rfc9534.original   rfc9534.txt 
IPPM Z. Li Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Z. Li
Internet-Draft China Mobile Request for Comments: 9534 China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track T. Zhou Category: Standards Track T. Zhou
Expires: 13 June 2024 Huawei ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei
J. Guo J. Guo
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
G. Mirsky G. Mirsky
Ericsson Ericsson
R. Gandhi R. Gandhi
Cisco Cisco Systems, Inc.
11 December 2023 January 2024
Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance
Measurement on LAG Measurement on a Link Aggregation Group
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06
Abstract Abstract
This document extends Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol This document extends Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
(STAMP) to implement performance measurement on every member link of (STAMP) to implement performance measurement on every member link of
a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). Knowing the measured metrics of each a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). Knowing the measured metrics of each
member link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a performance based member link of a LAG enables operators to enforce a performance-based
traffic steering policy across the member links. traffic steering policy across 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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9534.
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 June 2024.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Micro Session on LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language
3. Member Link Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Micro Sessions on a LAG
3.1. Micro-session ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Member Link Validation
3.2. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Micro-session ID TLV
4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Applicability
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides A Link Aggregation Group (LAG), as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], provides
mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical mechanisms to combine multiple physical links into a single logical
link. This logical link offers higher bandwidth and better link. This logical link offers higher bandwidth and better
resiliency, because if one of the physical member links fails, the resiliency because, if one of the physical member links fails, the
aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the aggregate logical link can continue to forward traffic over the
remaining operational physical member links. remaining operational physical member links.
Usually, when forwarding traffic over LAG, a hash-based mechanism is Usually, when forwarding traffic over a LAG, a hash-based mechanism
used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links. The is used to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links. The
link delay might vary between member links because of different link delay might vary between member links because of different
transport paths, especially when LAG is used in wide area network. transport paths, especially when a LAG is used in a wide area
To provide low latency service for time sensitive traffic, we need to network. To provide low-latency service for time-sensitive traffic,
explicitly steer the traffic across the LAG member links based on the we need to explicitly steer the traffic across the LAG member links
link delay, loss and so on. That requires a solution to measure the based on the link delay, loss, and so on. That requires a solution
performance metrics of each member link of a LAG. Hence, the to measure the performance metrics of each member link of a LAG.
measured performance metrics can work together with layer 2 bundle Hence, the measured performance metrics can work together with Layer
member link attributes advertisement [RFC8668] for traffic steering. 2 bundle member link attributes advertisement [RFC8668] for traffic
steering.
According to the classifications in [RFC7799], Simple Two-Way Active According to the classifications in [RFC7799], Simple Two-way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is an active measurement Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] is an active measurement
method, and it can complement passive and hybrid methods. It method, and it can complement passive and hybrid methods. It
provides a mechanism to measure both one-way and round-trip provides a mechanism to measure both one-way and round-trip
performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. performance metrics, like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. A
One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the performance of a STAMP test session over the LAG can be used to measure the
member link with fixed five tuples. Or it can measure an average of performance of a member link using a specially constructed 5-tuple.
some/all member links of the LAG by varying the five tuples. The session can be used to measure an average of some or all member
links of the LAG by varying one or more elements of that 5-tuple.
However, without the knowledge of each member link, a STAMP test However, without the knowledge of each member link, a STAMP test
session cannot measure the performance of every physical member link. session cannot measure the performance of every physical member link.
This document extends STAMP to implement performance measurement on This document extends STAMP to implement performance measurement on
every member link of a LAG. It can provide the same metrics as OWAMP every member link of a LAG. It can provide the same metrics as
[RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357] can measure, such as delay, jitter, and One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656] and Two-Way
packet loss. Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] can measure, such as
delay, jitter, and packet loss.
2. Micro Session on LAG 1.1. 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.
2. Micro Sessions on a LAG
This document addresses the scenario where a LAG directly connects This document addresses the scenario where a LAG directly connects
two nodes. An example of this is in Figure 1, where the LAG two nodes. An example of this is in Figure 1, where the LAG
consisting of four links connects nodes A and B. The goal is to consisting of four links connects nodes A and B. The goal is to
measure the performance of each link of the LAG. measure the performance of each link of the LAG.
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| |-----------------------| | | |-----------------------| |
| A |-----------------------| B | | A |-----------------------| B |
| |-----------------------| | | |-----------------------| |
| |-----------------------| | | |-----------------------| |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 1: Performance Measurement on LAG Figure 1: Performance Measurement on a LAG
To measure the performance metrics of every member link of a LAG, To measure the performance metrics of every member link of a LAG,
multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be multiple sessions (one session for each member link) need to be
established between the two end points that are connected by the LAG. established between the two endpoints that are connected by the LAG.
These sessions are called micro sessions in the remainder of this These sessions are called "micro sessions" in the remainder of this
document. Although micro sessions are in fact STAMP sessions document. Although micro sessions are in fact STAMP sessions
established on member links of a LAG, test packets of micro sessions established on member links of a LAG, test packets of micro sessions
MUST carry member link information for validation. MUST carry member link information for validation.
All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
Receiver IP Address of the LAG. As for the UDP Port, the micro Receiver IP Address. As for the UDP port, the micro sessions may
sessions may share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair, or share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port pair or each micro
each micro session is configured with a different Sender Port and session may be configured with a different Sender Port and Receiver
Receiver Port pair. But from the operational point of view, the Port pair. From the operational point of view, the former is simpler
former is simpler and is RECOMMENDED. and is RECOMMENDED.
Test packets of a micro session MUST carry the member link Test packets of a micro session MUST carry the member link
information for validation check. For example, when a micro STAMP information for validation checks. For example, when a micro STAMP
Session-Sender receives a reflected test packet, it checks whether Session-Sender receives a reflected test packet, it checks whether
the test packet is from the expected member link. The member link the test packet is from the expected member link. The member link
information is encoded in the Micro-session ID TLV introduced in information is encoded in the Micro-session ID TLV introduced in
Section 3 of this document, and the detailed description about the Section 3, which also provides a detailed description about member
member link validation is also in this section. link validation.
A micro STAMP Session-Sender MAY include the Follow-Up Telemetry TLV A micro STAMP Session-Sender MAY include the Follow-Up Telemetry TLV
[RFC8972] to request information from the micro Session-Reflector. [RFC8972] to request information from the micro Session-Reflector.
This timestamp might be important for the micro Session-Sender, as it This timestamp might be important for the micro Session-Sender, as it
improves the accuracy of network delay measurement by minimizing the improves the accuracy of network delay measurement by minimizing the
impact of egress queuing delays on the measurement. impact of egress queuing delays on the measurement.
3. Member Link Validation 3. Member Link Validation
Test packets MUST carry member link information in Micro-session ID Test packets MUST carry member link information in the Micro-session
TLV introduced in this section for validation check. The micro ID TLV introduced in this section for validation checks. The micro
Session-Sender verifies whether the test packet is received from the Session-Sender verifies whether the test packet is received from the
expected member link. It also verifies whether the packet is sent expected member link. It also verifies whether the packet is sent
from the expected member link at the Reflector side. The micro from the expected member link at the Reflector side. The micro
Session-Reflector verifies whether the test packet is received from Session-Reflector verifies whether the test packet is received from
the expected member link. the expected member link.
3.1. Micro-session ID TLV 3.1. Micro-session ID TLV
STAMP TLV [RFC8972] mechanism extends STAMP test packets with one or The STAMP TLV mechanism [RFC8972] extends STAMP test packets with one
more optional TLVs. This document defines the TLV Type (value TBA1) or more optional TLVs. This document defines the TLV Type (value 11)
for the Micro-session ID TLV that carries the micro STAMP Session- for the Micro-session ID TLV that carries the micro STAMP Session-
Sender member link identifier and Session-Reflector member link Sender member link identifier and Session-Reflector member link
identifier in Sender Micro-session ID field and Reflector Micro- identifier in the Sender Micro-session ID field and the Reflector
session ID field respectively. The format of the Micro-session ID Micro-session ID field, respectively. The format of the Micro-
TLV is shown as follows: session ID TLV is shown as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|STAMP TLV Flags| Type = TBA1 | Length | |STAMP TLV Flags| Type = 11 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender Micro-session ID | Reflector Micro-session ID | | Sender Micro-session ID | Reflector Micro-session ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Micro-session ID TLV Figure 2: Micro-session ID TLV
* Type (one-octet in length): It is defined to indicate this TLV is Type (1 octet in length): This field is defined to indicate this TLV
a Micro-session ID TLV. Value TBA1 is allocated by IANA is a Micro-session ID TLV. Value 11 has been allocated by IANA
(Section 5). (Section 5).
* Length (2-octets in length): It is defined to carry the length of Length (2 octets in length): This field is defined to carry the
the Value field in octets. The Length field value MUST be 4. length of the Value field in octets. The Length field value MUST
be 4.
* Sender Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): It is now defined to Sender Micro-session ID (2 octets in length): This field is defined
carry the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side. In the to carry the LAG member link identifier of the Sender side. In
future, it may be used generically to cover use-cases beyond LAG. the future, it may be used generically to cover use cases beyond
The value of this field MUST be unique within a STAMP session at LAGs. The value of this field MUST be unique within a STAMP
the Session-Sender. session at the Session-Sender.
* Reflector Micro-session ID (2-octets in length): It is now defined Reflector Micro-session ID (2 octets in length): This field is
to carry the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector side. In defined to carry the LAG member link identifier of the Reflector
the future, it may be used generically to cover use-cases beyond side. In the future, it may be used generically to cover use
LAG. The value of this field MUST be unique within a STAMP cases beyond LAGs. The value of this field MUST be unique within
session at the Session-Reflector. a STAMP session at the Session-Reflector.
3.2. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures 3.2. Micro STAMP-Test Procedures
The micro STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of The micro STAMP-Test reuses the procedures as defined in Section 4 of
STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions. STAMP [RFC8762] with the following additions.
The micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro STAMP-Test packets The micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro STAMP-Test packets
over the member link with which the session is associated. The over the member link with which the session is associated. The
mapping between a micro STAMP session and the Sender/Reflector member mapping between a micro STAMP session and the Sender/Reflector member
link identifiers can be configured by augmenting the STAMP YANG link identifiers can be configured by augmenting the STAMP YANG
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]. The detailed augmentation is not in the [STAMP-YANG]. The detailed augmentation is not in the scope of this
scope of this document. document.
When sending a test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST set When sending a test packet, the micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST set
the Sender Micro-session ID field with the member link identifier the Sender Micro-session ID field with the member link identifier
associated with the micro STAMP session. If the Session-Sender knows associated with the micro STAMP session. If the Session-Sender knows
the Reflector member link identifier, the Reflector Micro-session ID the Reflector member link identifier, the Reflector Micro-session ID
field MUST be set. Otherwise, the Reflector Micro-session ID field field MUST be set. Otherwise, the Reflector Micro-session ID field
MUST be zero. The Reflector member link identifier can be obtained MUST be zero. The Reflector member link identifier can be obtained
from pre-configuration or learned from data plane (e.g., the from preconfiguration or learned from data plane (e.g., the reflected
reflected test packet). This document does not specify the way to test packet). This document does not specify the way to obtain the
obtain the Reflector member link identifier. Reflector member link identifier.
When the micro STAMP Session-Reflector receives a test packet, if the When the micro STAMP Session-Reflector receives a test packet, if the
Reflector Micro-session ID is not zero, the micro STAMP Session- Reflector Micro-session ID is not zero, the micro STAMP Session-
Reflector MUST use the Reflector member link identifier to check Reflector MUST use the Reflector member link identifier to check
whether it is associated with the micro STAMP session. If the whether it is associated with the micro STAMP session. If the
validation fails, the test packet MUST be discarded. If the validation fails, the test packet MUST be discarded. If the
Reflector Micro-session ID is zero, it will not be verified. If all Reflector Micro-session ID is zero, it will not be verified. If all
validations passed, the Session-Reflector sends a reflected test validations passed, the Session-Reflector sends a reflected test
packet to the Session-Sender. The micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST packet to the Session-Sender. The micro STAMP Session-Reflector MUST
put the Sender and Reflector member link identifiers that are put the Sender and Reflector member link identifiers that are
associated with the micro STAMP session in the Sender Micro-session associated with the micro STAMP session in the Sender Micro-session
ID and Reflector Micro-session ID fields respectively. The Sender ID and Reflector Micro-session ID fields, respectively. The Sender
member link identifier is copied from the received test packet. member link identifier is copied from the received test packet.
When receiving a reflected test packet, the micro Session-Sender MUST When receiving a reflected test packet, the micro Session-Sender MUST
use the Sender Micro-session ID to validate whether the reflected use the Sender Micro-session ID to validate whether the reflected
test packet is correctly received from the expected member link. If test packet is correctly received from the expected member link. If
the validation fails, the test packet MUST be discarded. The micro the validation fails, the test packet MUST be discarded. The micro
Session-Sender MUST use the Reflector Micro-session ID to validate Session-Sender MUST use the Reflector Micro-session ID to validate
the Reflector's behavior. If the validation fails, the test packet the Reflector's behavior. If the validation fails, the test packet
MUST be discarded. MUST be discarded.
Two modes of the STAMP Session-Reflector, stateless and stateful, Two modes of the STAMP Session-Reflector, stateless and stateful,
characterize the expected behavior, as described in Section 4 of characterize the expected behavior as described in Section 4 of STAMP
STAMP [RFC8762]. The micro STAMP-Test also supports both stateless [RFC8762]. The micro STAMP-Test also supports both stateless and
and stateful modes. However, the micro STAMP-Test does not introduce stateful modes. However, the micro STAMP-Test does not introduce any
any additional state to STAMP, i.e, any procedure with regard to the additional state to STAMP, i.e., any procedure with regard to the
Micro-session ID is stateless. Micro-session ID is stateless.
4. Applicability 4. Applicability
The micro STAMP Session-Sender sends micro Session-Sender packets The micro STAMP Session-Sender sends micro Session-Sender packets
with the Micro-session ID TLV. The micro Session-Reflector checks with the Micro-session ID TLV. The micro Session-Reflector checks
whether a test packet is received from the member link associated whether a test packet is received from the member link associated
with the correct micro STAMP session, if the Reflector Micro-session with the correct micro STAMP session if the Reflector Micro-session
ID field is set. When reflecting, the micro STAMP Session-Reflector ID field is set. When reflecting, the micro STAMP Session-Reflector
copies the Sender Micro-session ID from the received micro Session- copies the Sender Micro-session ID from the received micro Session-
Sender packet to the micro Session-Reflector packet, and sets the Sender packet to the micro Session-Reflector packet and sets the
Reflector Micro-session ID field with the member link identifier that Reflector Micro-session ID field with the member link identifier that
is associated with the micro STAMP session. When receiving the micro is associated with the micro STAMP session. When receiving the micro
Session-Reflector packet, the micro Session-Sender uses the Sender Session-Reflector packet, the micro Session-Sender uses the Sender
Micro-session ID to check whether the packet is received from the Micro-session ID to check whether the packet is received from the
member link associated with the correct micro STAMP session. The member link associated with the correct micro STAMP session. The
micro Session-Sender also use the Reflector Micro-session ID to micro Session-Sender also use the Reflector Micro-session ID to
validate the Reflector's behavior. validate the Reflector's behavior.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
In the "STAMP TLV Types" registry created for [RFC8972], a new STAMP IANA has allocated the following STAMP TLV Type for the Micro-session
TLV Type for Micro-session ID TLV is requested from IANA as follows: ID TLV in the "STAMP TLV Types" registry [RFC8972]:
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+ +=======+==================+===============+
| STAMP TLV Type | Description | Semantics | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
| Value | | Definition | | +=======+==================+===============+
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+ | 11 | Micro-session ID | This Document |
| TBA1 | Micro-session | Section 3 | This | +-------+------------------+---------------+
| | ID TLV | | Document |
+----------------+-------------------+-----------------+------------+
Figure 3: New STAMP TLV Type Table 1: New STAMP TLV Type
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The STAMP extension defined in this document is intended for The STAMP extension defined in this document is intended for
deployment in LAG scenario where Session-Sender and Session-Reflector deployment in the LAG scenario where Session-Sender and Session-
are directly connected. As such, it's assumed that a node involved Reflector are directly connected. As such, it's assumed that a node
in STAMP protocol operation has previously verified the integrity of involved in a STAMP operation has previously verified the integrity
the LAG connection and the identity of its one-hop-away peer node. of the LAG connection and the identity of its one-hop-away peer node.
This document does not introduce any additional security issues and This document does not introduce any additional security issues, and
the security mechanisms defined in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] apply in the security mechanisms defined in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] apply in
this document. this document.
7. Acknowledgements 7. References
The authors would like to thank Mach Chen, Min Xiao, Fang Xin, Marcus
Ihlar, Richard Foote for the valuable comments to this work.
8. References
8.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
skipping to change at page 8, line 11 skipping to change at line 329
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A., [RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972, Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
8.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]
Mirsky, G., Min, X., Luo, W. S., and R. Gandhi, "Simple
Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
yang-12, 5 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
stamp-yang-12>.
[IEEE802.1AX] [IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November Networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2020,
2008. DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034, May 2020,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034>.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>. May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8668] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri, [RFC8668] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri,
M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link
Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668, Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668>. December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668>.
[STAMP-YANG]
Mirsky, G., Min, X., Luo, W. S., and R. Gandhi, "Simple
Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
yang-12, 5 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
stamp-yang-12>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mach Chen, Min Xiao, Fang Xin, Marcus
Ihlar, and Richard Foote for the valuable comments to this work.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Zhenqiang Li Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile China Mobile
No. 29 Finance Avenue, Xicheng District No. 29 Finance Avenue
Xicheng District
Beijing Beijing
China China
Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com Email: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
Tianran Zhou Tianran Zhou
Huawei Huawei
China China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Jun Guo Jun Guo
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
China China
Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
Ericsson Ericsson
United States of America United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Rakesh Gandhi Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
 End of changes. 54 change blocks. 
157 lines changed or deleted 162 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.