Network Working Group G. Mirsky Internet-Draft R. Lakshmikanthan Intended status: Standards Track S. Bansal Expires: July 20, 2015 Ericsson I. Meilik Broadcom January 16, 2015 Support of IEEE-1588 time stamp format in Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) draft-mirsky-ippm-time-format-00 Abstract This document describes an OPTIONAL feature for active performance measurement protocols allowing use of time stamp format defined in IEEE-1588v2-2008. 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 http://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 July 20, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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 (http://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 Mirsky, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft 1588 time stamp format in TWAMP January 2015 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. OWAMP and TWAMP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Timestamp Format Negotiation in Setting Up Connection in OWAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Timestamp Format Negotiation in Setting Up Connection in TWAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. OWAMP-Test and TWAMP-Test Update . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3.1. Consideration for TWAMP Light mode . . . . . . . . . 6 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656] defines that only the NTP [RFC5905] format of a time stamp can be used in OWAMP- Test protocol. Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] adopted the OWAMP-Test packet format and extended it by adding a format for a reflected test packet. Both the sender's and reflector's packets time stamps are expected to follow the 64-bit long NTP format [RFC5905]. Precision Time Protocol (PTP) [IEEE.1588.2008] has gained wide support since the development of OWAMP and TWAMP. PTP is now supported in multiple implementations of fast forwarding engines. As result, to support OWAMP or TWAMP test protocol time stamps must be converted from PTP to NTP. That requires resources, use of micro- code or additional processing elements, that are always limited. To address this, this document proposes optional extensions to Control and Test protocols to support use of IEEE-1588v2 time stamp format as optional alternative to the NTP time stamp format. One of the goals of this proposal is not only allow end-points of a test session to use other than NTP timestamp but to support backwards compatibility with nodes that do not yet support this extension. Mirsky, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft 1588 time stamp format in TWAMP January 2015 1.1. Conventions used in this document 1.1.1. Terminology IPPM: IP Performance Measurement NTP: Network Time Protocol PTP: Precision Time Protocol TWAMP: Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol OWAMP: One-Way Active Measurement Protocol 1.1.2. 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 in [RFC2119]. 2. OWAMP and TWAMP Extensions OWAMP connection establishment follows the procedure defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC4656] and additional steps in TWAMP described in Section 3.1 of [RFC5357]. In these procedures the Modes field been used to identify and select specific communication capabilities. At the same time the Modes field been recognized and used as extension mechanism [RFC6038]. The new feature requires two bit positions for Server and Control-Client to negotiate which timestamp format can be used in some or all test sessions invoked with this control connection. The end-point of the test session, Session-Sender and Session-Receiver or Session-Reflector, that supports this extension MUST be capable to interpret NTP and PTPv2 timestamp formats. If the end-point does not support this extension, then the value of NTP Timestamp and PTPv2 Timestamp flags MUST be 0 because it is in Must Be Zero field. If value of both NTP and PTPv2 Timestamp flags is 0, then the advertising node can use and interpret only NTP timestamp format. Use of two other flags, NTP Timestamp and PTPv2 Timestamp flags discussed in the following sub-sections. For details on the assigned values and bit positions see the Section 3. Mirsky, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft 1588 time stamp format in TWAMP January 2015 2.1. Timestamp Format Negotiation in Setting Up Connection in OWAMP In OWAMP-Test [RFC4656] it is the Session-Receiver and/or Fetch- Client that are interpreting collected timestamps. Thus announced by a Server in the Modes field timestamp format indicates which formats the Session-Receiver is capable to interpret. The Control-Client inspects values set by the Server for timestamp formats and sets values in the Modes field of the Set-Up-Response message according to timestamp formats Session-Sender is capable of using. The rules of setting timestamp flags in Modes field in server greeting and Set-Up- Response messages and interpreting them are as follows: o The Server that establishes test sessions for Session-Receiver that supports this extension MUST set NTP Timestamp and PTPv2 Timestamp flags to 1 in the server greeting message according to the requirement listed in Section 2. o If NTP Timestamp and PTPv2 Timestamp flags of the server greeting message that the Control-Client receives each has value 0, then the Session-Sender MUST use NTP format for timestamp in the test session and Control-Client SHOULD set NTP Timestamp and PTPv2 Timestamp flags to 0 in accordance with [RFC4656]. If the Session-Sender cannot use NTP timestamps, then the Control-Client SHOULD close the TCP connection associated with the OWAMP-Control session. o If the Session-Sender can set timestamp in PTPv2 format, then the Control-Client MUST set the PTPv2 Timestamp flag to 1in Modes field in the Set-Up-Response message and the Session-Sender MUST set timestamp in PTPv2 timestamp format. Otherwise the Control- Client MUST set the PTPv2 Timestamp flag in the Set-Up-Response message to 0. o If the value of the PTPv2 Timestamp flag in the Set-Up-Response message is 1, then the Control-Client MUST set the NTP Timestamp flag in the Set-Up-Response message to 0. o Otherwise, if the Session-Sender can set timestamp in NTP format, then the Control-Client MUST set the NTP Timestamp flag in the Set-Up-Response message to 1 and the Session-Sender MUST set timestamp in NTP timestamp format. Otherwise the Control-Client SHOULD close the TCP connection associated with the OWAMP-Control session.. If values of both NTP and PTPv2 Timestamp flags in the Set-Up- Response message are equal to 0, then that indicates that the Control-Client can set timestamp only in NTP format. Mirsky, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft 1588 time stamp format in TWAMP January 2015 If OWAMP-Control uses Fetch-Session commands, then selection and use of one or another timestamp format is local decision for both Session-Sender and Session-Receiver. 2.2. Timestamp Format Negotiation in Setting Up Connection in TWAMP In TWAMP-Test [RFC5357] it is the Session-Sender that is interpreting collected timestamps. Hence, in the Modes field a Server advertises timestamp formats that the Session-Reflector can use in TWAMP-Test message. The choice of the timestamp format to be used by the Session-Sender is a local decision. The Control-Client inspects the Modes field and sets timestamp flags values to indicate which format will be used by the Session-Reflector. The rules of setting and interpreting flag values are as follows: o Server MUST set to 1 value of NTP Timestamp flag in the greeting message if Session-Reflector can set timestamp in NTP format. Otherwise the NTP Timestamp flag MUST be set to 0. o Server MUST set to 1 value of PTPv2 Timestamp flag in its greeting message if Session-Reflector can set timestamp in PTPv2 format. Otherwise the PTPv2 Timestamp flag MUST be set to 0. o If values of both NTP Timestamp and PTPv2 Timestamp flags in received server greeting message each equals 0, then Session- Reflector does not support this extension and will use NTP timestamp format. Control-Client SHOULD set NTP Timestamp and PTPv2 Timestamp flags to 0 in Set-Up-Response message in accordance with [RFC5357]. o Control-Client MUST set PTPv2 Timestamp flag value to 1 in Modes field in the Set-Up-Response message if Server advertised ability of the Session-Reflector to use PTPv2 format for timestamps. Otherwise the flag MUST be set to 0. o Control-Client MUST set NTP Timestamp flag value to 1 in Modes field in the Set-Up-Response message if Server advertised ability of the Session-Reflector to use NTP format for timestamps. Otherwise the flag MUST be set to 0. o If the values of both NTP Timestamp and PTPv2 Timestamp flags in the in the Set-Up-Response message are both equal 0, then that means that Session-Sender can only interpret NTP timestamp format. Then the Session-Reflector MUST use NTP timestamp format. If the Session-Reflector does not support NTP format for timestamps then Server and SHOULD close the TCP connection associated with the TWAMP-Control session. Mirsky, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft 1588 time stamp format in TWAMP January 2015 2.3. OWAMP-Test and TWAMP-Test Update Participants of a test session need to indicate which timestamp format being used. The proposal is to use Z field in Error Estimate defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656]. The new interpretation of the Error Estimate is in addition to it specifying error estimate and synchronization, Error Estimate indicates format of a collected timestamp. And this proposal changes the semantics of the Z bit field, the one between S and Scale fields, to be referred as Timestamp format and value MUST be set according to the following: o 0 - NTP 64 bit format of a timestamp; o 1 - PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp. As result of this value of the Z field from Error Estimate, Sender Error Estimate or Send Error Estimate and Receive Error Estimate SHOULD NOT be ignored and MUST be used when calculating delay and delay variation metrics based on collected timestamps. 2.3.1. Consideration for TWAMP Light mode This document does not specify how Session-Sender and Session- Reflector in TWAMP Light mode are informed of timestamp format to be used. It is assumed that, for example, configuration could be used to direct Session-Sender and Session-Reflector respectively to use timestamp format according to their capabilities and rules listed in Section 2.2. 3. IANA Considerations The TWAMP-Modes registry defined in [RFC5618]. IANA is requested to reserve a new NTP Timestamp and PTPv2 Timestamp as follows: +--------------+------------------+---------------------+-----------+ | Value | Description | Semantics | Reference | +--------------+------------------+---------------------+-----------+ | TBA1 | NTP Timestamp | bit position TBA2 | This | | (proposed | Capability | (proposed 8) | document | | 256) | | | | | TBA2 | PTPv2 Timestamp | bit position TBA4 | This | | (proposed | Capability | (proposed 9) | document | | 512) | | | | +--------------+------------------+---------------------+-----------+ Table 1: New Timestamp Capability Mirsky, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft 1588 time stamp format in TWAMP January 2015 4. Security Considerations Use of particular format of a timestamp in test session does not appear to introduce any additional security threat to hosts that communicate with OWAMP and/or TWAMP as defined in [RFC4656], [RFC5357] respectively. The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of live networks are relevant here as well. See the Security Considerations sections in [RFC4656] and [RFC5357]. 5. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank David Allan for his thorough review and thoughtful comments. 6. 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, 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. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October 2008. [RFC5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618, August 2009. [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010. [RFC6038] Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features", RFC 6038, October 2010. Mirsky, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 7] Internet-Draft 1588 time stamp format in TWAMP January 2015 Authors' Addresses Greg Mirsky Ericsson Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com Ramanathan Lakshmikanthan Ericsson Email: ramanathan.lakshmikanthan@ericsson.com Suchit Bansal Ericsson Email: suchit.bansal@ericsson.com Israel Meilik Broadcom Email: israel@broadcom.com Mirsky, et al. Expires July 20, 2015 [Page 8]