Internet DRAFT - draft-gandhi-mpls-stamp-pw
draft-gandhi-mpls-stamp-pw
MPLS Working Group R. Gandhi
Internet-Draft P. Brissette
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 2 August 2023 E. Leyton
Verizon Wireless
29 January 2023
Encapsulation of Simple TWAMP (STAMP) for Pseudowires in MPLS Networks
draft-gandhi-mpls-stamp-pw-03
Abstract
Pseudowires (PWs) are used in MPLS networks for various services
including carrying layer 2 and layer 3 data packets. This document
describes the procedure for encapsulation of the Simple Two-Way
Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) defined in RFC 8762 and its
optional extensions defined in RFC 8972 for PWs in MPLS networks.
The procedure uses PW Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) to
encapsulate the STAMP test packets with or without an IP/UDP header.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 August 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Reference Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Session-Sender Test Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Session-Sender Test Packet with IP/UDP Header . . . . . . 6
4.2. Session-Sender Test Packet without IP/UDP Header . . . . 8
5. Session-Reflector Test Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Session-Reflector Test Packet with IP/UDP Header . . . . 9
5.2. Session-Reflector Test Packet without IP/UDP Header . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) provides
capabilities for the measurement of various metrics in IP networks
[RFC8762] without the use of a control channel to pre-signal session
parameters. [RFC8972] defines optional extensions for STAMP.
Pseudowires (PWs) are used in MPLS networks for various services
including carrying layer 2 and layer 3 data packets [RFC6658]. The
PWs are bidirectional in nature. The PWs can be point-to-point or
point-to-multipoint. A PW Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh)
[RFC5586] provides a mechanism to transport Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) and other control messages over
MPLS data plane. The G-ACh channel types identify the various OAM
messages being transported over the channel.
This document describes the procedure for encapsulation of the STAMP
defined in [RFC8762] and its optional extensions defined in [RFC8972]
for point-to-point PWs in MPLS networks. The procedure uses PW
Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) to encapsulate the STAMP test
packets with or without an IP/UDP header. This document defines two
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
new Generic Associated Channel Types, those are Pseudowire (PW) type
agnostic and hence applicable to both MPLS PWs and Layer 2 Tunneling
Protocol version 3 (L2TPv3) PWs. This document concerns with the
STAMP opration for the Single-Segment PWs (SS-PWs). The procedure
for STAMP operation for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) PWs will be added
in future.
1.1. Requirements
The STAMP test packets need to be transmitted with the same MPLS
label stack that is used by the PW traffic to ensure proper
validation of underlay path taken by the actual PW traffic. Also,
the test packets need to follow the same ECMP path taken by the PW
traffic. The STAMP test packets may be encapsulated over the PW
associated channel with or without an IP/UDP header.
In the case of MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS TP), the STAMP test
packets need to be tranmitted on the Generic Associated Channel
without using an IP header to have the same forwarding behavior as
the data traffic, just like the delay and loss measurement packets
defined in RFC 6374.
The requirements for the encapsulation of the STAMP test packets for
the PWs in MPLS networks can be summarized as follows:
o The PW associated channel (PW-ACH) MUST support STAMP test packets
with IP/UDP header.
o The PW associated channel (PW-ACH) MUST support STAMP test packets
without IP/UDP header, e.g. L2-Specific Sublayer (L2SS)
encapsulation when using L2TPv3 PWs.
o The Session-Sender test packets MUST follow the same underlay path
taken by the traffic for the associated PW channel.
o The Session-Sender test packets MUST follow the same ECMP underlay
path taken by the traffic for the associated PW channel where the
traffic is using the Entropy Label defined in RFC 6790.
o The Session-Sender test packets MUST follow the same ECMP underlay
path taken by the traffic for the associated PW channel where the
traffic is not using Entropy Label defined in RFC 6790.
o The Session-Reflector test packets MAY follow the same reverse
underlay path taken by Session-Sender test packets.
o The Session-Reflector test packets MAY follow the same reverse ECMP
underlay path taken by Session-Sender test packets.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path.
G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel.
GAL: G-ACh Label.
HMAC: Hashed Message Authentication Code.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance.
PLE: Private Line Emulation.
PW: Pseudowires.
SHA: Secure Hash Algorithm.
STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol.
TC: Traffic Class.
2.3. Reference Topology
In the Reference Topology shown in Figure 1, there exists a packet
pseudowire (PW) to transport data between LSRs S1 and R1. The STAMP
Session-Sender on LSR S1 initiates a Session-Sender test packet and
the STAMP Session-Reflector on LSR R1 transmits a reply test packet.
The reply test packet is transmitted to the STAMP Session-Sender on
the same path (same set of links and nodes) in the reverse direction
of the path taken towards the Session-Reflector.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
|<-------- Pseudowire ------->|
| |
| T1 T2 |
| / \ |
+-------+ Test Packet +-------+
| | - - - - - - - - - ->| |
| S1 |=====================| R1 |
| |<- - - - - - - - - - | |
+-------+ Reply Test Packet +-------+
\ /
T4 T3
STAMP Session-Sender STAMP Session-Reflector
T1, T2, T3, T4: Timestamps as described in [RFC8762]
Figure 1: Reference Topology
3. Overview
The STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets defined
in [RFC8972] are transmitted over the PWs in MPLS networks. The base
STAMP test packets can be encapsulated using an IP/UDP header and may
use Destination UDP port 862 [RFC8762].
The STAMP test packets are encapsulated with MPLS header using the
same label stack as the PW traffic and the PW G-ACh header. The
encapsulation allows the STAMP test packets to follow the same path
as the PW traffic, and provide the same ECMP behaviour on the
intermediate nodes.
There are two ways in which STAMP test packets may be encapsulated
over a PW associated channel, either using an IP/UDP header or
without using an IP/UDP header.
For encapsulating the STAMP test packets over a PW associated channel
with an IP/UDP header, IPv4 and IPv6 G-ACh types [RFC4385] are used
for both Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets. The
destination UDP port number in the Session-Sender and Session-
Reflector test packets discriminate the test packets. The IP version
(IPv4 or IPv6) MUST match the IP version used for signaling for
dynamically established PWs or MUST be configured for statically
provisioned PWs.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
For encapsulating the STAMP test packets over a PW associated channel
without an IP/UDP header, two new G-ACh types are defined in this
document, one for the Session-Sender test packets and one for the
Session-Reflector test packets. The different G-ACh types are
required for the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets as
the STAMP test packet formats do not have a way to discriminate them.
The Time to Live (TTL)/Hop Limit (HL) and Generalized TTL Security
Mechanism (GTSM) procedures from [RFC5082] apply to this
encapsulation, and hence the TTL/HL MUST be set to 255.
The G-ACh label (GAL) [RFC5586] is not required in the MPLS label
stack.
4. Session-Sender Test Packet
4.1. Session-Sender Test Packet with IP/UDP Header
The content of an example STAMP Session-Sender test packet
encapsulated over a PW associated channel using an IP/UDP header is
shown in Figure 2. The STAMP G-ACh header [RFC5586] with G-ACh MUST
immediately follow the bottom of the MPLS label stack. The payload
contains the STAMP Session-Sender test packet defined in [RFC8972].
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Label | TC |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Sender IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address=Session-Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address.
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Session-Sender .
. Destination Port = User-configured Destination Port | 862 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972 |
. in Figure 1 and Figure 3 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Optional STAMP TLVs defined in RFC 8972 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Example Session-Sender Test Packet with IP/UDP Header
The STAMP Session-Sender test packet G-ACh header contains following
fields:
Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in [RFC4385].
Reserved: Reserved Bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
ignored upon receipt.
Channel Type: G-ACh channel type for IPv4 header (0x0021) or IPv6
header (0x0057) [RFC4385].
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
4.2. Session-Sender Test Packet without IP/UDP Header
The content of an example STAMP Session-Sender test packet
encapsulated over a PW associated channel (PW-ACH) when using MPLS PW
or L2-Specific Sublayer (L2SS) encapsulation when using L2TP PW
without using an IP/UDP header is shown in Figure 3. The STAMP G-ACh
header [RFC5586] with new STAMP Session-Sender G-ACh type (value
TBD1) MUST immediately follow the bottom of the MPLS label stack.
The payload contains the STAMP Session-Sender test packet defined in
[RFC8972].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Label | TC |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | STAMP Sender G-ACh (TBD1) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972 |
. in Figure 1 and Figure 3 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Optional STAMP TLVs defined in RFC 8972 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Example Session-Sender Test Packet without IP/UDP Header
The STAMP Session-Sender test packet G-ACh header contains following
fields:
Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in [RFC4385].
Reserved: Reserved Bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
ignored upon receipt.
Channel Type: G-ACh channel type for STAMP Session-Sender packet
(TBD1).
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
5. Session-Reflector Test Packet
The STAMP Session-Reflector reply test packet is sent on the same
path in the reverse direction of a bidirectional PW. The STAMP test
packet can be sent using an MPLS header with or without IP/UDP
header. The Session-Reflector test packet is sent with an IP/UDP
header if the Session-Sender test packet is received with an IP/UDP
header, otherwise, it is sent without an IP/UDP header.
5.1. Session-Reflector Test Packet with IP/UDP Header
The content of an example STAMP Session-Reflector test packet
encapsulated over a PW associated channel using an IP/UDP header is
shown in Figure 4. The STAMP G-ACh header [RFC5586] with G-ACh MUST
immediately follow the bottom of the MPLS label stack. The payload
contains the STAMP Session-Reflector test packet defined in
[RFC8972].
The STAMP Session-Reflector reply test packet MUST use the IP/UDP
information from the received test packet when an IP/UDP header is
present in the received test packet.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Label | TC |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Header |
. Source IP Address = Session-Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address .
. Destination IP Address .
. = Source IP Address from Received Test Packet .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Session-Reflector .
. Destination Port = Source Port from Received Test Packet .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972 |
. in Figure 2 and Figure 4 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Optional STAMP TLVs defined in RFC 8972 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Example Session-Reflector Test Packet with IP/UDP Header
The STAMP Session-Reflector test packet G-ACh header contains
following fields:
Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in [RFC4385].
Reserved: Reserved Bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
ignored upon receipt.
Channel Type: G-ACh channel type for IPv4 header (0x0021) or IPv6
header (0x0057) [RFC4385].
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
5.2. Session-Reflector Test Packet without IP/UDP Header
The content of an example STAMP Session-Reflector test packet
encapsulated over a PW associated channel without using an IP/UDP
header is shown in Figure 5. The STAMP G-ACh header [RFC5586] with
new STAMP Session-Reflector G-ACh type (value TBD2) MUST immediately
follow the bottom of the MPLS label stack. The payload contains the
STAMP Session-Reflector test packet defined in [RFC8972].
The STAMP Session-Reflector reflects the test packet back to the
Session-Sender using the same channel of the reverse direction of the
PW on which it was received. The Session-Reflector has enough
information to reflect the test packet received by it to the Session-
Sender using the PW context.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Label | TC |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | STAMP Reflector G-ACh (TBD2) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972 |
. in Figure 2 and Figure 4 .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Example Session-Reflector Test Packet without IP/UDP Header
The STAMP Session-Reflector test packet G-ACh header contains
following fields:
Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in [RFC4385].
Reserved: Reserved Bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
ignored upon receipt.
Channel Type: G-ACh channel type for STAMP Session-Reflector packet
(TBD2).
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
6. Security Considerations
The usage of STAMP protocol is intended for deployment in limited
domains [RFC8799]. As such, it assumes that a node involved in STAMP
protocol operation has previously verified the integrity of the path
and the identity of the far-end STAMP Session-Reflector.
If desired, attacks can be mitigated by performing basic validation
and sanity checks, at the STAMP Session-Sender, of the counter or
timestamp fields in received reply test packets. The minimal state
associated with these protocols also limits the extent of disruption
that can be caused by a corrupt or invalid packet to a single test
cycle.
Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data
integrity of the test packets. Cryptographic measures may be
enhanced by the correct configuration of access-control lists and
firewalls.
The security considerations specified in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972] also
apply to the procedure described in this document. Specifically, the
message integrity protection using HMAC, as defined in [RFC8762]
Section 4.4, also apply to the procedure described in this document.
Routers that support G-ACh are subject to the same security
considerations as defined in [RFC4385] and [RFC5586].
7. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains G-ACh Type Registry (see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/g-ach-
parameters.xhtml). IANA is requested to allocate values for the
STAMP G-ACh Types from "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh)
Types (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry.
+=======+====================================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+====================================+===============+
| TBD1 | STAMP Session-Sender G-ACh Type | This document |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
| TBD2 | STAMP Session-Reflector G-ACh Type | This document |
+-------+------------------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: STAMP G-ACh Type
8. References
8.1. Normative References
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.
[RFC6658] Bryant, S., Ed., Martini, L., Swallow, G., and A. Malis,
"Packet Pseudowire Encapsulation over an MPLS PSN",
RFC 6658, DOI 10.17487/RFC6658, July 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6658>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating STAMP for PWs in MPLS January 2023
Acknowledgments
TBA.
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Patrice Brissette
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: pbrisset@cisco.com
Edward Leyton
Verizon Wireless
Email: edward.leyton@verizonwireless.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires 2 August 2023 [Page 14]
