RFC 8762
Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
Abstract 🎀
Okay bestie, this one is the whole intro in one bite. It's called the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), and it lets you measure both one-way and round-trip performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. 🦋
Status of This Memo ✨
This is an Internet Standards Track document. 💅
It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), so it represents the consensus of the IETF community. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want more on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Info about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to give feedback lives at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762. 🌸
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, because 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 they are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 🫶
Table of Contents 🧚
1. Introduction
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Terminology
2.2. Requirements Language
3. Operation and Management of Performance Measurement Based on
STAMP
4. Theory of Operation
4.1. UDP Port Numbers in STAMP Testing
4.2. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format
4.2.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
4.2.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
4.3. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format
4.3.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode
4.3.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode
4.4. Integrity Protection in STAMP
4.5. Confidentiality Protection in STAMP
4.6. Interoperability with TWAMP Light
5. Operational Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
7. Security Considerations
8. References
8.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction ✨
Okay so the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions, like [RFC6038] (which defines Symmetrical Size for TWAMP), gave everyone invaluable experience. Several independent implementations of both TWAMP and TWAMP Light exist, have been deployed, and provide important operational performance measurements. The whole ecosystem is giving real-world proof. 👑
At the same time, people are super interested in a more straightforward mechanism for active performance monitoring. Ideally it gives deterministic behavior and keeps control (vendor-specific configuration or orchestration) fully separate from the test functions. 🎀
Here's the tea: the Broadband Forum's "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light" [BBF.TR-390] shows that interoperability among TWAMP Light implementations is hard. Why? The composition and operation of TWAMP Light were not sufficiently specified in [RFC5357]. According to [RFC8545], TWAMP Light includes a subset of TWAMP-Test functions. So if you want a comprehensive tool to measure packet loss and delay, you need other applications to handle things like control and security. 🙈
This document defines an active performance measurement test protocol, the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP). It measures both one-way and round-trip performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. Support for some optional TWAMP extensions, like [RFC7750], is discussed in [STAMP-OPTION]. 💅
2. Conventions Used in This Document 🌈
2.1. Terminology 🍓
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 Protocol
MBZ: Must be Zero
PDU: Protocol Data Unit2.2. 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 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. ⭐
3. Operation and Management of Performance Measurement Based on STAMP 🦋
Figure 1 shows the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Session-Sender and Session-Reflector with a measurement session. In this doc, a measurement session (also called a "STAMP session") is the bidirectional packet flow between one specific Session-Sender and one particular Session-Reflector for a time duration.
Configuring and managing the STAMP Session-Sender, Session-Reflector, and sessions is outside the scope of this document, and it can be done in various ways. A few examples are Command Line Interface, telecommunication services' Operational Support System (OSS) / Business Support System (BSS), SNMP, and NETCONF/YANG-based Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controllers. 🧚
o----------------------------------------------------------o
| Configuration and |
| Management |
o----------------------------------------------------------o
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
+----------------------+ +-------------------------+
| STAMP Session-Sender | <--- STAMP---> | STAMP Session-Reflector |
+----------------------+ +-------------------------+
Figure 1: STAMP Reference Model4. Theory of Operation 🔥
The STAMP Session-Sender sends test packets over UDP transport toward the STAMP Session-Reflector. The Session-Reflector gets the Session-Sender's packet and acts according to the configuration. There are two modes for the STAMP Session-Reflector, and they set the expected behavior and, therefore, which performance metrics you can measure:
- Stateless: The STAMP Session-Reflector doesn't keep test state. It uses the value in the
Sequence Numberfield of the received packet as the value for theSequence Numberfield in the reflected packet. As a result, theSequence NumberandSession-Sender Sequence Numberfields have the same values, and only round-trip packet loss can be calculated while the reflector is in stateless mode. 🌸 - Stateful: The STAMP Session-Reflector keeps the test state. That lets the Session-Sender figure out the direction of loss, using the gaps it spots in the
Session-Sender Sequence NumberandSequence Numberfields. So both near-end (forward) and far-end (backward) packet loss can be computed. That means the STAMP Session-Reflector MUST maintain a state for each configured STAMP-Test session, which uniquely ties STAMP-Test packets to one session instance. It also enables adding a sequence number in the test reply that gets incremented by one on a per-session basis. 🍓
STAMP supports two authentication modes: unauthenticated and authenticated. Unauthenticated STAMP-Test packets, defined in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1, make sure STAMP and TWAMP Light can work together, as covered in Section 4.6 about packet formats. 🫶
By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets. That means the packet the Session-Reflector sends is the same size as the packet it received. 💅
4.1. UDP Port Numbers in STAMP Testing 🦋
A STAMP Session-Sender MUST use UDP port 862 (TWAMP-Test Receiver Port) as the default destination UDP port number. A STAMP implementation of the Session-Sender MUST be able to be used as the destination UDP port numbers from the User Ports (aka Registered Ports) and Dynamic Ports (aka Private or Ephemeral Ports) ranges defined in [RFC6335]. Before using numbers from the User Ports range, the possible impact on the network MUST be carefully studied and agreed on by all users of the network domain where the test has been planned. ⚠️
By default, an implementation of the STAMP Session-Reflector MUST receive STAMP-Test packets on UDP port 862. An implementation of the Session-Reflector that supports this specification MUST be able to define the port number used to receive STAMP-Test packets from the User Ports and Dynamic Ports ranges, which are defined in [RFC6335]. STAMP defines two different test packet formats: one for packets sent by the STAMP Session-Sender and one for packets sent by the STAMP Session-Reflector. 🌈
4.2. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format 🎀
A STAMP Session-Reflector supports the symmetrical size of test packets, as defined in Section 3 of [RFC6038], as its default behavior. A reflected base test packet includes information from the Session-Reflector, so it's bigger. To keep the base STAMP packets symmetrical, the base STAMP Session-Sender packet includes the Must-Be-Zero (MBZ) field, so it matches the size of a base reflected STAMP test packet. So the base STAMP Session-Sender packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in unauthenticated mode (see Figure 2) and 112 octets in authenticated mode (see Figure 4). Generating variable-length test packets in STAMP is defined in [STAMP-OPTION]. ✨
4.2.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode ✨
okay so this is the unauthenticated version of the Session-Sender packet, the basic one 💖 here's the layout, bestie:
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 (30 octets) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: STAMP Session-Sender Test Packet Format in
Unauthenticated Modehere's what each field does 🎀
- Sequence Number 🔢: this one is four octets long. For each new session it starts at zero and goes up by one with every packet that gets sent.
- Timestamp ⏰: this one is eight octets long. The STAMP node MUST support the NTP version 4 64-bit timestamp format [RFC5905], which is the format used in [RFC5357]. The STAMP node MAY also support the IEEE 1588v2 PTP truncated 64-bit timestamp format [IEEE.1588.2008], which is the format used in [RFC8186]. Whether you go with NTP or PTP is part of configuring the Session-Sender or the particular test session, so it's not a random pick 💅
- Error Estimate 📏: two octets long, laid out like this:
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 FormatThe S, Scale, and Multiplier fields are read the way they're defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656]. The Z field is read the way it's defined in Section 2.3 of [RFC8186]:
0means NTP 64-bit format of a timestamp 🕰️1means PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp ⌚
The default is NTP 64-bit format (Z field value of 0). An operator using the configuration or management function MAY configure the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector to use the PTPv2 truncated format (Z field value of 1) instead 🌸 Also, a Session-Sender implementation that supports this specification MAY be configured to use the PTPv2 format even if the Session-Reflector is set up for NTP format. Mixing and matching, iykyk 🫶
- MBZ 🫧: in the Session-Sender unauthenticated packet this is 30 octets long. It MUST be all zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Zeros out, no drama 🧚
4.2.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode 🔐
now the authenticated one, which is giving security glow-up 👑
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 Modeso the field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, which you can find in Section 4.2.1 🧠 The MBZ fields are there to make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets 📐 The value of the field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Note that both MBZ fields get used when calculating a keyed hash message authentication code (HMAC) [RFC2104] hash 👀 The packet also ends with an HMAC hash at the end of the PDU 🔒 The detailed use of the HMAC field is described in Section 4.4. 💜
4.3. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format 🪞
the Session-Reflector is the one that receives the STAMP-Test packet and checks it out ✅ If the base STAMP-Test packet passes validation, the Session-Reflector that supports this specification prepares and sends back the reflected test packet, mirroring the one it got from the Session-Sender. It copies the content that sits beyond the size of the base STAMP packet (see Section 4.2). Reflection era 🦋
4.3.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in 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 | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: STAMP Session-Reflector Test Packet Format in
Unauthenticated Modehere's the scoop on each field 🍓
- Sequence Number 🔢: four octets long. Its value depends on the mode the STAMP Session-Reflector is in:
- 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 STAMP-Test packets it transmits. It starts at zero and goes up by one for each subsequent packet, for each test session. It uses that counter to set the value of the Sequence Number field 🧮
- Timestamp and Receive Timestamp ⏱️: each one is eight octets long. The format, NTP or PTPv2, is indicated by the Z field of the Error Estimate field, as described in Section 4.2.1. Receive Timestamp is the time the test packet got received by the Session-Reflector. Timestamp is the time the Session-Reflector takes at the start of sending the test packet 💫
- Error Estimate 📏: same size and interpretation as in Section 4.2.1. It applies to both Timestamp and Receive Timestamp 🫶
- Session-Sender Sequence Number, Session-Sender Timestamp, and Session-Sender Error Estimate 📋: these are copies of the matching fields from the STAMP-Test packet the Session-Sender sent 🎀
- Session-Sender TTL 🛸: one octet long. Its value is a copy of the TTL field in IPv4 (or Hop Limit in IPv6) from the received STAMP-Test packet 🌐
- MBZ 🫧: these fields line everything up on a four-octet boundary. The value of each MBZ field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Zeroes, always, periodt 💅
4.3.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode ✨
Okay bestie, here's the authenticated Session-Reflector packet, and it's basically the unauthenticated one with a little glam upgrade 💅 Figure 6 shows the full layout 🦋
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) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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 ModeThe field definitions are the same as in unauthenticated mode, so check out Section 4.3.1 for those 🌸 The extra thing here is that the MBZ field is used to make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets 🎀 The value of the field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Also, the MBZ field gets used to calculate the HMAC hash value, which is so iconic 🧚 And the authenticated format ends with the HMAC [RFC2104] hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the HMAC field is in Section 4.4 💜
4.4. Integrity Protection in STAMP
Okay so authenticated mode is all about integrity protection 🫶 Every STAMP message gets a Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) tacked on. STAMP uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits, similar to how IPsec does it in [RFC4868], which is why the HMAC field is 16 octets. In authenticated mode, HMAC covers the first six blocks (96 octets). HMAC gets its own key, and that key may be unique for each STAMP-Test session 🔑 Key management and the mechanisms for distributing the HMAC key are outside the scope of this specification, so that's not our problem today 🙈 One example is using an orchestrator to configure the HMAC key based on the STAMP YANG data model [STAMP-YANG]. HMAC MUST be verified as early as possible to avoid using or propagating corrupted data. Bestie, this part is non-negotiable 😤
Future specifications may define other, more advanced cryptographic algorithms, possibly with an update to the STAMP YANG data model [STAMP-YANG] 🔮
4.5. Confidentiality Protection in STAMP
If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, a STAMP-Test session MUST use a secured transport. For example, STAMP packets could go through a dedicated IPsec tunnel, or they could share the IPsec tunnel with the monitored flow. Also, Datagram Transport Layer Security would give you the confidentiality protection you're after 🔐
4.6. Interoperability with TWAMP Light
Interworking with a TWAMP Light device is one of the essential requirements for STAMP, so this is a big deal 👑 Since STAMP and TWAMP use different algorithms in authenticated mode (HMAC-SHA-256 versus HMAC-SHA-1), interoperability is only considered for unauthenticated mode. There are two possible combinations for this use case:
- STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector
- TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector
In the first case, the Session-Sender might not know that its Session-Reflector doesn't support STAMP 🙃 For example, a TWAMP Light Session-Reflector may not support UDP port 862, as specified in [RFC8545]. So Section 4 lets a STAMP Session-Sender use alternative ports. If any STAMP extensions are used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will treat them as the Packet Padding field 🧩
In the second scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender doesn't support UDP port 862, the test management system MUST set the STAMP Session-Reflector to use a UDP port number, as permitted by Section 4. The Session-Reflector MUST be set to use the default timestamp format, which is NTP 🕰️
A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification will transmit the base packet (Figure 5) if it receives a packet smaller than the STAMP base packet. If the packet from the TWAMP Session-Sender is larger than the STAMP base packet, the STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification will copy the rest of the received packet to transmit a reflected packet of symmetrical size 🪞
5. Operational Considerations ✨
STAMP is meant for production networks so operators can check service level agreements based on packet delay, delay variation, and loss 📊 When you use STAMP over the Internet, especially when STAMP-Test packets go to a destination UDP port from the User Ports range, you MUST thoroughly analyze the possible impact of those STAMP-Test packets 😬 Everyone using the nodes that host the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector MUST agree to the use of STAMP for each case before the STAMP-Test session starts.
Also, using the well-known port number as the destination UDP port in STAMP-Test packets sent by a Session-Sender won't stop you from measuring performance in an Equal-Cost Multipath environment, and the analysis in Section 5.3 of [RFC8545] fully applies to STAMP 🌈
6. IANA Considerations 🎀
This document has no IANA actions. Nothing to register, nothing to update, we're chilling 🌸
7. Security Considerations 🔒
[RFC5357] doesn't identify security considerations specific to TWAMP-Test, but it points to the security considerations for OWAMP in [RFC4656]. Since both OWAMP and TWAMP have control-plane and data-plane components, only the OWAMP-Test security considerations in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of [RFC4656] apply to STAMP 😤
STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver Port. So the security considerations and mitigation measures for attacks using that registered port number, documented in Section 6 of [RFC8545], apply equally to STAMP 🚨 Because control and management of a STAMP-Test are 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.
The load of the STAMP-Test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session. Section 3.1.5 of [RFC8085] provides guidance on handling network load for UDP-based protocols. While the characteristics of test traffic depend on the test objective, it is highly recommended to stay within the limits provided in [RFC8085] 📉
Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in authenticated mode protects the data integrity of the STAMP-Test packets 💖
8. References 📚
The reference entries come next, bestie 💅
8.1. Normative References 📚
okay bestie, these are the normative references, the ones the main text leans on 🫶
[IEEE.1588.2008]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE Standard 1588, July 2008.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 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 🌸
these ones are the extra reading: background, related work, and the drafts that were still in progress when this was written ✨
[BBF.TR-390]
Broadband Forum, "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to
Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light", TR-390 Issue 1, May
2017.
[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>.
[RFC7750] Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon, "Differentiated
Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification
Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7750>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[STAMP-OPTION]
Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-03, 21 February
2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
option-tlv-03>.
[STAMP-YANG]
Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-05,
25 October 2019, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
ippm-stamp-yang-05>.Acknowledgments 💖
the authors gave a huge shoutout to Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin and Brian Weis for their amazing insights into security and identity protection, plus super helpful and practical suggestions 🫶 and a big thank you to David Ball, Rakesh Gandhi, and Xiao Min for their thorough reviews and helpful comments 🎀 literally the MVPs ✨
Authors' Addresses 🦋
here are the people behind the spec, with their contact info exactly as written 💅
Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Guo Jun
ZTE Corp.
68# Zijinghua Road
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
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.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8762 2020-03
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms