RFC7718
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/rfc7718.
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.
3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents . . . 3
Contents
Introduction
The One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) RFC4656 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) RFC5357 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 RFC7717.
This memo establishes the needed registries for OWAMP and updates RFC4656.
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 RFC2119.
Purpose and Scope
The purpose and scope of this memo is to describe and request the establishment of registries for future OWAMP RFC4656 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.
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 RFC4656.
Control Command Number Registry
IANA has created an OWAMP-Control Command Number registry.
OWAMP-Control Commands follow specifications defined in Section 3.4 of RFC4656.
Registry Specification
OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are specified in the first octet of OWAMP-Control-Client command messages consistent with Section 3 of RFC4656. There are a maximum of 256 command numbers.
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 RFC5226 (an RFC that documents registry use and is approved by the IESG).
Experimental Numbers
One experimental value is currently assigned in the Command Numbers Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below.
OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents
OWAMP-Control Commands follows the procedure defined in Section 3.5 of RFC4656 and in the remainder of Section 3 of that document.
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
OWAMP-Modes
IANA has created an OWAMP-Modes registry.
Registry Specification
OWAMP-Modes are specified in OWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set- up Response messages consistent with Section 3.1 of RFC4656. Modes are currently indicated by setting single bits in the 32-bit Modes field. However, more complex encoding may be used in the future.
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 RFC5226 (an RFC that documents registry use and is approved by the IESG). IANA SHOULD allocate monotonically increasing bit positions when requested.
Experimental Numbers
No experimental bit positions are currently assigned in the Modes registry, as indicated in the initial contents below.
OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents
OWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the procedure defined in Section 3.1 of RFC4656.
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 RFC7717).
An extension of the OWAMP-Modes is proposed in RFC7717. 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 RFC4656).
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 RFC4656 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 RFC7717.
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 RFC5618 is defined for OWAMP; it would allow alignment with the comparable TWAMP feature.
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 RFC4656 and RFC5357.
Privacy considerations for measurement systems, particularly when Internet users participate in the tests in some way, are described in RFC7594.
References
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>.
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>.
RFC5226 Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
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>.
Informative References
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>.
RFC7594 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/RFC7594, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
RFC7717 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/RFC7717, December 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7717>.
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 RFC5226. 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: [email protected] URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
