Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 7750

Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)

Pages: 11
Proposed Standard
Updates:  5357

Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          J. Hedin
Request for Comments: 7750                                     G. Mirsky
Updates: 5357                                             S. Baillargeon
Category: Standards Track                                       Ericsson
ISSN: 2070-1721                                            February 2016


 Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification
     Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)

Abstract

This document describes an optional extension for Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) allowing the monitoring of the Differentiated Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification fields with the TWAMP-Test protocol. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7750. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 2

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. TWAMP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Setting Up Connection to Monitor DSCP and ECN . . . . . . 3 2.2. TWAMP-Test Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format for DSCP and ECN Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.2. DSCP and ECN Monitoring with Extensions from RFC 6038 8 2.2.3. Consideration for TWAMP Light Mode . . . . . . . . . 8 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1. Introduction

The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656] defines the Type-P Descriptor field and negotiation of its value in the OWAMP- Control protocol. The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] states that only a Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value (see [RFC2474], [RFC3168], and [RFC3260]) can be defined by Type-P Descriptor, and the negotiated value must be used by both the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector. The TWAMP specification also states that the same DSCP value (found in the Session-Sender packet) MUST be used in the test packet reflected by the Session- Reflector. However, the TWAMP-Test protocol does not specify any methods to determine or report when the DSCP value has changed or is different than expected in the forward or reverse direction. Re- marking the DSCP (changing its original value) in IP networks is possible and often accomplished by a Differentiated Services policy configured on a single node along the IP path. In many cases, a change of the DSCP value indicates an unintentional or erroneous behavior. At best, the Session-Sender can detect a change of the DSCP reverse direction, assuming such a change is actually detectable. This document describes an OPTIONAL feature for TWAMP. It is called DSCP and ECN Monitoring. It allows the Session-Sender to know the actual DSCP value received at the Session-Reflector. Furthermore, this feature tracks the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) value (see [RFC2474], [RFC3168], and [RFC3260]) received at the Session-
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 3
   Reflector.  This is helpful to determine if the ECN is actually
   operating or if an ECN-capable node has detected congestion in the
   forward direction.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

1.1.1. Terminology

DSCP: Differentiated Services Code Point ECN: Explicit Congestion Notification IPPM: IP Performance Metrics 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. TWAMP Extensions

TWAMP connection establishment follows the procedure defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC4656] and Section 3.1 of [RFC5357] where the Modes field is used to identify and select specific communication capabilities. At the same time, the Modes field is recognized and used as an extension mechanism [RFC6038]. The new feature requires a new flag to identify the ability of a Session-Reflector to return the values of received DSCP and ECN values back to a Session-Sender, and to support the new Session-Reflector packet format in the TWAMP-Test protocol. See Section 3 for details on the assigned bit position.

2.1. Setting Up Connection to Monitor DSCP and ECN

The Server sets the DSCP and ECN Monitoring flag in the Modes field of the Server Greeting message to indicate its capabilities and willingness to monitor them. If the Control-Client agrees to monitor DSCP and ECN on some or all test sessions invoked with this control connection, it MUST set the DSCP and ECN Monitoring flag in the Modes field in the Setup Response message.
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 4

2.2. TWAMP-Test Extension

Monitoring of DSCP and ECN requires support by the Session-Reflector and changes the test packet format in all the original modes (unauthenticated, authenticated, and encrypted). Monitoring of DSCP and ECN does not alter the Session-Sender test packet format, but certain considerations must be taken when and if this mode is accepted in combination with Symmetrical Size mode [RFC6038].

2.2.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format for DSCP and ECN Monitoring

When the Session-Reflector supports DSCP and ECN Monitoring, it constructs the Sender DSCP and ECN (S-DSCP-ECN) field, presented in Figure 1, for each test packet it sends to the Session-Sender according to the following procedure: o the six (least-significant) bits of the Differentiated Service field MUST be copied from the received Session-Sender test packet into the Sender DSCP (S-DSCP) field; o the two bits of the ECN field MUST be copied from the received Session-Sender test packet into the Sender ECN (S-ECN) field. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | S-DSCP | S-ECN | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Figure 1: Sender DSCP and ECN Field Format Formats of the test packet transmitted by the Session-Reflector in unauthenticated, authenticated, and encrypted modes have been defined in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5357]. For the Session-Reflector that supports DSCP and ECN Monitoring, these formats are displayed in Figures 2 and 3.
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 5
   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    |  S-DSCP-ECN   |             MBZ               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                        Packet Padding                         ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Figure 2: Session-Reflector Test Packet Format with DSCP and ECN
                    Monitoring in Unauthenticated Mode

   The DSCP and ECN values (part of the Type-P Descriptor [RFC4656]) can
   be provisioned through TWAMP-Control or by other means (command-line
   interface (CLI) or Central Controller).  The DSCP and ECN values are
   often copied into reflected test packets with current TWAMP
   implementations without TWAMP-Control protocol.  With the DSCP and
   ECN Monitoring extension, the Session-Reflector handles the DSCP as
   follows:

   o  the Session-Reflector MUST extract the DSCP and ECN values from
      the received packet and MUST use them to populate the S-DSCP-ECN
      field of the corresponding reflected packet;

   o  the Session-Reflector MUST transmit each reflected test packet
      with the DSCP set to the provisioned value;
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 6
   o  if the provisioned DSCP value is not known (e.g., TWAMP Light),
      the choice of the DSCP is implementation specific.  For instance,
      the Session-Reflector MAY copy the DSCP value from the received
      test packet and set it as the DSCP in a reflected packet.
      Alternatively, the Session-Reflector MAY set the DSCP value to CS0
      (zero) [RFC2474];

   o  if the provisioned ECN value is not known, ECN SHOULD be set to
      Not-ECT codepoint value [RFC3168].  Otherwise, the provisioned ECN
      value for the session SHALL be used.

   A Session-Reflector in the DSCP and ECN Monitoring mode does not
   analyze nor act on the ECN value of the received TWAMP test packet;
   therefore, it ignores congestion indications from the network.  It is
   expected that sending rates are low enough, as TWAMP deployment
   experience had demonstrated since TWAMP base (RFC 5357) was published
   in 2008, that ignoring these congestion indications will not
   significantly contribute to network congestion.

   For authenticated and encrypted modes:

    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 (6 octets)                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Receive Timestamp                        |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       MBZ (8 octets)                          |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Sender Sequence Number                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                      MBZ (12 octets)                          |
   |                                                               |
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Sender Timestamp                         |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Sender Error Estimate      |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                         MBZ (6 octets)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Sender TTL    |  S-DSCP-ECN   |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
   |                                                               |
   |                         MBZ (14 octets)                       |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                        HMAC (16 octets)                       |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                       Packet Padding                          ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Figure 3: Session-Reflector Test Packet Format with DSCP and ECN
              Monitoring in Authenticated or Encrypted Modes
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 8

2.2.2. DSCP and ECN Monitoring with Extensions from RFC 6038

[RFC6038] defined two extensions to TWAMP -- first, to ensure that the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector exchange TWAMP-Test packets of equal size; second, to specify the number of octets to be reflected by Session-Reflector. If DSCP and ECN Monitoring and Symmetrical Size and/or Reflects Octets modes are being negotiated between Server and Control-Client in Unauthenticated mode, then, because Sender DSCP and Sender ECN increase the size of the unauthenticated Session-Reflector packet by 4 octets, the Padding Length value SHOULD be greater than or equal to 28 octets to allow for the truncation process that TWAMP recommends in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC5357]. 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 (28 octets) | | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | . . . Packet Padding . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: Session-Sender Test Packet Format with DSCP and ECN Monitoring and Symmetrical Test Packet in Unauthenticated Mode

2.2.3. Consideration for TWAMP Light Mode

Appendix I of [RFC5357] does not explicitly state how the value of the Type-P Descriptor is synchronized between the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector and whether different values are considered as error conditions and should be reported. We assume that by some means the Session-Sender and the Session-Reflector of the given TWAMP-Test session have been informed to use the same DSCP value. The same means, i.e., configuration, could be used to inform the
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 9
   Session-Reflector to support DSCP and ECN Monitoring mode by copying
   data from received TWAMP test packets.  Then Session-Sender may be
   informed to use the Sender DSCP and ECN field in the reflected TWAMP
   test packet.

3. IANA Considerations

In the TWAMP-Modes registry defined in [RFC5618], IANA has reserved a new DSCP and ECN Monitoring Capability as follows: +-----+---------------------------+---------------------+-----------+ | Bit | Description | Semantics | Reference | | Pos | | Definition | | +-----+---------------------------+---------------------+-----------+ | 8 | DSCP and ECN Monitoring | Section 2 | RFC 7750 | | | Capability | | | +-----+---------------------------+---------------------+-----------+ Table 1: New Type-P Descriptor Monitoring Capability

4. Security Considerations

Monitoring of DSCP and ECN does not appear to introduce any additional security threat to hosts that communicate with TWAMP as defined in [RFC5357] and existing extensions [RFC6038]. Sections such as 3.2, 4, 4.1.2, 4.2, and 4.2.1 of [RFC5357] discuss unauthenticated, authenticated, and encrypted modes in varying degrees of detail. 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. References

5.1. 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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 10
   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [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,
              <http://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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.

   [RFC5618]  Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the
              Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5618, August 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5618>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6038>.

5.2. Informative References

[RFC3260] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for Diffserv", RFC 3260, DOI 10.17487/RFC3260, April 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3260>.

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate thorough review and thoughtful comments by Bill Cerveny, Christofer Flinta, and Samita Chakrabarti.
Top   ToC   RFC7750 - Page 11

Authors' Addresses

Jonas Hedin Ericsson Email: jonas.hedin@ericsson.com Greg Mirsky Ericsson Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com Steve Baillargeon Ericsson Email: steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com