Internet DRAFT - draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions
draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions
IP Performance Measurement Group T. Zhou
Internet-Draft G. Fioccola
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: 25 April 2024 G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
H. Yang
China Mobile
C. Liu
China Unicom
23 October 2023
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for Hop-
by-Hop Data Collection
draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions-06
Abstract
This document defines optional TLVs which are carried in Simple Two-
way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) test packets to enhance the
STAMP based functions. Such extensions to STAMP enable performance
measurement and collection at every node and link along a STAMP test
packet's delivery path. It enables Hop-By-Hop measurements in
addition to the Edge-To-Edge measurements.
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 25 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operation and Management of HbH STAMP Performance
Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. TLV Extensions to STAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. HbH Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. HbH Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. HbH Bandwidth Utilization TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. HbH Interface Errors TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] enables
the measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance metrics,
such as delay, delay variation, and packet loss. In the STAMP
session, the bidirectional packet flow is transmitted between STAMP
Session-Sender and STAMP Session-Reflector. The STAMP Session-
Reflector receives test packets transmitted from Session-Sender and
acts according to the configuration. However, the performance of
intermediate nodes and links that STAMP test packets traverse are
invisible.
STAMP Extensions have defined several optional TLVs to enhance the
STAMP base functions. These optional TLVs are defined as updates of
the STAMP Optional Extensions [RFC8972]. This document extents
optional TLVs to STAMP, which enables performance measurement at
every intermediate node and link along a STAMP test packet's delivery
path, such as measurement of delay, delay variation, packet loss, and
record of link errors and route information.
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
Therefore, the STAMP test packets, which are transmitted along a path
between a Session-Sender and a Session-Reflector to measure only
Edge-To-Edge (E2E) performance delay and packet loss along that path,
can be augmented to measure Hop-By-Hop (HbH) parameters.
This document introduces Extensions to STAMP for HbH Delay, HbH Loss,
HbH Bandwidth Utilization, HbH Interface Errors. Note that
[I-D.gandhi-ippm-stamp-ioam] extends STAMP to carry IOAM (In-situ
OAM) data fields for HBH and E2E two-way active measurement and
telemetry.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119],
RFC 8174 [RFC8174].
3. Operation and Management of HbH STAMP Performance Measurements
The next figure presents the STAMP Session-Sender, Intermediate-
Node(s) and Session-Reflector with a measurement session. A
measurement session is also referred to as a STAMP session and it is
the bidirectional packet flow between one specific Session-Sender and
one particular Session-Reflector for a time duration. The
Intermediate-Nodes are nodes which can read and write the HbH STAMP
Extensions. The configuration and management of the STAMP Session-
Sender, Intermediate-Node(s), Session-Reflector, and sessions are
outside the scope of this document and can be achieved through
various means, as mentioned in [RFC8762].
o------------------------------------------------------------o
| Configuration and |
| Management |
o------------------------------------------------------------o
|| || ||
|| || ||
|| || ||
+--------------+ +--------------------+ +-----------------+
|Session-Sender| ... |Intermediate-Node(s)| ... |Session-Reflector|
+--------------+ +------------- ------+ +-----------------+
<---------------------------- STAMP ---------------------------->
Figure 1: Fig. 2 HbH STAMP Reference Model
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
4. TLV Extensions to STAMP
4.1. HbH Delay TLV
STAMP Session-Sender can place the HbH Delay TLV in Session-Sender
test packets to record the ingress timestamp and the egress timestamp
at every intermediate nodes along the Session-Sender test packet
path. The Session-Sender MUST set the Length value according to the
number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes along the path and the
timestamp formats. There are several methods to synchronize the
clock, e.g., Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC5905] and IEEE 1588v2
Precision Time Protocol (PTP) [IEEE.1588.2008]. For example, if a
64-bit timestamp format defined in NTP is used, the Length value MUST
be set as a multiple of 16 octets. The Timestamp Tuple list [1..n]
fields MUST be set to zero upon Session-Sender test packets
transmission.
The HbH Delay TLV has the following 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
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
|STAMP TLV Flags| HbH Delay Type| Length |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| |
| Timestamp Tuple list [1] |
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ ... ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Timestamp Tuple list [n] |
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Fig. 2 HbH Delay TLV Format
where fields are defined as the following:
* STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures
described in [RFC8972].
* HbH Delay Type: To be assigned by IANA.
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
* Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value
portion in octets and MUST be a multiple of 16 octets according to
the number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes along the path.
* Node Left: A 8-bit unsigned integer, which indicates the number of
intermediate nodes remaining. It is the number of explicitly
listed intermediate nodes still to be visited before reaching the
destination node. The Node Left field is set to n-1, where n is
the number of intermediate nodes.
* Timestamp Tuple list [1..n]: A variable-length field, which record
the timestamp when the Session-Sender test packet is received at
the ingress of the n-th intermediate node and the timestamp when
the Session-Sender test packet is sent at egress of the n-th
intermediate node. For example, if a 64-bit timestamp format
defined in NTP is used, the length of each Timestamp Tuple
(ingress timestamp [n], egress timestamp [n]) must be 16 octets.
The Timestamp Tuple list is encoded starting from the last
intermediate node which is explicitly listed. That is, the first
element of the Timestamp Tuple list [1] records the timestamps
when the Session-Sender test packet received and forwarded at the
last intermediate node of a explicit path, the second element
records the penultimate Timestamp Tuple when the Session-Sender
test packet received and forwarded at the penultimate intermediate
node of a explicit path, and so on.
In the following reference topology, Node N1 is the STAMP Session-
Sender and Node N5 is the STAMP Session-Reflector. T1 is the
Timestamp taken by the Session-Sender (i.e. N1) at the start of
transmitting the test packet. T2 is the Receive Timestamp when the
test packet was received by the Session-Reflector (i.e. N5). T3 is
the Timestamp taken by the Session-Reflector at the start of
transmitting the test packet. T4 is the Receive Timestamp when the
test packet was received by the Session-Sender. Timestamp tuples
(t1,t2), (t3,t4) and (t5,t6) are the timestamps when the test packet
received and transmitted by sequence of intermediate nodes along the
forward path. Timestamp Tuples (t7,t8), (t9,t10) and (t11,t12) are
the timestamps when the test packet received and transmitted by
sequence of intermediate nodes along the backward path.
====== ====== ====== ====== ======
| | T1--->t1 | | t2--->t3 | | t4--->t5 | | t6--->T2| |
| N1 |==========| N2 |==========| N3 |==========| N4 |=========| N5 |
| | T4<---t12| |t11<---t10| | t9<---t8 | | t7<---T3| |
====== ====== ====== ====== ======
Figure 3: Fig. 3 Reference Topology
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
The STAMP Session-Sender (i.e. Node N1) generates the STAMP test
packet with the HbH Delay TLV. When an intermediate node receives
the STAMP test packet, the node punts the packet to control plane and
fills the ingress timestamp [n] filed in the Timestamp Tuple list
[n]. Then the time taken by the intermediate node transmitting the
test packet is recorded in the egress timestamp [n] field. The
mechanism of timestamping and punting packet to control plane is
outside the scope of this specification.
When the STAMP Session-Reflector received the test packet with the
HbH Delay TLV, it MUST copy the HbH Delay TLV into the Session-
Reflector test packet before its transmission. Using HbH Delay TLV
in STAMP testing enables HbH delay measurement.
4.2. HbH Loss TLV
STAMP Session-Sender can place the HbH Loss TLV in Session-Sender
test packets to record the number of Session-Sender test packets
received at and transmitted by every intermediate nodes along the
path. The Session-Sender MUST set the Length value according to the
number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes in the path. A
Counter Tuple is composed of a 64-bit Receive Counter field and a
64-bit Transmit Counter field. The Counter Tuple list [1..n] fields
MUST be set to zero upon Session-Sender test packets transmission.
The HbH Loss TLV has the following 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
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
|STAMP TLV Flags| HbH Loss Type | Length |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| |
| Counter Tuple list [1] |
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ ... ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Counter Tuple list [n] |
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Fig. 4 HbH Loss TLV Format
where fields are defined as the following:
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
* STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures
described in [RFC8972].
* HbH Loss Type: To be assigned by IANA.
* Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value
portion in octets and will be a multiple of 16 octets dependent on
the number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes along the path.
* Node Left: A 8-bit unsigned integer, which indicates the number of
intermediate nodes remaining. It is the number of explicitly
listed intermediate nodes still to be visited before reaching the
destination node. The Node Left field is set to n-1, where n is
the number of intermediate nodes.
* Counter Tuple list [1..n]: A variable-length field, which record
the Receive Counter and the Transmit Counter when the test packet
is received at and transmitted by the n-th intermediate node. The
Counter Tuple list is encoded starting from the last intermediate
node which is explicitly listed. That is, the first element of
the Counter Tuple list [1] records the Receive Counter and the
Transmit Counter when the test packet is received at and
transmitted by the last intermediate node of a explicit path, the
second element records the penultimate Counter Tuple when the test
packet received and forwarded at the penultimate intermediate node
of a explicit path, and so on.
The STAMP Session-Sender generates the STAMP test packet with the HbH
Loss TLV. When an intermediate node receives the STAMP test packet,
the node punts the packet to control plane and writes the Receive
Counter [n] and the Transmit Counter [n] at the Counter Tuple list
[n] in the Session-Sender test packet. The mechanism of punting
packet to control plane is outside the scope of this specification.
When the STAMP Session-Reflector received the test packet with the
HbH Loss TLV, it MUST copy the HbH Loss TLV into the Session-
Reflector test packet before its transmission. Using HbH Loss TLV in
STAMP testing enables packet HbH loss measurement.
4.3. HbH Bandwidth Utilization TLV
STAMP Session-Sender can place the HbH Bandwidth Utilization (BW
Utilization) TLV in Session-Sender test packets to record the ingress
and egress BW Utilization at every intermediate nodes along the path.
The Session-Sender MUST set the Length value according to the number
of explicitly listed intermediate nodes along the path. A BW
Utilization Tuple is composed of a 32-bit ingress BW Utilization
field and a 32-bit egress BW Utilization field. The BW Utilization
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
Tuple list [1..n] fields MUST be set to zero upon Session-Sender test
packets transmission.
The HbH Bandwidth Utilization TLV has the following 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
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
|STAMP TLV Flags| HbH BW U. Type| Length |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| BW Utilization Tuple list [1] |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ ... ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| BW Utilization Tuple list [n] |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Fig. 5 HbH Bandwidth Utilization TLV Format
where fields are defined as the following:
* STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures
described in [RFC8972].
* HbH BW Utilization Type: To be assigned by IANA.
* Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value
portion in octets and will be a multiple of 8 octets dependent on
the number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes along the path.
* Node Left: A 8-bit unsigned integer, which indicates the number of
intermediate nodes remaining. It is the number of explicitly
listed intermediate nodes still to be visited before reaching the
destination node. The Node Left field is set to n-1, where n is
the number of intermediate nodes.
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
* BW Utilization Tuple list [1..n]: A variable-length field, which
record the ingress and egress bandwidth utilization when the test
packet is received at and transmitted by the n-th intermediate
node. The BW Utilization Tuple list is encoded starting from the
last intermediate node which is explicitly listed. That is, the
first element of the BW Utilization Tuple list [1] records the
ingress and the egress bandwidth utilization when the test packet
is received at and transmitted by the last intermediate node of a
explicit path, the second element records the penultimate BW
Utilization Tuple when the test packet received at and transmitted
by the penultimate intermediate node of a explicit path, and so
on.
The STAMP Session-Sender generates the STAMP test packet with the HbH
BW Utilization TLV. When an intermediate node receives the STAMP
test packet, the node punts the packet to control plane and writes
the ingress and egress bandwidth utilization at the BW Utilization
Tuple list [n] in the Session-Sender test packet. The mechanism of
punting packet to control plane is outside the scope of this
specification.
When the STAMP Session-Reflector received the test packet with the
HbH BW Utilization TLV, it MUST copy the HbH BW Utilization TLV into
the Session-Reflector test packet before its transmission. The HbH
BW Utilization TLV carried in STAMP test packet is useful to detect
and troubleshoot the link congestion.
4.4. HbH Interface Errors TLV
STAMP Session-Sender can place the HbH Interface Errors TLV in
Session-Sender test packets to record the errors detected on the
interface of every intermediate node used to receive the packet along
the path. The record of interface errors indicates the quality of
the interfaces along the path and is helpful to analyze the
performance degrades associated with the flow.
A Interface Errors is a 32 bits unsigned integer field. This field
records the Bit Error Rate (BER) or number of packet drop due to
Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) errors. The Session-Sender MUST set
the Length value according to the number of explicitly listed
intermediate nodes along the path. The Interface Errors list [1..n]
fields MUST be set to zero upon Session-Sender test packets
transmission.
The HbH Timestamp Information TLV has the following format:
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
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| HbH I.E. Type | Length |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Interface Errors list [1] |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ ... ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Interface Errors list [n] |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Fig. 6 HbH Interface Errors TLV Format
where fields are defined as the following:
* STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures
described in [RFC8972].
* HbH Interface Errors Type: To be assigned by IANA.
* Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value
portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets dependent on
the number of explicitly listed intermediate nodes along the path.
* Node Left: A 8-bit unsigned integer, which indicates the number of
intermediate nodes remaining. It is the number of explicitly
listed intermediate nodes still to be visited before reaching the
destination node. The Node Left field is set to n-1, where n is
the number of intermediate nodes.
* Interface Errors list [1..n]: A variable-length field, which
record the errors detected on the interface of the n-th
intermediate node used to receive the packet along the path. The
Interface Errors list is encoded starting from the last
intermediate node which is explicitly listed. That is, the first
element of the Interface Errors list [1] records the interface
errors when the test packet is received at the last intermediate
node of a explicit path, the second element records the
penultimate interface errors when the test packet received at the
penultimate intermediate node of a explicit path, and so on.
The STAMP Session-Sender generates the STAMP test packet with the HbH
Interface Errors TLV. When an intermediate node receives the STAMP
test packet, the node punts the packet to control plane and writes
the errors at the Interface Errors list [n] in the Session-Sender
test packet. The mechanism of punting packet to control plane is
outside the scope of this specification.
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
When the STAMP Session-Reflector received the test packet with the
HbH Interface Errors TLV, it MUST copy the HbH Interface Errors TLV
into the Session-Reflector test packet before its transmission. The
HbH Interface Errors TLV carried in STAMP test packet is useful to
detect interface errors from every intermediate nodes.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has created the "STAMP TLV Types" registry for [RFC8972]. IANA
is requested to allocate values for the following "HbH STAMP" TLV
Type from the "STAMP TLV Types" registry [RFC8972].
+============+==========================+===============+
| Code Point | Description | Reference |
+============+==========================+===============+
| TBA1 | HbH Delay TLV | This document |
+------------+--------------------------+---------------+
| TBA2 | HbH Loss TLV | This document |
+------------+--------------------------+---------------+
| TBA3 | HbH BW Utilization TLV | This document |
+------------+--------------------------+---------------+
| TBA4 | HbH Interface Errors TLV | This document |
+------------+--------------------------+---------------+
Table 1
6. Security Considerations
This document extensions new optional TLVs to STAMP. It does not
introduce any new security risks to STAMP.
7. Contributors
The following people made significant contributions to this document:
Yali Wang
Huawei
Email: wangyali11@huawei.com
8. Acknowledgements
TBD
9. References
9.1. Normative References
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
[I-D.gandhi-ippm-stamp-ioam]
Gandhi, R., "Simple TWAMP (STAMP) Extensions for Hop-By-
Hop and Edge-To-Edge Measurements", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ioam-00, 16 August
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gandhi-
ippm-stamp-ioam-00>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
9.2. Informative References
[IEEE.1588.2008]
"IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4579760>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beijing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-wang-ippm-stamp-hbh-extensions October 2023
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Hongwei Yang
China Mobile
Xibianmen Inner St, 53, Xicheng District
Beijing
China
Email: yanghongwei@chinamobile.com
Chang Liu
China Unicom
Beijing
China
Email: liuc131@chinaunicom.cn
Zhou, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 13]
