idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits29789/draft-morton-ippm-port-twamp-test-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC5357, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). (Using the creation date from RFC4656, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2000-11-22) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (July 21, 2017) is 1764 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 300, but not defined ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7594 -- Duplicate reference: RFC5357, mentioned in 'TimDISCUSS', was also mentioned in 'RFC5357'. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Morton, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft AT&T Labs 4 Updates: 4656 and 5357 (if approved) G. Mirsky, Ed. 5 Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corp. 6 Expires: January 22, 2018 July 21, 2017 8 OWAMP and TWAMP Well-Known Port Assignments 9 draft-morton-ippm-port-twamp-test-01 11 Abstract 13 This memo explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of 14 well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and 15 measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of these 16 standards track protocol names for the industry. 18 The memo updates RFC 4656 and RFC 5357, in terms of the UDP well- 19 known port assignments. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 22, 2018. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 5. New Well-Known Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 5.1. Impact on TWAMP-Control Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 5.2. Impact on OWAMP-Control Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 5.3. Impact on OWAMP/TWAMP-Test Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 1. Introduction 74 The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first developed 75 the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol, OWAMP, specified in 76 [RFC4656]. Further protocol development to support testing resulted 77 in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol, TWAMP, specified in 78 [RFC5357]. 80 Both OWAMP and TWAMP require the implementation of a control and mode 81 negotiation protocol (OWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Control) which employs 82 the reliable transport services of TCP (including security 83 configuration and key derivation). The control protocols arrange for 84 the configuration and management of test sessions using the 85 associated test protocol (OWAMP-Test or TWAMP-Test) on UDP transport. 87 This memo recognizes the value of assigning a well-known UDP port to 88 the *-Test protocols, and that this goal can easily be arranged 89 through port re-assignments. 91 2. Requirements Language 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 95 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 97 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, 98 as shown here. 100 3. Scope 102 The scope of this memo is to re-allocate well-known ports for the UDP 103 Test protocols that compose necessary parts of their respective 104 standards track protocols, OWAMP and TWAMP, along with clarifications 105 of the complete protocol composition for the industry. 107 The memo updates [RFC4656] and [RFC5357], in terms of the UDP well- 108 known port assignments. 110 4. Definitions 112 This section defines key terms and clarifies the required composition 113 of the OWAMP and TWAMP standards-track protocols. 115 OWAMP-Control is the protocol defined in Section 3 of [RFC4656]. 117 OWAMP-Test is the protocol defined in Section 4 of [RFC4656]. 119 OWAMP is described in a direct quote from Section 1.1 of[RFC4656]: 120 "OWAMP actually consists of two inter-related protocols: OWAMP- 121 Control and OWAMP-Test." A similar sentence appears in Section 2 of 122 [RFC4656]. Since the consensus of many dictionary definitions of 123 "consist" is "composed or made up of", implementation of both OWAMP- 124 Control and OWAMP-Test are REQUIRED for standards-track OWAMP 125 specified in [RFC4656]. 127 TWAMP-Control is the protocol defined in Section 3 of [RFC5357]. 129 TWAMP-Test is the protocol defined in Section 4 of [RFC5357]. 131 TWAMP is described in a direct quote from Section 1.1 of [RFC5357]: 132 "Similar to OWAMP [RFC4656], TWAMP consists of two inter-related 133 protocols: TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test." Since the consensus of 134 many dictionary definitions of "consist" is "composed or made up of", 135 implementation of both TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test are REQUIRED for 136 standards-track TWAMP specified in [RFC5357]. 138 TWAMP Light is an idea described in Informative Appendix I of 139 [RFC5357], and includes an un-specified control protocol (possibly 140 communicating through non-standard means) combined with the TWAMP- 141 Test protocol. The TWAMP Light idea was relegated to the 142 Appendix because it failed to meet the requirements for IETF 143 protocols (there are no specifications for negotiating this form of 144 operation, and no specifications for mandatory-to-implement security 145 features), as described in the references below: 147 o Lars Eggert's Area Director review [LarsAD], where he pointed out 148 that having two variants of TWAMP, Light and Complete (called 149 standards track TWAMP here), required a protocol mechanism to 150 negotiate which variant will be used. See Lars' comment on Sec 151 5.2. The working group consensus was to place the TWAMP Light 152 description in Appendix I, and to refer to the Appendix only as an 153 "incremental path to adopting TWAMP, by implementing the TWAMP- 154 Test protocol first". 156 o Tim Polk's DISCUSS Ballot, which points out that TWAMP Light was 157 an incomplete specification because the key required for 158 authenticated and encrypted modes depended on the TWAMP-Control 159 Session key. See Tim's DISCUSS on 2008-07-16 [TimDISCUSS]. 160 Additional requirement statements were added in the Appendix to 161 address Tim's DISCUSS Ballot (see the last three paragraphs of 162 Appendix I in [RFC5357]). 164 Since the idea of TWAMP Light clearly includes the TWAMP-Test 165 component of TWAMP, it is considered reasonable for future systems to 166 use the TWAMP-Test well-known UDP port (whose re-allocated assignment 167 is requested here). Clearly, the TWAMP Light idea envisions many 168 components and communication capabilities beyond TWAMP-Test 169 (implementing the security requirements, for example), otherwise the 170 Appendix would be one sentence long (equivocating TWAMP Light with 171 TWAMP-Test only). 173 5. New Well-Known Ports 175 Originally, both TCP and UDP well-known ports were assigned to the 176 control protocols that are essential components of standards track 177 OWAMP and TWAMP. 179 Since OWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Control require TCP transport, they 180 cannot make use of the UDP ports which were originally assigned. 181 However, test sessions using OWAMP-Test or TWAMP-Test operate on UDP 182 transport. It may simplify some operations to have a well-known port 183 available for the Test protocols as a default port, and this memo 184 requests re-assignment of the UDP well-known port from the Control 185 protocol to the Test protocol (see the IANA Considerations 186 Section 7). 188 5.1. Impact on TWAMP-Control Protocol 190 Section 3.5 [RFC5357] describes the detailed process of negotiating 191 the Receiver Port number, on which the TWAMP Session-Reflector will 192 send and receive TWAMP-Test packets. The Control-Client, acting on 193 behalf of the Session-Sender, proposes the Receiver port number from 194 the Dynamic Port range [RFC6335]: 196 "The Receiver Port is the desired UDP port to which TWAMP-Test 197 packets will be sent by the Session-Sender (the port where the 198 Session-Reflector is asked to receive test packets). The Receiver 199 Port is also the UDP port from which TWAMP-Test packets will be 200 sent by the Session-Reflector (the Session-Reflector will use the 201 same UDP port to send and receive packets)." 203 It is possible that the proposed Receiver Port may be not available, 204 e.g., the port is in use by another test session or another 205 application. In this case: 207 "... the Server at the Session-Reflector MAY suggest an alternate 208 and available port for this session in the Port field. The 209 Control-Client either accepts the alternate port, or composes a 210 new Session-Request message with suitable parameters. Otherwise, 211 the Server uses the Accept field to convey other forms of session 212 rejection or failure to the Control Client and MUST NOT suggest an 213 alternate port; in this case, the Port field MUST be set to zero." 215 A Control Client that supports use of the allocated TWAMP-Test 216 Receiver Port Section 7 MAY request to use that port number in the 217 Request-TW-Session Command. If the Server does not support the 218 allocated TWAMP-Test Receiver Port, then it sends an alternate port 219 number in the Accept-Session message with Accept field = 0. Thus the 220 deployment of the allocated TWAMP Receiver Port number is backward 221 compatible with existing TWAMP-Control solutions that are based on 222 [RFC5357]. Of course, use of a UDP port number chosen from the 223 Dynamic Port range [RFC6335] will help to avoid the situation when 224 the Control-Client or Server finds the proposed port being already in 225 use. 227 5.2. Impact on OWAMP-Control Protocol 229 As described above, an OWAMP Control Client that supports use of the 230 allocated OWAMP-Test Receiver Port Section 7 MAY request to use that 231 port number in the Request-Session Command. If the Server does not 232 support the allocated OWAMP-Test Receiver Port (or does not have the 233 port available), then it sends an alternate port number in the 234 Accept-Session message with Accept field = 0. Further exchanges 235 proceed as already specified. 237 5.3. Impact on OWAMP/TWAMP-Test Protocols 239 OWAMP/TWAMP-Test may be used to measure IP performance metrics in an 240 Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) environment. Though algorithms to 241 balance IP flows among available paths have not been standardized, 242 the most common is the five-tuple that uses destination IP address, 243 source IP address, protocol type, destination port number, and source 244 port number. When attempting to monitor different paths in ECMP 245 network, it is sufficient to vary only one of five parameters, e.g. 246 the source port number. Thus, there will be no negative impact on 247 ability to arrange concurrent OWAMP/TWAMP test sessions between the 248 same test points to monitor different paths in the ECMP network when 249 using the re-allocated UDP port number as the Receiver Port, as use 250 of the port is optional. 252 6. Security Considerations 254 The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of 255 live paths are relevant here as well (see [RFC4656] and [RFC5357]). 257 When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those 258 whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to 259 potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques 260 which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user 261 traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer 262 the reader to the security and privacy considerations described in 263 the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework 264 [RFC7594], which covers both active and passive techniques. 266 The registered UDP port as the Receiver Port for OWAMP/TWAMP-Test 267 could become a target of denial-of-service (DoS) or used to aid man- 268 in-the-middle (MITM) attacks. To improve protection from the DoS 269 following methods are recommended: 271 o filtering access to the OWAMP/TWAMP Receiver Port by access list; 273 o using a non-globally routable IP address for the OWAMP/TWAMP 274 Session-Reflector address. 276 A MITM attack may try to modify the content of the OWAMP/TWAMP-Test 277 packets in order to alter the measurement results. However, an 278 implementation can use authenticated mode to detect modification of 279 data. In addition, use encrypted mode to prevent eavesdropping and 280 un-detected modification of the OWAMP/TWAMP-Test packets. 282 7. IANA Considerations 284 This memo requests re-allocation of two UDP port numbers from the 285 System Ports range [RFC6335]. Specifically, this memo requests that 286 IANA re-allocate UDP ports 861 and 862 as shown below, leaving the 287 TCP port assignments as-is: 289 +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+ 290 | Service | Port | Transpo | Description | Reference | 291 | Name | Numbe | rt Prot | | | 292 | | r | ocol | | | 293 +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+ 294 | owamp- | 861 | tcp | OWAMP-Control | [RFC4656] | 295 | control | | | | | 296 | owamp-test | 861 | udp | OWAMP-Test | [RFCXXXX] | 297 | | | | | | 298 | twamp- | 861 | tcp | TWAMP-Control | [RFC5357] | 299 | control | | | | | 300 | twamp-test | 862 | udp | TWAMP-Test Receiver | [RFCXXXX] | 301 | | | | Port | | 302 +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+ 304 Table 1 Re-allocated OWAMP and TWAMP Ports 306 where RFCXXXX is this memo when published. 308 8. Contributors 310 Richard Foote and Luis M. Contreras made notable contributions on 311 this topic. 313 9. Acknowledgements 315 The authors thank the IPPM working group for their rapid review; also 316 Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal and Luay Jalil for their participation and 317 suggestions. 319 10. References 321 10.1. Normative References 323 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 324 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 325 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 326 . 328 [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. 329 Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol 330 (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, 331 . 333 [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. 334 Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", 335 RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, 336 . 338 [RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. 339 Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 340 Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and 341 Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, 342 RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011, 343 . 345 [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 346 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale 347 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, 348 DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, 349 . 351 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 352 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 353 May 2017, . 355 10.2. Informative References 357 [LarsAD] "https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/ 358 LzcTPYhPhWhbb5-ncR046XKpnzo", April 2008. 360 [TimDISCUSS] 361 "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5357/history/", July 362 2008. 364 Authors' Addresses 366 Al Morton (editor) 367 AT&T Labs 368 200 Laurel Avenue South 369 Middletown, NJ 07748 370 USA 372 Phone: +1 732 420 1571 373 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 374 Email: acmorton@att.com 375 Greg Mirsky (editor) 376 ZTE Corp. 378 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com