much appreciate the thorough review and thoughtful comments
received from Tianran Zhou, Rakesh Gandhi, Yuezhong Song and Yali
Wang. The authors express their gratitude to Al Morton for his
comments and the most valuable suggestions. The authors greatly
appreciate comments and thoughtful suggestions received from Martin
Duke.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
8. Contributors
The following people contributed text to this document:
Guo Jun
ZTE Corporation
68# Zijinghua Road
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
P.R.China
Phone: +86 18105183663
Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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
[GPS] "Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Positioning
Service (SPS) Performance Standard", GPS SPS 5th Edition,
April 2020.
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
[I-D.gont-numeric-ids-generation]
Gont, F. and I. Arce, "On the Generation of Transient
Numeric Identifiers", draft-gont-numeric-ids-generation-04
(work in progress), July 2019.
[IEEE.1588.2008]
"Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol
for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE Standard 1588, March 2008.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.
[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>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[TS23501] 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project), "Technical
Specification Group Services and System Aspects; System
Architecture for the 5G System; Stage 2 (Release 16)",
3GPP TS23501, 2019.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft STAMP Extensions November 2020
Henrik Nydell
Accedian Networks
Email: hnydell@accedian.com
Richard Foote
Nokia
Email: footer.foote@nokia.com
Adi Masputra
Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way
Cupertino, CA 95014
USA
Email: adi@apple.com
Ernesto Ruffini
OutSys
via Caracciolo, 65
Milano 20155
Italy
Email: eruffini@outsys.org
Mirsky, et al. Expires May 19, 2021 [Page 32]
