Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Network Working Group                                          A. MortonRequest for Comments: 5618                                     AT&T LabsUpdates:5357                                                 K. HedayatCategory: Standards Track                                           EXFO                                                             August 2009Mixed Security Mode for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)Abstract   This memo describes a simple extension to TWAMP (the Two-Way Active   Measurement Protocol).  The extension adds the option to use   different security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test   protocols simultaneously.  The memo also describes a new IANA   registry for additional features, called the TWAMP Modes registry.Status of This Memo   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights   and restrictions with respect to this document.   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF   Contributions published or made publicly available before November   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other   than English.Morton & Hedayat            Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5618                    TWAMP Extensions                 August 2009Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................21.1. Requirements Language ......................................32. Purpose and Scope ...............................................33. TWAMP Control Extensions ........................................33.1. Extended Control Connection Setup ..........................34. Extended TWAMP Test .............................................54.1. Sender Behavior ............................................54.1.1. Packet Timings ......................................54.1.2. Packet Format and Content ...........................54.2. Reflector Behavior .........................................65. Security Considerations .........................................66. IANA Considerations .............................................66.1. Registry Specification .....................................66.2. Registry Management ........................................66.3. Experimental Numbers .......................................76.4. Initial Registry Contents ..................................77. Acknowledgements ................................................78. Normative References ............................................71.  Introduction   The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] is an   extension of the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)   [RFC4656].  The TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it   approached completion, and the by-products were several   recommendations for new features in TWAMP.  There is a growing number   of TWAMP implementations at present, and widespread usage is   expected.  There are even devices that are designed to test   implementations for protocol compliance.   This memo describes a simple extension for TWAMP: the option to use   different security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test   protocols (mixed security mode).  It also describes a new IANA   registry for additional features, called the TWAMP Modes registry.   When the Server and Control-Client have agreed to use the mixed   security mode during control connection setup, then the Control-   Client, the Server, the Session-Sender, and the Session-Reflector   MUST all conform to the requirements of this mode as described in   Sections3,4, and5.   This memo updates [RFC5357].Morton & Hedayat            Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5618                    TWAMP Extensions                 August 20091.1.  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 inRFC 2119 [RFC2119].2.  Purpose and Scope   The purpose of this memo is to describe and specify an extension for   TWAMP [RFC5357], and to request the establishment of a registry for   future TWAMP extensions.   The scope of the memo is limited to specifications of the following:   o  Extension of the modes of operation through assignment of one new      value in the Modes field (seeSection 3.1 of [RFC4656]), while      retaining backward compatibility with TWAMP [RFC5357]      implementations.  This value adds the OPTIONAL ability to use      different security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test      protocols.  The motivation for this extension is to permit the      low-packet-rate TWAMP-Control protocol to utilize a stronger mode      of integrity protection than that used in the TWAMP-Test protocol.3.  TWAMP Control Extensions   The TWAMP-Control protocol is a derivative of the OWAMP-Control   protocol, and coordinates a two-way measurement capability.  All   TWAMP-Control messages are similar in format and follow similar   guidelines to those defined inSection 3 of [RFC4656], with the   exceptions described in TWAMP [RFC5357] and in the following   sections.   All OWAMP-Control messages apply to TWAMP-Control, except for the   Fetch-Session command.3.1.  Extended Control Connection Setup   TWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the same procedure   defined inSection 3.1 of [RFC4656].  This extended mode assigns one   new bit position (and value) to allow the Test protocol security mode   to operate in Unauthenticated mode, while the Control protocol   operates in Encrypted mode.  With this extension, the complete set of   TWAMP Mode values are as follows:Morton & Hedayat            Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5618                    TWAMP Extensions                 August 2009   Value  Description             Reference/Explanation   0      Reserved   1      UnauthenticatedRFC 4656, Section 3.1   2      AuthenticatedRFC 4656, Section 3.1   4      EncryptedRFC 4656, Section 3.1   8      Unauth. TEST protocol,  new bit position (3)          Encrypted CONTROL   In the original OWAMP and TWAMP Modes field, setting bit position 0,   1, or 2 indicated the security mode of the Control protocol, and the   Test protocol inherited the same mode (seeSection 4 of [RFC4656]).   In this extension to TWAMP, when the Control-Client sets Modes Field   bit position 3, it SHALL discontinue the inheritance of the security   mode in the Test protocol, and each protocol's mode SHALL be as   specified below.  When the desired TWAMP-Test protocol mode is   identical to the Control Session mode, the corresponding Modes Field   bit (position 0, 1, or 2) SHALL be set by the Control-Client.  The   table below gives the various combinations of integrity protection   that are permissible in TWAMP (with this extension).  The TWAMP-   Control and TWAMP-Test protocols SHALL use the mode in each column   corresponding to the bit position set in the Modes Field.   --------------------------------------------------------   Protocol | Permissible Mode Combinations (Modes bit set)   --------------------------------------------------------   Control  |    Unauth.(0)|  Auth. == Encrypted (1,2,3)   --------------------------------------------------------            |    Unauth.(0)|         Unauth.  (3)            -----------------------------------------------   Test     |              |          Auth.(1)            -----------------------------------------------            |              |        Encrypted (2)   --------------------------------------------------------   Note that the TWAMP-Control protocol security measures are identical   in the Authenticated and Encrypted Modes.  Therefore, only one new   bit position (3) is needed to convey the single mixed security mode.   The value of the Modes Field sent by the Server in the Server-   Greeting message is the bit-wise OR of the modes (bit positions) that   it is willing to support during this session.  Thus, the last fourMorton & Hedayat            Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5618                    TWAMP Extensions                 August 2009   bits of the 32-bit Modes Field are used.  When no other features are   activated, the first 28 bits MUST be zero.  A client conforming to   this extension of [RFC5357] MAY ignore the values in the first 28   bits of the Modes Field, or it MAY support other features that are   communicated in these bit positions.   Other ways in which TWAMP extends OWAMP are described in [RFC5357].4.  Extended TWAMP Test   The TWAMP-Test protocol is similar to the OWAMP-Test protocol   [RFC4656] with the exception that the Session-Reflector transmits   test packets to the Session-Sender in response to each test packet it   receives.  TWAMP [RFC5357] defines two different test packet formats:   one for packets transmitted by the Session-Sender and one for packets   transmitted by the Session-Reflector.  As with the OWAMP-Test   protocol, there are three security modes that also determine the test   packet format: unauthenticated, authenticated, and encrypted.  This   TWAMP extension makes it possible to use TWAMP-Test Unauthenticated   mode regardless of the mode used in the TWAMP-Control protocol.   When the Server has identified the ability to support the mixed   security mode, the Control-Client has selected the mixed security   mode in its Set-Up-Response, and the Server has responded with a zero   Accept field in the Server-Start message, these extensions are   REQUIRED.4.1.  Sender Behavior   This section describes extensions to the behavior of the TWAMP   Session-Sender.4.1.1.  Packet Timings   The send schedule is not utilized in TWAMP, and there are no   extensions defined in this memo.4.1.2.  Packet Format and Content   The Session-Sender packet format and content MUST follow the same   procedure and guidelines as defined inSection 4.1.2 of [RFC4656] andSection 4.1.2 of [RFC5357], with the following exceptions:   o  the send schedule is not used, and   o  the Session-Sender MUST support the mixed security mode      (Unauthenticated TEST, Encrypted CONTROL, value 8, bit position 3)      defined inSection 3.1 of this memo.Morton & Hedayat            Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 5618                    TWAMP Extensions                 August 20094.2.  Reflector Behavior   The TWAMP Session-Reflector is REQUIRED to follow the procedures and   guidelines inSection 4.2 of [RFC5357], with the following   extensions:   o  the Session-Reflector MUST support the mixed security mode      (Unauthenticated TEST, Encrypted CONTROL, value 8, bit position 3)      defined inSection 3.1 of this memo.5.  Security Considerations   The extended mixed mode of operation permits stronger security/   integrity protection on the TWAMP-Control protocol while   simultaneously emphasizing accuracy or efficiency on the TWAMP-Test   protocol, thus making it possible to increase overall security when   compared to the previous options (when resource constraints would   have forced less security for TWAMP-Control and conditions are such   that use of unauthenticated TWAMP-Test is not a significant concern).   The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of   live networks are relevant here as well.  See [RFC4656] and   [RFC5357].6.  IANA Considerations   This memo adds one security mode bit position/value beyond those in   the OWAMP-Control specification [RFC4656], and describes behavior   when the new mode is used.  According to this document, IANA created   a registry for the TWAMP Modes field.  This field is a recognized   extension mechanism for TWAMP.6.1.  Registry Specification   IANA created a TWAMP Modes registry.  TWAMP Modes are specified in   TWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set-up Response messages   consistent withSection 3.1 of [RFC4656] andSection 3.1 of   [RFC5357], and extended by this memo.  Modes are currently indicated   by setting single bits in the 32-bit Modes Field.  However, more   complex encoding may be used in the future.  Thus, this registry can   contain a total of 2^32 possible assignments.6.2.  Registry Management   Because the TWAMP Modes registry can contain a maximum of 2^32   values, and because TWAMP is an IETF protocol, this registry must be   updated only by "IETF Review" as specified in [RFC5226] (an RFC   documenting registry use that is approved by the IESG).  For theMorton & Hedayat            Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 5618                    TWAMP Extensions                 August 2009   TWAMP Modes registry, we expect that new features will be assigned   using monotonically increasing single bit positions and in the range   [0-31], unless there is a good reason to do otherwise (more complex   encoding than single bit positions may be used in the future, to   access the 2^32 value space).6.3.  Experimental Numbers   No experimental values are currently assigned for the Modes Registry.6.4.  Initial Registry Contents   TWAMP Modes Registry   Value  Description             Semantics Definition   0      ReservedRFC 5618   1      UnauthenticatedRFC 4656, Section 3.1   2      AuthenticatedRFC 4656, Section 3.1   4      EncryptedRFC 4656, Section 3.1   8      Unauth. TEST protocol,RFC 5618, Section 3.1          Encrypted CONTROL7.  Acknowledgements   The authors would like to thank Len Ciavattone and Joel Jaeggli for   helpful review and comments.8.  Normative References   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RFC4656]  Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.              Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol              (OWAMP)",RFC 4656, September 2006.   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 5226,              May 2008.   [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.              Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",RFC 5357, October 2008.Morton & Hedayat            Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 5618                    TWAMP Extensions                 August 2009Authors' Addresses   Al Morton   AT&T Labs   200 Laurel Avenue South   Middletown, NJ  07748   USA   Phone: +1 732 420 1571   Fax:   +1 732 368 1192   EMail: acmorton@att.com   URI:http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/   Kaynam Hedayat   EXFO   285 Mill Road   Chelmsford, MA  01824   USA   Phone: +1 978 367 5611   Fax:   +1 978 367 5700   EMail: kaynam.hedayat@exfo.com   URI:http://www.exfo.com/Morton & Hedayat            Standards Track                     [Page 8]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp