|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 7718
Last modified on Friday, December 18th, 2015
 Permanent link to RFC 7718
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 7718
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 7718
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
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 14719 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Friday, December 18th, 2015
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
