Network Working Group Z. Li Internet-Draft China Mobile Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen Expires: January 7, 2021 Huawei July 06, 2020 Performance Measurement on LAG draft-li-ippm-pm-on-lag-00 Abstract This document defines extensions to One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP), Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP), and Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) to implement performance measurement on every member link of a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). With the measured metrics of each member links of a LAG, it enables operators to enforce performance metric based traffic steering policy among the member links. 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 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 January 7, 2021. Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020 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 (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. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Micro Session on LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Mirco OWAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Micro OWAMP-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Micro OWAMP-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Mirco TWAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Micro TWAMP-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Micro TWAMP-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2.1. Sender Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2.2. Reflector Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Mirco STAMP Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Micro STAMP-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1.3. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1. Mico OWAMP-Control Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2. Mico TWAMP-Control Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1. Problem Statement Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical link. This logical link provides higher bandwidth and better resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020 aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the remaining operational physical member links. Normally, when forwarding traffic over a LAG, a hash based or the like mechanism is used to load balance the traffic among member links of the LAG. In some cases, the link delays of the member links are different because the member links are over different transport paths. To provide low delay service to time sensitive traffic, we have to know the link delay of each member link of a LAG and then steer traffic accordingly. This requires a solution that could measure the performance metrics of each member link of a LAG. However, when using One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656], Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357], or Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] to measure the performance of a LAG, the LAG is treated as a single logical link/path. The measured metrics reflect the performance of one member link or an average of some/all member links of the LAG. This document defines extensions to OWAMP [RFC4656], TWAMP [RFC5357] or STAMP [RFC8762] to implement performance measurement on every member link of a LAG. 2. Micro Session on LAG To measure performance metrics of every member link of a LAG, multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be established between the two hosts that are connected by the LAG. These sessions are called micro sessions in the remainder of this document. From the OWAMP/TWAMP-Control point of view, micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender Address, Receiver Address, have different Session Identifiers (SID). As for the Sender Port and Receiver Port, micro sessions may share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or each micro session is configured with different Sender Port and Receiver Port pair. But from simplifying operation point of view, the former is recommended. In addition, with micro sessions, there needs a way to correlate a session with a member link. For example, when receives a Control or Test packet, the Server/Reflector/Receiver needs to know from which member link the packet is received, and then correlate the packet with a micro session. This is different from the existing OWAMP [RFC4656], TWAMP [RFC5357], or STAMP [RFC8762]. This document defines new command types to indicate that a session is a micro session, the details are described in Section 3 and 4 of this Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020 document. For a micro session, on receiving of a Control/Test packet, the receiver uses the receiving link to correlate the packet with a particular session. In the case of two-way measurement, Test packets may need to carry the member link related information for valid checking. For example, when a Sender receives a reflected Test packet, it may needs to check whether the Test packet is from the expected member link. 3. Mirco OWAMP Session This document assumes that the OWAMP Server and the OWAMP Receiver of an OWAMP micro session are at the same host. 3.1. Micro OWAMP-Control To support micro OWAMP session, a new command, which is referred to as Request-OW-Micro-Session (TBD1), is defined in this document. The Request-OW-Micro-Session command is based on the OWAMP Request- Session command, and uses the message format as described in Section 3.5 of OWAMP [RFC4656]. Test session creation of micro OWAMP session follows the same procedure as defined in Section 3.5 of OWAMP [RFC4656] with the following additions: When a OWAMP Server receives a Request-OW-Micro-Session command, if the Session is accepted, the OWAMP Server MUST build an association between the session and the member link from which the Request- Session message is received. 3.2. Micro OWAMP-Test Micro OWAMP-Test reuses the OWAMP-Test packet format and procedures as defined in Section 4 of OWAMP [RFC4656] with the following additions: The micro OWAMP Sender MUST send the micro OWAMP-Test packets over the member link with which the session is associated. When receives a Test packet, the micro OWAMP receiver MUST use the member link from which the Test packet is received to correlate the micro OWAMP session. 4. Mirco TWAMP Session As above, this document assumes that the TWAMP Server and the TWAMP Session-Reflector of a micro OWAMP session are at the same host. Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020 4.1. Micro TWAMP-Control To support micro TWAMP session, a new command, which is referred to as Request-TW-Micro-Session (TBD2), is defined in this document. The Request-TW-Micro-Session command is based on the TWAMP Request- Session command, and uses the message format as described in Section 3.5 of TWAMP [RFC5357]. Test session creation of micro TWAMP session follows the same procedure as defined in Section 3.5 of TWAMP [RFC5357] with the following additions: When a micro TWAMP Server receives a Request-TW-Micro-Session command, if the micro TWAMP Session is accepted, the micro TWAMP Server MUST build an association between the session and the member link from which the Request-Session message is received. 4.2. Micro TWAMP-Test The micro TWAMP-Test protocol is based on the TWAMP-Test protocol [RFC5357] with the following extensions. 4.2.1. Sender Behavior In addition to inheriting the TWAMP sender behavior as defined Section 4.1 of [RFC5357], the micro TWAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro TWAMP-Test packets over the member link with which the session is associated. The micro TWAMP Session-Sender may carry an identifier of the member link that is going to be measured by the micro TWAMP session. The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector MUST copy the member link identifier in the response Test packet. The micro TWAMP Sender can use it to check whether the reflected Test packet is correctly transmitted over the expected member link. 4.2.1.1. Packet Format and Content The micro TWAMP Session-Sender packet format is based on the TWAMP Session-Sender packet format as defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357]. In addition, in order to carry the LAG member link identifier, a new field is added. The formats are as below: For unauthenticated mode: Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 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 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . Packet Padding . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Session-Sender Packet format in Unauthenticated Mode For authenticated mode: Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 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 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | HMAC (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . Packet Padding . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode Except for the Sender Member Link ID field, all the other fields are the same as defined in Section 4.1.2 of TWAMP [RFC5357], which is originally defined in Section 4.1.2 of OWAMP [RFC4656]. Therefore, it follows the same procedure and guidelines as defined in Section 4.1.2 of TWAMP [RFC5357]. The Sender Member Link ID (6-octets in length): It is defined for the Session-Sender to carry the identifier of the member link that is being measured. The Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender. 4.2.2. Reflector Behavior The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector inherits the behaviors of a TWAMP Session-Reflector as defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC5357]. In addition, when receives a Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session- Reflector MUST use the member link from which the Test packet is received to correlate to a micro TWAMP session. When sends a Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020 response to a received Test packet, the micro TWAMP Session-Reflector MUST copy the LAG Member Link ID to the response Test packet. 4.2.2.1. Packet Format and Content The micro TWAMP Session-Reflector packet format is based on the TWAMP Session-Reflector packet format as defined in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5357]. In addition, in order to carry the LAG member link identifier, a new field is added. The formats are as below: 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 | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender Error Estimate | MBZ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender TTL | MBZ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . . Packet Padding . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode For authenticated and encrypted modes: Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 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 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Receive Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MBZ (8 octets) | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MBZ (12 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender Error Estimate | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | MBZ (6 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender TTL | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | | | | MBZ (15 octets) | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | HMAC (16 octets) | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . Packet Padding . Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020 . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode Except for the Sender Member Link ID field, all the other fields are the same as defined in Section 4.2.1 of TWAMP [RFC5357]. Therefore, it follows the same procedure and guidelines as defined in Section 4.2.1 of TWAMP [RFC5357]. Sender Member Link ID (6-octets in length): it is defined for carrying the LAG Member Link ID copied from the Session-Sender Test packet. 5. Mirco STAMP Session 5.1. Micro STAMP-Test The micro STAMP-Test protocol is based on the STAMP-Test protocol [RFC8762] with the following extensions. 5.1.1. Session-Sender Packet Format The micro STAMP Session-Sender Test packet formats are based on the STAMP Session-Sender Test packet formats and with some extensions (a new field: LAG Member Link ID is introduced). The formats are as follows: Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 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 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | MBZ (28 octets) | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: Session-Sender Test Packet in Unauthenticated Mode Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 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 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sender Member Link ID (6 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ~ | MBZ (64 octets) | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | HMAC (16 octets) | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: Session-Sender Test Packet in Authenticated Mode Except for the Sender Member Link ID field, all the other fields are the same as defined in Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of STAMP [RFC8762]. Sender Member Link ID (6-octets in length): it is defined for the Session-Sender to carry the identifier of the member link that is being measured. The Sender Member Link ID MUST be unique at the Session-Sender. 5.1.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format The micro STAMP Session-Reflector Test packet formats are based on the STAMP Session-Reflector Test packet formats with a minor extension (a new field: LAG Member Link ID is introduced). The formats are as follows: Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 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 | MBZ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Receive Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Session-Sender Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Session-Sender Timestamp | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Session-Sender Error Estimate | MBZ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Ses-Sender TTL | MBZ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | LAG Member Link ID (6 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: Session-Reflector Test Packet in Unauthenticated Mode Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 13] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 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 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Sender Member Link ID (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 8: Session-Reflector Test Packet in Authenticated Mode Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 14] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020 Except for the Sender Member Link ID field, all the other fields are the same as defined in Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 of STAMP [RFC8762]. Sender Member Link ID (6-octets in length): it is defined for carrying the Sender Member Link ID copied from the Session-Sender Test packet. 5.1.3. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures The micro STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions: The micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro STAMP-Test packets over the member link with which the session is associated. When receives a Test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST use the member link from which the Test packet is received to correlate to a micro STAMP session. The micro STAMP Session-Sender may carry an identifier of the member link that is related to this micro STAMP session in the Session- Sender Test packet. The micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST copy it to the Session-Reflector Test packet (Section 5.1.2 of this document) and send it back to the micro STAMP Session-Sender. The micro STAMP Session-Sender can use it to check whether the reflected Test packet is correctly transmitted over the expected member link. 6. IANA Considerations 6.1. Mico OWAMP-Control Command This document requires the IANA to allocate the following command type from OWAMP-Control Command Number Registry. Value Description Semantics Definition TBD1 Request-OW-Micro-Session This document, Section 3.1 6.2. Mico TWAMP-Control Command This document requires the IANA to allocate the following command type from TWAMP-Control Command Number Registry. Value Description Semantics Definition TBD1 Request-TW-Micro-Session This document, Section 4.1 Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 15] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020 7. Security Considerations The security considerations in [RFC4656], [RFC5357], [RFC8762] apply to this document. 8. Acknowledgements 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [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, . [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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020, . 9.2. Informative References [IEEE802.1AX] IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November 2008. Authors' Addresses Zhenqiang Li China Mobile Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 16] Internet-Draft PM on LAG July 2020 Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Li & Chen Expires January 7, 2021 [Page 17]