Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 08 August 2019 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB22712019C; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 08:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gpFAPQNaeSjc; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 08:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B354120168; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 08:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id p17so89404155ljg.1; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 08:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w+Pwov9UXbku1M1SJnlVWXf9lwXFKa4d43Vkkb8fzGU=; b=sIWdCn+X6YsmaOIc/CaPWCMttxIsG+C95tVNIE0OtHp/8iSv0raqcEyxUCIuBdjbtZ 0nArSnW3dXL90VS2rsJw9rFlVWa73kLBORFjk03CJwZz3lTkBtGLoAE4tsUWa+bB+cUS ozvlF7d+QdC7HgY0i8eWWnLMcdXAZc7QNhw+rhc90KrNCGZnZGXQAjlRwz3e81ab6ufz yc6ew5vrWu3UDeC24elZIMi+wLGzdEKnYKQ7NilEuD0TFwATrBtKkvID3h2IoMkt2+qF JXT3j76f+0IRSQkWSIupovEOAkjNaj/mPROPFSIJpfsakaoo/MGdsBtoWOXi8Tqgif+c wZUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w+Pwov9UXbku1M1SJnlVWXf9lwXFKa4d43Vkkb8fzGU=; b=EpFe0GC8DoHbieDRin76VQm3FzKAadGohzvvPD0SVfPtxiQWa7F54g7CMikgBYL/DN c3dosJo9SDWKgmAcvAg44Fccayv/zp33wvORCUeJ0dO/5UpTWR/7yFy1a0+CVkHb4fS2 O1IOEmRXDujk987m415bSUi4Z6YZR6onPrMQoa7+dHzO/MZ0GfII5QyWuGIUiY6PgO7k 7gxd/IZxAiO2MdbV1semPqVGMIGJ7dNyKbs53OMfamYrVmaCJhlra5XZYnF+aDuZQGhy +LUHxZxAKD6Yv9zgrYKZZDXBYJg0rHisFnmQEcZsL/6SYTkNHxjADwXGTBv37IKzg+CJ WFbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVhP7HmfCXXDlG77IrXpPtr5ZBr2nlNONgFQ2zFJsRyaW/mcF/Y Nmrltwx15r9BTcVgmOublkT5xwwRF6nXmlrnytk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwyd0sQ8DWNdf8duMrWE6sQk31CacGWzLGujmVce78bwn6jSI2/HNg49t4gZqaxZQFCTYrJQxSUhe1nqVICd/w=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8696:: with SMTP id l22mr8569804lji.201.1565279799923; Thu, 08 Aug 2019 08:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B617B303-6EBE-4E3B-AE5C-1438FF1C5D7F@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmVEmKQu=LGp9eVT+x5e01LCSk_A4tQD=RE8Ett-R35BVg@mail.gmail.com> <11938018-8A65-483B-8176-A6E1C2A265A3@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmX=Jx2yXrMXu4Y2VKX36iKphymb1Hkyfy0XhPGFmsUGzQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8047CA0-2F5E-48F8-9BE4-3FA41D742F12@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmXPCe7TZQqPgsKsVnifZDG8O8wGafDn-nzYfGpx2OiaXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F167C330-76F4-48FC-B720-415CA190239C@broadcom.com> <CA+RyBmVtfXcwqu1RH-1JXnhpCZcbGgm30ubKGctUPnLNJCgVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6f=x1j_fXAoqZ874y0nw7Y1wP0OeS9eFuToSBQfrqkJLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmVWZ3utikyBRm4TDhRDuMd3cZ9-otbuX=Mbg0ioAGjwHg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eJf2xjsRJwnBtd5KFHbwO4KX3gEjs_Nv1Dhf39ZWjegA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXHTjpbWv4FGpOsfL94Zip3MsVvESyka5M8PrmNKFB=YQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6dGneYXFr3Xk_DuQnbwa=-ObV_SNdGOSj1Z203wW-PzTg@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppn9jpCLaSLR3QSN=yA0uDyXXMCQ+Rm4qFrR5OrjS31Dw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6eidFR-doLCvMim6HJZ142q_Q0V7XmiLP6Ki5_jmNvUxw@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbppD+GSRf2U_eSPfm4RkTC1-vm-+rfuVJUesHmFiPxmnGw@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0ADA7AE@njmtexg4.research.att.com> <CAMZsk6fODTiLctxJArHyVz9AvyKfrUwefPw0GPg+T3uhRFv6dg@mail.gmail.com> <CALhTbpqzriiZ8RqtFWR0+tjYUwj6A4AV=0d=w6_cMBHFHrF6Fw@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0ADAA75@njmtexg4.research.att.com> <9AEB8751-44B2-41C0-84D8-39B69F7D55BF@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9AEB8751-44B2-41C0-84D8-39B69F7D55BF@cisco.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 08:56:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXteNOH6nfoeF5cH8v2U7mOQPFxX6wHMqKSSPugCKZGrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
Cc: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>, Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>, Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072da16058f9d1ace"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/YRKUMaUEZQtHPEvp9tY22e-2rNA>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 15:57:03 -0000

Hi Rakesh and Henrik,
thank you for a very informative discussion. Do you think the wording in
Section 4.4 of the STAMP specification needs modification:
   Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
   packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
   Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find a
   port number that both devices can use.
...
   In the latter scenario, the test management system SHOULD set STAMP
   Session-Reflector to use UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
   Private Ports range.
I think that the text is not restrictive and can stay. What do you think?
We can review and update STAMP YANG model in a separate thread.

Regards,
Greg



On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:09 AM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Henrik and Al for your feedbacks and discussions.
>
>
>
> I have few comments on the TWAMP yang model draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang:
>
>
>
> 1)      Reflector side does not have autoallocate option. Only sender
> side has it and both allow dynamic range ports only (and 862).
>
>       leaf reflector-udp-port {
>
>                type inet:port-number {
>
>                  range "862 | 49152..65535";
>
>                }
>
>
>
>      leaf sender-udp-port {
>
>                type union {
>
>                  type dynamic-port-number;
>
>                  type enumeration {
>
>                    enum autoallocate {
>
>                      description
>
>                        "Indicates that the Contol-Client will
>
>                         auto-allocate the TWAMP-Test (UDP) port number
>
>                         from the dynamic port range.";
>
>                    }
>
>
>
> 2)      Autoallocate is still from the dynamic port range only.
>
> 3)      Even with the dynamic UDP port, the backend and controller still
> need to  handle the case where the UDP port has been allocated to something
> else on that node, as it is dynamic.
>
> 4)      Well known ports can be handled by the backend similarly if there
> was an error in provisioning.
>
> 5)      This range issue seems to get propagated to the new work like
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp.
>
>
>
> Other than the VOIP example below, there is another example of the similar
> case on Page 31 in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-29.txt
> as pointed out by Mirja in another thread.
>
>
>
> At this point, two vendors are saying the UDP port range for TWAMP is an
> issue for them. As the existing implementations do not have such range
> limit, operators may be using an UDP port outside this range, this means
> moving to the TWAMP Yang model could be troublesome.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)"
> <acm@research.att.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 5:02 AM
> *To: *Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>om>, Rakesh Gandhi <
> rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>rg>,
> IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>et>,
> IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
>
>
>
> Hi Rakesh and Henrik,
>
>
>
> working from the VoIP testing example below, it seems as though
>
> “ability to test on a specific port in the User range,
>
> with prior agreement of users on the tested network”
>
> should have been asked for-as a feature during
>
> YANG model development?
>
>
>
> the authors used the Dynamic Range to avoid *accidentally*
>
> stepping on IANA-allocated User ports during auto-allocation:
>
>
>
>              leaf sender-udp-port {
>
>                type union {
>
>                  type dynamic-port-number;
>
>                  type enumeration {
>
>                    enum autoallocate {
>
>                      description
>
>                        "Indicates that the Contol-Client will
>
>                         auto-allocate the TWAMP-Test (UDP) port number
>
>                         from the dynamic port range.";
>
>                    }
>
> with RFC 6335:
>
> 6.  Port Number Ranges
>
>
>
>    TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, and DCCP use 16-bit namespaces for their
>
>    port number registries.  The port registries for all of these
>
>    transport protocols are subdivided into three ranges of numbers
>
>    [RFC1340], and Section 8.1.2 describes the IANA procedures for each
>
>    range in detail:
>
>
>
>    o  the System Ports, also known as the Well Known Ports, from 0-1023
>
>       (assigned by IANA)
>
>
>
>    o  the User Ports, also known as the Registered Ports, from 1024-
>
>       49151 (assigned by IANA)
>
>
>
> providing our over-riding guidance.
>
>
>
> If we agree that the sort of testing you describe means
>
> adding a new feature to the model, then let’s give some thought
>
> to how that might best be done.
>
>
>
> Al
>
>
>
> *From:* Henrik Nydell [mailto:hnydell@accedian.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:51 AM
> *To:* Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>om>; IPPM Chairs <
> ippm-chairs@ietf.org>gt;; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>; Mirja Kuehlewind <
> ietf@kuehlewind.net>gt;; draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
>
>
>
> Agree Rakesh.
>
> There is value in being able to for example as close as possibly mimic for
> example a VoIP flow on a network path, using typical UDP ports (5060 for
> example), and a typical VoIP IPG (20ms) and proper payload length to make
> the TWAMP flows be treated in the same way as the real RTP traffic by the
> network elements (firewalls, NAT or other port-sensitive devices).
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:02 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Al and Henrik.
>
> If there is no specific requirement to add a limit on the UDP port range,
> it would be good to not have it in the STAMP draft as well as in the TWAMP
> Yang model. Let implementations decide what ports they can support (keeping
> in mind the assigned ones) and let operators decide what port they like to
> provision.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:34 AM MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <
> acm@research.att.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> *From:* ippm [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Henrik Nydell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:30 AM
> *To:* Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>rg>;
> Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>et>; draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
>
>
>
> The range probably comes from the IANA definition of the ephemeral ports
> (49152 to 65535) although these are defined for short-lived TCP and not
> explicitly for UDP. Why this made it into the yang model for TWAMP-test
> (which is UDP) I dont know, probably someone mixed it up with TCP and it
> passed the reviewers without much thought.
>
> *[acm] *
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335#section-6
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc6335-23section-2D6&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=Y3I4sW9cQ0UXh8cUXuPymXo9soP2KQFzein5oCkPdKE&e=>
>
> seems clear to me, without making the distinction between TCP and UDP
>
> you mention. There was discussion on the ippm-list IIRC, too.
>
>
>
> Most, if not all, implementations of TWAMP I have seen does not impose
> limitations on the source UDP ports for the TWAMP-test packets when
> configuring via CLI. For example neither Accedian, Exfo, Viavi, Juniper,
> Nokia, Huawei impose any limitation like that when configuring via CLI or
> GUI.
>
>
>
> With a yang model based configuration the user will of course be limited
> if they use the yang model that only defines the ephemeral range as valid.
> I see no severe disadvantages of this, but it would of course have been
> better if the yang model was less restrictive, since the restriction has no
> real value in itself.
>
>
>
> *[acm] ...*except avoiding a port assigned by IANA...
>
>
> Al
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:07 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Henrik. Where does this requirement come from? Also, how do I
> configure the UDP port outside the range using the TWAMP Yang model?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:19 AM Henrik Nydell <hnydell@accedian.com>
> wrote:
>
> There is a distinction between "must be able to send to these destination
> ports" and "must only be able to send to these destination ports"
>
>
>
> The first wording does not prohibit senders to be able to send also to
> other destination ports.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:57 PM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Many thanks for the reply.
>
> As there are already implementations out there where such restrictions do
> not exist as discussed in another email thread (just forwarded them), the
> following text with MUST is already violated. The TWAMP Yang model
> draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dtwamp-2Dyang-2D13&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=HR_5ntwVu98MLVsNSbfLkeGlQc_DST02a_jurALHOPQ&e=>
> should also not place such restriction.
>
> Section 4.4
>
>        Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
>
>        packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
>
>        Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find
> a
>
>        port number that both devices can use.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 1:05 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> my apologies for the misspelling of your name.
>
> Thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed update.
>
> Regarding the definition of the range of the valid UDP port numbers,
> draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dtwamp-2Dyang-2D13&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=HR_5ntwVu98MLVsNSbfLkeGlQc_DST02a_jurALHOPQ&e=> uses
> type dynamic-port-number as follows:
>
>      typedef dynamic-port-number {
>        type inet:port-number {
>          range 49152..65535;
>        }
>        description "Dynamic range for port numbers.";
>      }
>
> to specify the valid range for a sender-udp-port. The range for a UDP port
> number of a Session-Reflector has been specified slightly differently
> because it includes the well-known port 862:
>
>            leaf reflector-udp-port {
>              type inet:port-number {
>                range "862 | 49152..65535";
>                }
>              description
>                "The destination UDP port number used in the
>                 TWAMP-Test (UDP) test packets belonging to this
>                 test session.";
>            }
>
> But, as we observe, in both cases definitions include the Dynamic/Private
> range explicitly defined. I think that keeping STAMP specification
> consistent with the TWAMP, TWAMP YANG data model in particular, in the way
> the valid range of UDP ports is being specified, is beneficial to the STAMP
> document. Hope you'll agree.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:53 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Greg for considering my review comments. Good to see the message
> format aligned with draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv and using MBZ 30. This
> should fix the interoperability issue between the two. This also gives few
> (3) bytes for any future extensions.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You may fix the spelling of my name and another typo below:
>
> OLD:
>
> and Rakesh Gandi or their
>
>
>
> NEW:
>
> and Rakesh Gandhi for their
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I did not see following comment addressed. Is that intentional?
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:11 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Thanks Greg for the reply.
>
>
>
>     In this case, should the draft just state that the Session-Sender can
> select destination UDP port number following the guidelines specified in
> [RFC6335], instead of specifying following?
>
>
>
> Section 4.4
>
>     Thus STAMP Session-Sender MUST be able to send test
>
>        packets to destination UDP port number from the Dynamic and/or
>
>        Private Ports range 49152-65535, test management system should find
> a
>
>        port number that both devices can use.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:00 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> thank you for your helpful comments. We've updated the format of the base
> STAMP test packet. Appreciate your feedback on the proposed changes,
> comments and questions,
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:27 AM Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Regarding the size of the padding, yes, it's good to use the same size
> payload for query and response.
>
> However, the STAMP payload with TLV extension
> (draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-01) has slightly different padding size
> (27 ( or > 29) vs. 30). Is there a way to make them compatible? Does it
> mean that for STAMP with TLV, Server Octets is set to 1, but it says MBZ 0
> for all 30 bytes. If the responder supports Server Octets and see the size
> > 27, it may find the Server Octet size of 0 confusing?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Shahram,
>
> thank you for the review and questions. Please find my answers below
> tagged GIM>>.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:02 PM Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> HI Greg
>
>
>
> I read your draft and have the following questions:
>
>
>
> 1) Does it require any UDP/TCP port number or it reuses the one from
> TWAMP? if it reuses from TWAMP then  how does the receiver differentiate
> between TWAMP and STAMP?
>
> GIM>> STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the
> OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port (RFC 8545) as the default destination
> UDP port number.. STAMP may use destination UDP port number from the
> Dynamic and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535.
>
> 2) What is the benefit of STAMO compared to TWAMP?
>
> GIM>> The work was driven by several observations, among them:
>
>    - challenges in achieving interoperability among implementations of
>    TWAMP-Light;
>    - industry interest in standardizing performance monitoring in IP
>    broadband access networks (TR-390);
>    - improve extensibility of IP performance monitoring tool to support
>    measurements, testing of new metrics and parameters, e.g., consistency of
>    CoS in the network.
>
> 3) Why is there so much MBZ byte?
>
> GIM>> It was agreed to make the symmetrical size of STAMP test packets the
> default. RFC 6038 defined it for TWAMP and TR-390 requires it to be
> supported by TWAMP-Light implementations.
>
>
>
> Thx
>
> Shahram
>
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mirja,
>
> thank you for the suggested text. The new paragraph now reads as:
>
>       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
>       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
>       be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
>       [RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load
>       for UDP-based protocol.  While the characteristic of test traffic
>       depends on the test objective, it is highly recommended to stay in
>       the limits as provided in [RFC8085].
>
>
>
> If it is acceptable, I'd like to upload the updated version of
> draft-ieff-ippm-stamp before the cut-off deadline.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:58 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> See below.
>
> > On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> > thank you for the reference to RFC 8085. I agree that the document is
> very much relevant and a reference to RFC 8085 in STAMP is useful. While
> reading Section 3.1.3 I came to think that the discussion and guidance in
> other sections of RFC 8085, particularly, Section 3.1.5 Implications of RTT
> and Loss Measurements on Congestion Control. Would adding the reference to
> that section in the new text proposed for the Security Considerations
> section work? I'll put RFC 8085 as Informational reference as it is BCP.
> > NEW TEXT:
> >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
> >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
> >       be thoroughly analyzed using [RFC8085] and its Section 3.1.5 in
> >       particular before launching the test session....
>
>
> Not sure if “using” is the right word but otherwise fine for me. Or you
> could have a separate sentence like:
>
> “RFC8085 section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load for
> UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of test traffic depends on the
> test objective, it is highly recommended to say in the limits as provided
> in RFC8085.”
>
> Or something similar…
>
> BCP is the same maturity level as PS. So it wouldn’t be a downref.
> However, I think having this as informational ref is fine.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:37 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for you reply. Changes are good. I wonder if it would be
> useful to provide a reference to RFC8085 because it has a lot of
> information about congestion control of UDP based traffic? It recommends to
> send not more than 1 packet per 3 seconds (if RTT is unknown). I guess it
> doesn’t make sense to require this for testing traffic, however, it could
> maybe still be a good recommendation? What do you think?
> >
> > Also I’ve just resend my review to the IPPM list, as I unfortunately
> cc’ed only the IPPM chairs instead of the whole list. Can you resend you
> proposed changes to the list, so other people are aware of these changes.
> Sorry for the unconvience.
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > > On 6. Jul 2019, at 17:46, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mirja,
> > > thank you for your thorough review, very pointed and helpful comments.
> Please find my responses in-lined and tagged GIM>>. Attached the diff.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
> wrote:
> > > Hi authors, hi all,
> > >
> > > Thanks for this well-written document and very good shepherd write-up!
> I would like discuss one point before I start IETF last call.
> > >
> > > I believe this document should say something about network load and
> congestion (control). OWAMP and TWAMP discuss quite a bit sender
> scheduling, however, as this is a simplified version, so I think it could
> at least be good to put a waring in this document that packet sending
> should be somehow rate limited. I know it might be hard to provide more
> concrete guidance but at least having some discussion or warning in this
> document could be good.
> > > GIM>>  Thank you for your suggestion. Security Considerations section
> points to the fact that STAMP does not include control and management
> components:
> > >    Because of the control
> > >    and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this
> > >    specification only the more general requirement is set:
> > > adding the new text here:
> > >       Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully
> > >       estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST
> > >       be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session.
> > >
> > >
> > > Another comment: You only say at the very end that a certain UDP port
> is used, which implies that STAMP runs over UDP. However, I think you
> should mention at the very beginning that this is a UDP-based protocol.
> Just to make things crystal clear.
> > > GIM>> Adding the reference to "UDP transport" into the first sentence
> of Theory of  Operations section:
> > >    STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport
> toward STAMP Session-Reflector.
> > >
> > > Mirja
> > >
> > > P.S.:
> > > Nit: s/This document defines active performance measurement test
> protocol/ This document defines an active performance measurement test
> protocol/
> > > -> “an” missing
> > > GIM>> Thank you. Done.
> > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt -
> draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07....txt.html>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=E34uqKmQdO2Vs1uXtW7HIiPr4co6fApp7dRo_EPCiio&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=E34uqKmQdO2Vs1uXtW7HIiPr4co6fApp7dRo_EPCiio&e=>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Henrik Nydell*
> *Sr Product Manager*
> 1.866.685.8181
> hnydell@accedian.com
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_accedian_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=w-fFLajYSxdAGnDPgc5eJL9Ke1Fxt_ZUh7g2JxMXFmw&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Accedian&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aLxX-L8YFiio4PJusnMzJACdZYIkFz5kzSYYg33tHXY&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_accedian-2Dnetworks-3ForiginalSubdomain-3Dca&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aV10PvZ65gihBtrcyRfWWFZ3Opvaf3e4gzQ9pRJIum0&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l.jpg]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=PowT9C9_E09Yg8toWCa4x0cfFsepQJ8D1Dhd9LZ1az4&e=>
> *accedian.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>*
>
>
>
> Avis de confidentialité
>
> Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui
> lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret
> professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses
> destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous
> plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout
> exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de
> le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur.
> Merci.
>
> Confidentiality notice
>
> This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential
> information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive
> use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please
> inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any
> disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment
> hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Henrik Nydell*
> *Sr Product Manager*
> 1.866.685.8181
> hnydell@accedian.com
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_accedian_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=w-fFLajYSxdAGnDPgc5eJL9Ke1Fxt_ZUh7g2JxMXFmw&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Accedian&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aLxX-L8YFiio4PJusnMzJACdZYIkFz5kzSYYg33tHXY&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_accedian-2Dnetworks-3ForiginalSubdomain-3Dca&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=aV10PvZ65gihBtrcyRfWWFZ3Opvaf3e4gzQ9pRJIum0&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l.jpg]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=PowT9C9_E09Yg8toWCa4x0cfFsepQJ8D1Dhd9LZ1az4&e=>
> *accedian.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=1R8CllooSt2dqOo0-DH2rdXfJekuy3wxuSNLuWjIu-o&s=tAu0zypg68sbTH9kW4JrcYJbC1tOAMX_NwNfNh5QMqQ&e=>*
>
>
>
> Avis de confidentialité
>
> Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui
> lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret
> professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses
> destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous
> plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout
> exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de
> le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur.
> Merci.
>
> Confidentiality notice
>
> This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential
> information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive
> use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please
> inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any
> disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment
> hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Henrik Nydell*
> *Sr Product Manager*
> 1.866.685.8181
> hnydell@accedian.com
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/a65.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=UXlLLIWQPztVoCaATnyldPuiq5cMx4soEbPTGjmsJQE&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/f97.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_accedian_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=0ltpwFIjvuZ8sVhjuD2RN1tIgObw07RIgL_4j3vK9Zc&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/t99.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Accedian&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=QTHdaq6bXMydVVJSnS8pfuhqEnLCWzO0tP9A-gyMWBA&e=>
>  [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l54.png]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_accedian-2Dnetworks-3ForiginalSubdomain-3Dca&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=V_ehVarzjW8vvOqJeyq61146LyKQ_Rgz1fNJzJw1waI&e=>
> [image: https://i.xink.io/Images/Get/N63832/l.jpg]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=9V6-ggZb009wP2eti0vCu9OWNz1EgxcbDPqe0xCailk&e=>
> *accedian.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__accedian.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=r9g1UEMgj8gERHFnIHAPcl_wNNiTuU1MuEAyOEHtg0M&s=UXlLLIWQPztVoCaATnyldPuiq5cMx4soEbPTGjmsJQE&e=>*
>
>
>
> Avis de confidentialité
>
> Les informations contenues dans le présent message et dans toute pièce qui
> lui est jointe sont confidentielles et peuvent être protégées par le secret
> professionnel. Ces informations sont à l’usage exclusif de son ou de ses
> destinataires. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, veuillez s’il vous
> plait communiquer immédiatement avec l’expéditeur et en détruire tout
> exemplaire. De plus, il vous est strictement interdit de le divulguer, de
> le distribuer ou de le reproduire sans l’autorisation de l’expéditeur.
> Merci.
>
> Confidentiality notice
>
> This e-mail message and any attachment hereto contain confidential
> information which may be privileged and which is intended for the exclusive
> use of its addressee(s). If you receive this message in error, please
> inform sender immediately and destroy any copy thereof. Furthermore, any
> disclosure, distribution or copying of this message and/or any attachment
> hereto without the consent of the sender is strictly prohibited. Thank you.
>