The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20190424025239/https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06
[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]Versions: (draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp)00010203040506Network Working Group G. MirskyInternet-Draft ZTE Corp.Intended status: Standards Track G. JunExpires: October 25, 2019 ZTE Corporation H. Nydell Accedian Networks R. Foote Nokia April 23, 2019Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocoldraft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06Abstract 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.Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions ofBCP 78 andBCP 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 athttps://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 October 25, 2019.Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject toBCP 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 mustMirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 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 Contents1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33. Softwarization of Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . .34. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . . .4 4.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode 4 4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode . 64.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . .7 4.2.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode 94.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP . . . .114.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light . . . . . . . . . . . .115. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141. Introduction Development and deployment of Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions, e.g., [RFC6038] that defined features such as Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size for TWAMP provided invaluable experience. Several independent implementations exist, have been deployed and provide important operational performance measurements. At the same time, there has been noticeable interest in using a simpler mechanism for active performance monitoring that can provide deterministic behavior and inherit separation of control (vendor-specific configuration or orchestration) and test functions. One of such is Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light from Broadband Forum [BBF.TR-390] used as the reference TWAMP Light that, according to [RFC8545], includes sub-set of TWAMP-Test functions in combination with other applications that provide, for example, control and security. This document defines active performance measurement test protocol, Simple Two-way Active Measurement ProtocolMirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 (STAMP), that enables measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss.2. Conventions used in this document2.1. Terminology AES Advanced Encryption Standard CBC Cipher Block Chaining ECB Electronic Cookbook KEK Key-encryption Key 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 Protocol2.2. 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 inBCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.3. Softwarization of Performance Measurement Figure 1 presents the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Session-Sender and Session-Reflector with a measurement session. The configuration and management of the STAMP Session- Sender, Session-Reflector and management of the STAMP sessions can be achieved through various means. Command Line Interface, OSS/BSS (operations support system/business support system as a combination of two systems used to support a range of telecommunication services) using SNMP or controllers in Software-Defined Networking using Netconf/YANG are but a few examples.Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 o----------------------------------------------------------o | Configuration and | | Management | o----------------------------------------------------------o || || || || || || +----------------------+ +-------------------------+ | STAMP Session-Sender | <--- STAMP---> | STAMP Session-Reflector | +----------------------+ +-------------------------+ Figure 1: STAMP Reference Model4. Theory of Operation STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets toward STAMP Session- Reflector. STAMP Session-Reflector receives 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, defined inSection 4.1.1 andSection 4.2.1, ensure interworking between STAMP and TWAMP Light as described inSection 4.4 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.4.1. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format Because STAMP supports symmetrical test packets, 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 4.4.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode STAMP Session-Sender packet format in unauthenticated mode:Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 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 (27 octets) | | | | | | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Server Octets | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Remaining Packet Padding (to be reflected) | ~ (length in octets specified in Server Octets) ~ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in unauthenticated mode where fields are defined as the following: o Sequence Number is four octets long field. For each new session its value starts at zero and is incremented with each transmitted packet. o Timestamp is eight octets long field. STAMP node MUST support Network Time Protocol (NTP) version 4 64-bit timestamp format [RFC5905], the format used in [RFC5357]. STAMP node MAY support IEEE 1588v2 Precision Time Protocol truncated 64-bit timestamp format [IEEE.1588.2008], the format used in [RFC8186]. o Error Estimate is two octets long field with format displayed in Figure 3Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 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 where S, Scale, and Multiplier fields are interpreted as they have been defined insection 4.1.2 [RFC4656]; and Z field - as has been defined insection 2.3 [RFC8186]: * 0 - NTP 64 bit format of a timestamp; * 1 - PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp. The STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector MAY use, not use, or set value of the Z field in accordance with the timestamp format in use. This optional field is to enhance operations, but local configuration or defaults could be used in its place. o Must-be-Zero (MBZ) field in the session-sender unauthenticated packet is 27 octets long. It MUST be all zeroed on the transmission and ignored on receipt. o Server Octets field is optional two octets long field. This field is used for the Reflect Octets capability defined in [RFC6038]. If being used, the Server Octets field MUST follow the 27 octets long MBZ field. The value in the Server Octets field equals the number of octets the Session-Reflector is expected to copy back to the Session-Sender starting with the Server Octets field. Thus the minimum non-zero value for the Server Octets field is two. Therefore, the value of one is invalid. If none of Payload to be copied, the value of the Server Octets field MUST be set to zero on transmit. o Remaining Packet Padding is an optional field of variable length. The number of octets in the Remaining Packet Padding field is the value of the Server Octets field minus the length of the Server Octets field.4.1.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode STAMP Session-Sender packet format in authenticated mode:Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 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 The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, listed inSection 4.1.1. Also, Comp.MBZ field is a variable length field to align the packet on 16 octets boundary. Also, the packet includes a key-hashed message authentication code (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is described inSection 4.3.4.2. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format The Session-Reflector receives the STAMP test packet, verifies it, prepares and transmits the reflected test packet. Two modes of STAMP Session-Reflector characterize the expected behavior and, consequently, performance metrics that can be measured: o Stateless - STAMP Session-Reflector does not maintain test state and will reflect the received sequence number without modification. As a result, only round-trip packet loss can be calculated while the reflector is operating in stateless mode.Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 o Stateful - STAMP Session-Reflector maintains test state thus enabling the ability to determine forward loss, gaps recognized in the received sequence number. As a result, both near-end (forward) and far-end (backward) packet loss can be computed. That implies that the STAMP Session-Reflector MUST keep a state for each accepted STAMP-test session, uniquely identifying STAMP- test packets to one such session instance, and enabling adding a sequence number in the test reply that is individually incremented on a per-session basis.4.2.1. Session-Reflector 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Error Estimate | MBZ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Receive Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Session-Sender Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Session-Sender Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Session-Sender Error Estimate | MBZ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Ses-Sender TTL | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | ~ Packet Padding (reflected) ~ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in unauthenticated mode where fields are defined as the following:Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 o Sequence Number is four octets long field. The value of the Sequence Number field is set according to the mode of the STAMP Session-Reflector: * in the stateless mode the Session-Reflector copies the value from the received STAMP test packet's Sequence Number field; * in the stateful mode the Session-Reflector counts the received STAMP test packets in each test session and uses that counter to set the value of the Sequence Number field. o Timestamp and Receiver Timestamp fields are each eight octets long. The format of these fields, NTP or PTPv2, indicated by the Z flag of the Error Estimate field as described inSection 4.1. o Error Estimate has the same size and interpretation as described inSection 4.1. o Session-Sender Sequence Number, Session-Sender Timestamp, and Session-Sender Error Estimate are copies of the corresponding fields in the STAMP test packet sent by the Session-Sender. o Session-Sender TTL is one octet long field, and its value is the copy of the TTL field in IPv4 (or Hop Limit in IPv6) from the received STAMP test packet. o Packet Padding (reflected) is an optional variable length field. The length of the Packet Padding (reflected) field MUST be equal to the value of the Server Octets field (Figure 2). If the value is non-zero, the Session-Reflector MUST copy number of octets equal to the value of Server Octets field starting with the Server Octets field. o Comp.MBZ is a variable length field used to achieve alignment on a word boundary. Thus the length of Comp.MBZ field may be only 0, 1, 2 or 3 octets. The value of the field MUST be zeroed on transmission and ignored on receipt.4.2.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode For the 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) |Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 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 The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, listed inSection 4.2.1. Additionally, the packet MAY include Comp.MBZ field is a variable length field to align the packet on 16Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 octets boundary. Also, STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated mode includes a key (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is inSection 4.3.4.3. Integrity and Confidentiality Protection in STAMP To provide integrity protection, each STAMP message is being authenticated 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. HMAC uses own key and the definition of the mechanism to distribute the HMAC key is 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. If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, encryption at the higher level MUST be used. For example, STAMP packets could be transmitted in the dedicated IPsec tunnel or share the IPsec tunnel with the monitored flow.4.4. Interoperability with TWAMP Light One of the essential requirements to STAMP is the ability to interwork with a TWAMP Light device. There are two possible combinations for such use case: o STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector; o TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector. In the former case, the Session-Sender MAY 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 defined in [RFC8545]. Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find a port number that both devices can use. And if any of STAMP extensions are used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them as Packet Padding field. The Session-Sender SHOULD use the default format for its timestamps - NTP. And it MAY use PTPv2 timestamp format. In the latter scenario, the test management system should set STAMP Session-Reflector to use UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or Private Ports range. As for Packet Padding field that the TWAMP Light Session-Sender includes in its transmitted packet, the STAMPMirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 Session-Reflector will process it according to [RFC6038] and return reflected packet of the symmetrical size. The Session-Reflector MUST use the default format for its timestamps - NTP.5. IANA Considerations This document doesn't have any IANA action. This section may be removed before the publication.6. Security Considerations In general, all the security considerations related to TWAMP-Test, discussed in [RFC5357] apply to STAMP. Since STAMP uses the well- known UDP port number allocated for the OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port, the security considerations and measures to mitigate the risk of the attack using the registered port number documented inSection 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: To mitigate the possible attack vector, the control and management of a STAMP test session MUST use the secured transport. Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data integrity of the STAMP test packets.7. Acknowledgments 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 for his thorough review and helpful comments.8. References8.1. Normative References [IEEE.1588.2008] "Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems", IEEE Standard 1588, March 2008. [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>.Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)",RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. [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>. [RFC6038] Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features",RFC 6038, DOI 10.17487/RFC6038, October 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6038>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase inRFC2119 Key Words",BCP 14,RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. [RFC8186] Mirsky, G. and I. Meilik, "Support of the IEEE 1588 Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",RFC 8186, DOI 10.17487/RFC8186, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8186>. [RFC8545] Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",RFC 8545, DOI 10.17487/RFC8545, March 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545>.8.2. Informative References [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",draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-03 (work in progress), March 2019.Mirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft STAMP April 2019 [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>. [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>.Authors' Addresses Greg Mirsky ZTE Corp. Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Guo Jun ZTE Corporation 68# Zijinghua Road Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 P.R.China Phone: +86 18105183663 Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn Henrik Nydell Accedian Networks Email: hnydell@accedian.com Richard Foote Nokia Email: footer.foote@nokia.comMirsky, et al. Expires October 25, 2019 [Page 14]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available fromhttps://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/
