Network Working Group | G. Mirsky |
Internet-Draft | ZTE Corp. |
Intended status: Standards Track | G. Jun |
Expires: April 20, 2020 | ZTE Corporation |
H. Nydell | |
Accedian Networks | |
R. Foote | |
Nokia | |
October 18, 2019 |
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09
This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.
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 April 20, 2020.
Copyright (c) 2019 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.
Development and deployment of the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions, e.g., [RFC6038] that defined Symmetrical Size for TWAMP, provided invaluable experience. Several independent implementations of both TWAMP and TWAMP Light exist, have been deployed, and provide important operational performance measurements.
At the same time, there has been noticeable interest in using a more straightforward mechanism for active performance monitoring that can provide deterministic behavior and inherent separation of control (vendor-specific configuration or orchestration) and test functions. Recent work on IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light from Broadband Forum [BBF.TR-390] demonstrated that interoperability among implementations of TWAMP Light is difficult because the composition and operation of TWAMP Light were not sufficiently specified in [RFC5357]. According to [RFC8545], TWAMP Light includes a sub-set of TWAMP-Test functions. Thus, to have a comprehensive tool to measure packet loss and delay requires support by other applications that provide, for example, control and security.
This document defines an active performance measurement test protocol, Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), that enables measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. Some TWAMP extensions, e.g., [RFC7750] are supported by the extensions to STAMP base specification in [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv].
STAMP - Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
NTP - Network Time Protocol
PTP - Precision Time Protocol
HMAC Hashed Message Authentication Code
OWAMP One-Way Active Measurement Protocol
TWAMP Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
MBZ Must be Zero
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 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Figure 1 presents the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Session-Sender, and Session-Reflector with a measurement session. In this document, a measurement session also referred to as STAMP session, is the bi-directional packet flow between one specific Session-Sender and one particular Session-Reflector for a time duration. The configuration and management of the STAMP Session-Sender, Session-Reflector, and management of the STAMP sessions are outside the scope of this document and can be achieved through various means. A few examples are: Command Line Interface, telecommunication services' OSS/BSS systems, SNMP, and Netconf/YANG-based SDN controllers.
o----------------------------------------------------------o | Configuration and | | Management | o----------------------------------------------------------o || || || || || || +----------------------+ +-------------------------+ | STAMP Session-Sender | <--- STAMP---> | STAMP Session-Reflector | +----------------------+ +-------------------------+
Figure 1: STAMP Reference Model
STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport toward STAMP Session-Reflector. STAMP Session-Reflector receives Session-Sender's packet and acts according to the configuration. Two modes of STAMP Session-Reflector characterize the expected behavior and, consequently, performance metrics that can be measured:
STAMP supports two authentication modes: unauthenticated and authenticated. Unauthenticated STAMP test packets, defined in Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.3.1, ensure interworking between STAMP and TWAMP Light as described in Section 4.6 packet formats.
By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets, i.e., size of the packet transmitted by Session-Reflector equals the size of the packet received by the Session-Reflector.
A STAMP Session-Sender MUST use UDP port 862 (TWAMP-Test Receiver Port) as the default destination UDP port number. A STAMP implementation of Session-Sender MUST be able to use as the destination UDP port numbers from User, a.k.a. Registered, Ports and Dynamic, a.k.a. Private or Ephemeral, Ports ranges defined in [RFC6335]. Before using numbers from the User Ports range, the possible impact on the network MUST be carefully studied and agreed by all users of the network domain where the test has been planned.
An implementation of STAMP Session-Reflector by default MUST receive STAMP test packets on UDP port 862. An implementation of Session-Reflector that supports this specification MUST be able to define the port number to receive STAMP test packets from User Ports and Dynamic Ports ranges that are defined in [RFC6335]. 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.
A STAMP Session-Reflector supports the symmetrical size of test packets [RFC6038] as the default behavior. A reflected test packet includes more information and thus is larger. Because of that, the base STAMP Session-Sender packet is padded to match the size of a reflected STAMP test packet. Hence, the base STAMP Session-Sender packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in unauthenticated mode, see Figure 2, and 112 octets in the authenticated mode, see Figure 4. The variable length of a test packet in STAMP is supported by using Extra Padding TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Error Estimate | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | | | | Reserved (30 octets) | | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in unauthenticated mode
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S|Z| Scale | Multiplier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Error Estimate Format
STAMP Session-Sender packet format in unauthenticated mode:
The default behavior of the STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector is to use the NTP 64-bit timestamp format (Z field value of 0) An operator, using configuration/management function, MAY configure STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector to using the PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp (Z field value of 1). Note, that an implementation of a Session-Sender that supports this specification MAY be configured to use PTPv2 format of a timestamp even though the Session-Reflector is configured to use NTP format.
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 (70 octets) | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | HMAC (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in authenticated mode
STAMP Session-Sender packet format in authenticated mode:
The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, listed in Section 4.2.1. Also, Must-Be-Zero (MBZ) fields are used to to make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets. The value of the field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Note, that the MBZ field is used to calculate a key-hashed message authentication code (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) hash. Also, the packet includes HMAC hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is described in Section 4.4.
The Session-Reflector receives the STAMP test packet and verifies it. If the base STAMP test packet validated, the Session-Reflector, that supports this specification, prepares and transmits the reflected test packet symmetric to the packet received from the Session-Sender copying the content beyond the size of the base STAMP packet (see Section 4.2).
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 | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in unauthenticated mode
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MBZ (12 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Error Estimate | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | MBZ (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 6: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated mode
For the authenticated mode:
The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, listed in Section 4.3.1. Additionally, the MBZ field is used to to make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets. The value of the field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Note, that the MBZ field is used to calculate HMAC hash value. Also, STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated mode includes HMAC ([RFC2104]) hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is in Section 4.4.
Authenticated mode provides integrity protection to each STAMP message by adding Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC). STAMP uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use of it in IPSec defined in [RFC4868]); hence the length of the HMAC field is 16 octets. In the Authenticated mode, HMAC covers the first six blocks (96 octets). HMAC uses its own key that may be unique for each STAMP test session; key management and the mechanisms to distribute the HMAC key are outside the scope of this specification. One example is to use an orchestrator to configure HMAC key based on STAMP YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]. HMAC MUST be verified as early as possible to avoid using or propagating corrupted data.
Future specifications may define the use of other, more advanced cryptographic algorithms, possibly providing an update to the STAMP YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang].
If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, a STAMP test session MUST use a secured transport. For example, STAMP packets could be transmitted in the dedicated IPsec tunnel or share the IPsec tunnel with the monitored flow. Also, Datagram Transport Layer Security protocol would provide the desired confidentiality protection.
One of the essential requirements to STAMP is the ability to interwork with a TWAMP Light device. Because STAMP and TWAMP use different algorithms in Authenticated mode (HMAC-SHA-256 vs. HMAC-SHA-1), interoperability is only considered for Unauthenticated mode. There are two possible combinations for such use case:
In the former case, the Session-Sender might not be aware that its Session-Reflector does not support STAMP. For example, a TWAMP Light Session-Reflector may not support the use of UDP port 862 as specified in [RFC8545]. Thus Section 4. permits a STAMP Session-Sender to use alternative ports. If any of STAMP extensions are used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them as Packet Padding field.
In the latter scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender does not support the use of UDP port 862, the test management system MUST set STAMP Session-Reflector to use UDP port number, as permitted by Section 4. The Session-Reflector MUST be set to use the default format for its timestamps, NTP.
A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification would transmit the base packet (Figure 5) regardless of the size of the Padding field in the packet received from TWAMP Session-Sender. Also, STAMP does not support the Reflect Octets capability defined in [RFC6038]. If the Server Octets field is present in the TWAMP Session-Sender packet, STAMP Session-Reflector will not copy the content starting from the Server Octets field and will transmit the reflected packet, as displayed in Figure 5.
STAMP is intended to be used on production networks to enable the operator to assess service level agreements based on packet delay, delay variation, and loss. When using STAMP over the Internet, especially when STAMP test packets are transmitted with the destination UDP port number from the User Ports range, the possible impact of the STAMP test packets MUST be thoroughly analyzed. The use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by users of nodes hosting the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector before starting the STAMP test session.
Also, the use of the well-known port number as the destination UDP port number in STAMP test packets transmitted by a Session-Sender would not impede the ability to measure performance in an Equal Cost Multipath environment and analysis in Section 5.3 [RFC8545] fully applies to STAMP.
This document doesn't have any IANA action. This section may be removed before the publication.
[RFC5357] does not identify security considerations specific to TWAMP-Test but refers to security considerations identified for OWAMP in [RFC4656]. Since both OWAMP and TWAMP include control plane and data plane components, only security considerations related to OWAMP-Test, discussed in Sections 6.2, 6.3 [RFC4656] apply to STAMP.
STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port. Thus the security considerations and measures to mitigate the risk of the attack using the registered port number documented in Section 6 [RFC8545] equally apply to STAMP. Because of the control and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this specification only the more general requirement is set:
Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data integrity of the STAMP test packets.
Authors express their appreciation to Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin and Brian Weis for their great insights into the security and identity protection, and the most helpful and practical suggestions. Also, our sincere thanks to David Ball and Rakesh Gandhi or their thorough reviews and helpful comments.
[BBF.TR-390] | "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017. |
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang] | Mirsky, G., Xiao, M. and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-04, September 2019. |
[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. |
[RFC7750] | Hedin, J., Mirsky, G. and S. Baillargeon, "Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016. |
[RFC8085] | Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G. and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, March 2017. |