Network Working Group                                          A. Morton
Internet-Draft                                                 AT&T Labs
Updates: 5357 (if approved)                                   K. Hedayat
Intended status: Standards Track                              K. Hedayat                                    EXFO
Expires: April 22, November 6, 2009                                    May 5, 2009                                    Brix Networks
                                                        October 19, 2008

   More Features for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol - TWAMP
                     draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-00
                     draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of which he BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or she is aware
   have been IETF Contributions published or will made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be disclosed, modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and any
   derivative works of which he or she becomes
   aware will it may not be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, November 6, 2009.

Abstract

   The

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF has completed its work 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 in effect on TWAMP - the Two-Way Active
   Measurement Protocol. date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   This memo describes a simple extension to
   TWAMP, TWAMP - the Two-Way Active
   Measurement Protocol.  The extension adds the option to use different
   security modes in the TWAMP-
   Control TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test protocols. protocols
   simultaneously.  The memo also requests that IANA establish a
   registry for additional new features, called the TWAMP-Modes
   registry.

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].

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
   2.  Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
   3.  TWAMP Control Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
     3.1.  Extended Control Connection Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
   4.  Extended TWAMP Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
     4.1.  Sender Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7
       4.1.1.  Packet Timings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7
       4.1.2.  Packet Format and Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7
     4.2.  Reflector Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8
     6.1.  Registry Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8
     6.2.  Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8
     6.3.  Experimental Numbers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
     6.4.  Initial Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . 7
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.  Introduction

   The IETF has completed its work on the core specification of TWAMP -
   the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol [RFC5357]. Protocol, TWAMP [RFC5357] is an
   extension of the One-way Active Measurement Protocol, OWAMP
   [RFC4656].  The TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it
   approached completion, and the by-products were several
   recommendations for new features in TWAMP.  There are a growing
   number TWAMP implementations at present, and wide-spread usage is
   expected.  There are even devices that are designed to test
   implementations for protocol compliance.

   This memo describes a simple extension for TWAMP, the option to use
   different security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test
   protocols.

   The relationship between this memo
   protocols (mixed security mode).  It also requests that IANA
   establish a registry for additional new features, called the TWAMP-
   Modes registry.

   When the Server and TWAMP is intended Control-Client have agreed to be an
   update use the mixed
   security mode during control connection setup, then the Control-
   Client, the Server, the Session-Sender and the Session-Reflector MUST
   all conform to [RFC5357] when published. the requirements of this mode as described in sections
   3, 4, and 5.

   This memo updates [RFC5357].

2.  Purpose and Scope

   The purpose of this memo is to describe and specify an extension for
   TWAMP [RFC5357].  The features [RFC5357], and extensions were vetted before
   adoption in this memo. request the establishment of a registry for
   future TWAMP extensions.

   The scope of the memo is limited to specifications of the following:

   o  Extension of the modes of operation through assignment of one new
      value in the Mode field (see section 3.1 of [RFC4656]), while
      retaining backward compatibility with TWAMP [RFC5357]
      implementations.  This value adds the OPTIONAL ability to use
      different security modes in the TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test
      protocols.  The motivation for this extension is to permit the low
      packet rate TWAMP-Control protocol to utilize a stronger mode of
      integrity protection than that used in the TWAMP-Test protocol.

3.  TWAMP Control Extensions

   TWAMP-Control protocol is a derivative of the OWAMP-Control protocol,
   and coordinates a two-way measurement capability.  All TWAMP Control
   messages are similar in format and follow similar guidelines to those
   defined in section 3 of [RFC4656] with the exceptions described in
   TWAMP [RFC5357], and in the following sections.

   All OWAMP-Control messages apply to TWAMP-Control, except for the
   Fetch Session command.

3.1.  Extended Control Connection Setup

   TWAMP

   TWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the same procedure
   defined in section 3.1 of [RFC4656].  This extended mode assigns one
   new bit position (and value) to allow the Test protocol security mode
   to operate in Unauthenticated mode, while the Control protocol
   operates in Encrypted mode.  With this extension, the complete set of
   TWAMP Mode values are as follows:

   Value  Description             Reference/Explanation
   0      Reserved
   1      Unauthenticated         RFC4656, Section 3.1
   2      Authenticated           RFC4656, Section 3.1
   4      Encrypted               RFC4656, Section 3.1
   8      Unauth. TEST protocol,  new bit position (3)
          Encrypted CONTROL

   In the original OWAMP and TWAMP Modes field, setting bit positions 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]).

   In this extension to TWAMP, setting when the Control-Client sets Modes Field
   bit position 3 3, it SHALL discontinue the inheritance of the security
   mode in the Test protocol, and each protocol's mode SHALL be as
   specified below.  When the desired TWAMP Test TWAMP-Test protocol mode is
   identical to the Control Session mode, the corresponding Modes Field
   bit (position 0, 1 or 2) SHALL be set. set by the Control-Client.  The
   table below gives the various combinations of integrity protection
   that are permissible in TWAMP (with this extension).  The Test protocol TWAMP-
   Control and TWAMP-Test protocols SHALL use the mode in each column
   corresponding to the Modes Field bit position. position set in the Modes Field.

   --------------------------------------------------------
   Protocol | Permissible Mode Combinations (Modes bit set)
   --------------------------------------------------------
   Control  |    Unauth.(0)|  Auth. == Encrypted (1,2,3)
   --------------------------------------------------------
            |    Unauth.(0)|         Unauth.  (3)
            -----------------------------------------------
   Test     |              |          Auth.(1)
            -----------------------------------------------
            |              |        Encrypted (2)
   --------------------------------------------------------

   Note that the TWAMP-Control protocol security measures are identical
   in the Authenticated and Encrypted Modes.  Therefore, only one new
   bit position (3) is needed to convey the single mixed security mode.

   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 last four
   bits of the Modes 32-bit Field are used.  The  When no other features are
   activated, the first 28 bits MUST be zero.  A client conforming to
   this extension of [RFC5357] MAY ignore the values in the first 28
   bits of the Modes Field, or it MAY support other features that are
   communicated in these bit positions.

   Other ways in which TWAMP extends OWAMP are described in [RFC5357].

4.  Extended TWAMP Test

   The TWAMP test protocol is similar to the OWAMP [RFC4656] test
   protocol with the exception that the Session-Reflector transmits test
   packets to the Session-Sender in response to each test packet it
   receives.  TWAMP [RFC5357] defines two different test packet formats,
   one for packets transmitted by the Session-Sender and one for packets
   transmitted by the Session-Reflector.  As with OWAMP-Test protocol
   there are three security modes: modes that also determine the test packet
   format: unauthenticated, authenticated, and encrypted.  This TWAMP
   extension makes it possible to use TWAMP-Test Unauthenticated mode
   regardless of the mode used in the TWAMP-Control protocol.

   This section describes OPTIONAL extensions.  When the Server has
   identified the ability to support the mixed security mode, the
   Control-Client has selected the mixed security mode in its Set-Up-
   Response, and the Server responds with a zero Accept field in the
   Server-Start message, then these extensions are conditionally
   REQUIRED.

4.1.  Sender Behavior

   This section describes REQUIRED extensions to the behavior of the TWAMP Sender.
   Session-Sender.

4.1.1.  Packet Timings

   The Send Schedule is not utilized in TWAMP, and there are no
   extensions defined in this memo.

4.1.2.  Packet Format and Content

   The Session Sender Session-Sender packet format and content MUST follow the same
   procedure and guidelines as defined in section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656] and
   section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357], with the following exceptions:

   o  the Send Schedule is not used, and

   o  the Sessions-Sender Session-Sender MUST support the mixed security mode
      (Unauthenticated TEST, Encrypted CONTROL,value 8, bit position 3)
      defined in section 3.1 of this memo.

4.2.  Reflector Behavior

   The TWAMP Reflector Session-Reflector is REQUIRED to follow the procedures and
   guidelines in section 4.2 of [RFC5357], with the following
   extensions:

   o  the Sessions-Reflector Session-Reflector MUST support the mixed security mode
      (Unauthenticated TEST, Encrypted CONTROL,value 8, bit position 3)
      defined in section 3.1 of this memo.

5.  Security Considerations

   The extended mixed-mode of operation permits stronger security/
   integrity protection on the TWAMP-Control protocol while
   simultaneously emphasizing accuracy or efficiency on the TWAMP-Test
   protocol, thus making it possible to increase overall security when
   compared to the previous options.

   The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
   live networks are relevant here as well.  See [RFC4656] and
   [RFC5357].

6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo adds three one security mode combinations to bit position/value beyond those in
   the OWAMP-Control specification[RFC4656], and describes behavior when
   the new modes are mode is used.  This memo requests creation of an IANA
   registry for the TWAMP
   Mode Modes field.  This field is a recognized
   extension mechanism for TWAMP.

6.1.  Registry Specification

   IANA is requested to create a TWAMP-Modes registry.  TWAMP-Modes are
   specified in TWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set-up Response
   messages consistent with section 3.1 of [RFC4656], [RFC4656] and section 3.1 of
   [RFC5357], and extended by this memo.  Modes are indicated by setting
   bits in the 32-bit Modes Field.  Thus, this registry can contain a
   total of 32 possible bit positions and corresponding values.

6.2.  Registry Management

   Because the TWAMP-Modes registry can contain only thirty-two values,
   and because TWAMP is an IETF protocol, this registry must be updated
   only by "IETF Consensus" as specified in [RFC2434](an [RFC5226](an RFC documenting
   registry use that is approved by the IESG).  For the Modes TWAMP-Modes
   registry, we expect that new features will be assigned using
   monotonically increasing bit positions and in the range [0-31] and
   the corresponding values, unless there is a good reason to do
   otherwise.

6.3.  Experimental Numbers

   No experimental values are currently assigned for the Modes Registry.

6.4.  Initial Registry Contents

   TWAMP Modes Registry
   Value  Description             Semantics Definition
   0      Reserved

   1      Unauthenticated         RFC4656, Section 3.1

   2      Authenticated           RFC4656, Section 3.1

   4      Encrypted               RFC4656, Section 3.1

   8      Unauth. TEST protocol,  this document, Section 3.1
          Encrypted CONTROL

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Len Ciavattone for helpful review and
   comments.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC4656]  Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
              Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
              (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
              Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
              RFC 5357, October 2008.

8.2.  Informative References

   [x]        "".

Authors' Addresses

   Al Morton
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown,, NJ  07748
   USA

   Phone: +1 732 420 1571
   Fax:   +1 732 368 1192
   Email: acmorton@att.com
   URI:   http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/

   Kaynam Hedayat
   Brix Networks
   EXFO
   285 Mill Road
   Chelmsford, MA  01824
   USA

   Phone: +1
   Fax:   +1
   Email: khedayat@brixnet.com khedayat@exfo.com
   URI:   http://www.brixnet.com/

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.   http://www.exfo.com/