Enter chinese/english word(s), Taiwan address or math. expression :

可輸入英文單字中文字詞台灣地址計算式 按[Enter]重新輸入
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         A. Morton
Request for Comments: 7718                                     AT&T Labs
Updates: 4656                                              December 2015
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721

     Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)

Abstract

   This memo describes the registries for OWAMP -- the One-Way Active
   Measurement Protocol.  The registries allow assignment of Mode bit
   positions and OWAMP Command numbers.  Per this memo, IANA has
   established the registries for new features, called the OWAMP-Modes
   registry and the OWAMP Control Command Number registry.  This memo
   updates RFC 4656.

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/RFC 7718.

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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Morton                       Standards Track                    [Page 1]
RFC 7718 OWAMP Registries December 2015 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP-Control Registries . . . . . . 3 3.1. Control Command Number Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents . . . 3 3.2. OWAMP-Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC 4656] was prepared to support measurements of metrics specified by the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group in the IETF. The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC 5357] is an extension of OWAMP. The TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it approached completion, and the by-products were several recommendations for new features in TWAMP. As a result, a registry of new features was established for TWAMP. However, there were no new features proposed for OWAMP until recently [RFC 7717]. This memo establishes the needed registries for OWAMP and updates [RFC 4656]. 1.1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119]. Morton Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7718 OWAMP Registries December 2015 2. Purpose and Scope The purpose and scope of this memo is to describe and request the establishment of registries for future OWAMP [RFC 4656] extensions. IANA already administers the "Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Parameters", and this request follows a similar form (with one exception identified below). This memo also provides the initial contents for the OWAMP registries. 3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP-Control Registries The OWAMP-Control protocol coordinates the measurement capability. All OWAMP-Control messages follow specifications defined in Section 3 of [RFC 4656]. 3.1. Control Command Number Registry IANA has created an OWAMP-Control Command Number registry. OWAMP-Control Commands follow specifications defined in Section 3.4 of [RFC 4656]. 3.1.1. Registry Specification OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are specified in the first octet of OWAMP-Control-Client command messages consistent with Section 3 of [RFC 4656]. There are a maximum of 256 command numbers. 3.1.2. Registry Management Because the "OWAMP-Control Command Numbers" registry can contain only 256 values, and because OWAMP is an IETF protocol, these registries MUST be updated only by "IETF Review" as specified in [RFC 5226] (an RFC that documents registry use and is approved by the IESG). 3.1.3. Experimental Numbers One experimental value is currently assigned in the Command Numbers Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below. 3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents OWAMP-Control Commands follows the procedure defined in Section 3.5 of [RFC 4656] and in the remainder of Section 3 of that document. Morton Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7718 OWAMP Registries December 2015 The complete set of OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are as follows (including two reserved values): OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Value Description Semantics Reference Definition ========================================================== 0 Reserved Section 3.1.4 RFC 7718 1 Request-Session Section 3.5 RFC 4656 2 Start-Sessions Section 3.7 RFC 4656 3 Stop-Sessions Section 3.8 RFC 4656 4 Fetch-Sessions Section 3.9 RFC 4656 5-253 Unassigned 254 Experimentation Section 3.1.4 RFC 7718 255 Reserved Section 3.1.4 RFC 7718 3.2. OWAMP-Modes IANA has created an OWAMP-Modes registry. 3.2.1. Registry Specification OWAMP-Modes are specified in OWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set- up Response messages consistent with Section 3.1 of [RFC 4656]. Modes are currently indicated by setting single bits in the 32-bit Modes field. However, more complex encoding may be used in the future. 3.2.2. Registry Management Because the "OWAMP-Modes" are based on only 32 bit positions with each position conveying a unique feature, and because OWAMP is an IETF protocol, these registries MUST be updated only by "IETF Review" as specified in [RFC 5226] (an RFC that documents registry use and is approved by the IESG). IANA SHOULD allocate monotonically increasing bit positions when requested. 3.2.3. Experimental Numbers No experimental bit positions are currently assigned in the Modes registry, as indicated in the initial contents below. 3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents OWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the procedure defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC 4656]. Morton Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7718 OWAMP Registries December 2015 In the OWAMP-Modes registry, assignments are straightforward on the basis of bit positions, and there are no references to values -- this is a difference from the comparable TWAMP registry (and a topic for improvement in the TWAMP-Modes registry that is reconciled in [RFC 7717]). An extension of the OWAMP-Modes is proposed in [RFC 7717]. With this extension, the complete set of OWAMP Mode bit positions are as follows (including one reserved bit position): OWAMP-Modes Bit Semantics Pos. Description Definition Reference ======================================================= 0 Unauthenticated Section 3.1 RFC 4656 1 Authenticated Section 3.1 RFC 4656 2 Encrypted Section 3.1 RFC 4656 3 Reserved Section 3.2.4 RFC 7718 ------------------------------------------------------ 4 IKEv2-derived Shared Section 3.2.4 RFC 7718 Secret Key of RFC 7718, Section 5 of RFC 7717 of RFC 7717 ------------------------------------------------------ 5-31 Unassigned In the original OWAMP Modes field, setting bit position 0, 1, or 2 indicated the security mode of the Control protocol, and the Test protocol inherited the same mode (see Section 4 of [RFC 4656]). The value of the Modes field sent by the Server in the Server- Greeting message is the bit-wise OR of the modes (bit positions) that it is willing to support during this session. Thus, the five least significant bits of the 32-bit Modes field are used. When no other features are activated, the 27 most significant bits MUST be zero. A Control-Client conforming to [RFC 4656] MAY ignore the values in the 29 most significant bits of the Modes field, or it MAY support features that are communicated in other bit positions, such as the IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key extension [RFC 7717]. OWAMP and TWAMP registries for Modes may grow to contain different features and functions due to the inherent differences in one-way and two-way measurement configurations and the metrics they measure. No attempt will be made to coordinate them unnecessarily, except for the Reserved bit position 3 above. This is available for assignment if a mixed security mode similar to [RFC 5618] is defined for OWAMP; it would allow alignment with the comparable TWAMP feature. Morton Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7718 OWAMP Registries December 2015 4. Security Considerations As this memo simply documents the creation of OWAMP registries, it presents no new security or privacy issues for the Internet. The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC 4656] and [RFC 5357]. Privacy considerations for measurement systems, particularly when Internet users participate in the tests in some way, are described in [RFC 7594]. 5. References 5.1. Normative References [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>. [RFC 4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4656, September 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4656>. [RFC 5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5226>. [RFC 5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5357, October 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5357>. 5.2. Informative References [RFC 5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5618, August 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5618>. Morton Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7718 OWAMP Registries December 2015 [RFC 7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7594, September 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7594>. [RFC 7717] Pentikousis, K., Ed., Zhang, E., and Y. Cui, "IKEv2-Derived Shared Secret Key for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 7717, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7717, December 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7717>. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Kostas Pentikousis, Nalini Elkins, Mike Ackermann, and Greg Mirsky for insightful reviews and comments. We thought Spencer Dawkins caught the last of the small errors in his AD review, but Nevil Brownlee found a few more during OPS-DIR review. Roni Even found our use of "IETF Consensus" was out of date with [RFC 5226]. Michelle Cotton helped to clarify the IANA considerations. Author's Address Al Morton AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue South Middletown,, NJ 07748 United States Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 Email: acmorton@att.com URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/ Morton Standards Track [Page 7]