Re: [ippm] RFC 8972, STAMP Optional Extensions Question, RFC 8762 stateless detection

[[e-mail]]

Hi Rick,

Glad to know you're implementing STAMP.
As a proponent of STAMP and a co-author of RFC 8972 and draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang, I have some add-on to what Greg has responded.
Please see inline my responses with [XM]>>>. Hope it helps.

Best Regards,
Xiao Min
------------------Original------------------
From: Ringel,Rick <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2022年08月18日 00:40
Subject: [ippm] RFC 8972, STAMP Optional Extensions Question, RFC 8762 stateless detection
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
I’m working to implement the DirectMeasurement TLV as described in RFC 8972.  There is a scenario where the reflector cannot give a correct response, but the available TLV flags don’t allow the reflector to signal this to the sender.
A STAMP reflector can be started in stateless mode, in which case the reflector has no tx/rx counters to use in the DirectMeasurement TLV response.
[XM]>>> Note that in section 4 of RFC 8762 it says "only round-trip packet loss can be calculated while the reflector is operating in stateless mode".
I am currently setting the ‘Unrecognized’ flag so the sender doesn’t try to interpret the results, but this seems inconsistent with the intent of the flag.
What should the reflector’s response be in this situation?
[XM]>>> I expect that the behavior of the reflector in stateless mode is to remain the received counters as is and send them back to the sender.
I have played with algorithms on the sender side to determine if the reflector is stateful or stateless, as described in RFC 8762.  The best I have come up with is seeding the sender sequence number with a non-zero value on the first transmission.   If the reflector responds with a matching sequence number, it is stateless.  The sender can then inhibit transmission of the DirectMeasurement TLV.   Have I missed something in the RFC regarding the sender’s method for determining stateful/stateless reflectors?   The RFC says the sender sequence number should start at zero, so this is a bit of a hack.
[XM]>>> As you may know, a big difference between STAMP and TWAMP is that STAMP removes TWAMP-Control which achieves mode/parameter negotiation between the sender and reflector. The alternative to TWAMP-Control in STAMP is a centralized configuration on the sender and reflector, so I believe draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang can make sure the sender knows the stateless mode of the reflector.
I look forward to your response.
Rick Ringel
Senior Software Engineer
[e-mail] | www.spirent.com
5280 Corporate Drive, Suite A100, Frederick, MD 21703
Spirent Communications e-mail confidentiality.
This email and the information contained therein may contain private, confidential or privileged material solely meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended  recipient review, copying or distribution is forbidden. Further, if you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete this email and any copies or attachments.