| < draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03.txt | draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-04.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group A. Morton, Ed. | Network Working Group A. Morton, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft AT&T Labs | Internet-Draft AT&T Labs | |||
| Updates: 4656 and 5357 (if approved) G. Mirsky, Ed. | Updates: 4656 and 5357 (if approved) G. Mirsky, Ed. | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corp. | Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corp. | |||
| Expires: May 8, 2019 November 4, 2018 | Expires: June 12, 2019 December 9, 2018 | |||
| OWAMP and TWAMP Well-Known Port Assignments | OWAMP and TWAMP Well-Known Port Assignments | |||
| draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-03 | draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-04 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This memo explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of | This memo explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of | |||
| well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and | well-known ports for the One-way Active Measurement Protocol and Two- | |||
| measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of these | way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP and TWAMP) protocols for | |||
| standards track protocol names for the industry. | control and measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of | |||
| these standards track protocol names for the industry. | ||||
| The memo updates RFC 4656 and RFC 5357, in terms of the UDP well- | The memo updates RFC 4656 and RFC 5357, in terms of the UDP well- | |||
| known port assignments, and clarifies the complete OWAMP and TWAMP | known port assignments, and clarifies the complete OWAMP and TWAMP | |||
| protocol composition for the industry. | protocol composition for the industry. | |||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on May 8, 2019. | This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2019. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 45 ¶ | |||
| in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol, TWAMP, specified in | in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol, TWAMP, specified in | |||
| [RFC5357]. | [RFC5357]. | |||
| Both OWAMP and TWAMP require the implementation of a control and mode | Both OWAMP and TWAMP require the implementation of a control and mode | |||
| negotiation protocol (OWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Control) which employs | negotiation protocol (OWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Control) which employs | |||
| the reliable transport services of TCP (including security | the reliable transport services of TCP (including security | |||
| configuration and key derivation). The control protocols arrange for | configuration and key derivation). The control protocols arrange for | |||
| the configuration and management of test sessions using the | the configuration and management of test sessions using the | |||
| associated test protocol (OWAMP-Test or TWAMP-Test) on UDP transport. | associated test protocol (OWAMP-Test or TWAMP-Test) on UDP transport. | |||
| This memo recognizes the value of assigning a well-known UDP port to | In this memo, IETF recognizes the value of assigning a well-known UDP | |||
| the *-Test protocols, and that this goal can easily be arranged | port to the *-Test protocols, and that this goal can easily be | |||
| through port re-assignments. | arranged through port re-assignments. | |||
| 2. Requirements Language | 2. Requirements Language | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | |||
| "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | |||
| [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, | [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, | |||
| as shown here. | as shown here. | |||
| 3. Scope | 3. Scope | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 35 ¶ | |||
| This section defines key terms and clarifies the required composition | This section defines key terms and clarifies the required composition | |||
| of the OWAMP and TWAMP standards-track protocols. | of the OWAMP and TWAMP standards-track protocols. | |||
| OWAMP-Control is the protocol defined in Section 3 of [RFC4656]. | OWAMP-Control is the protocol defined in Section 3 of [RFC4656]. | |||
| OWAMP-Test is the protocol defined in Section 4 of [RFC4656]. | OWAMP-Test is the protocol defined in Section 4 of [RFC4656]. | |||
| OWAMP is described in a direct quote from Section 1.1 of[RFC4656]: | OWAMP is described in a direct quote from Section 1.1 of[RFC4656]: | |||
| "OWAMP actually consists of two inter-related protocols: OWAMP- | "OWAMP actually consists of two inter-related protocols: OWAMP- | |||
| Control and OWAMP-Test." A similar sentence appears in Section 2 of | Control and OWAMP-Test." A similar sentence appears in Section 2 of | |||
| [RFC4656]. Since the consensus of many dictionary definitions of | [RFC4656]. For avoidance of doubt, implementation of both OWAMP- | |||
| "consist" is "composed or made up of", implementation of both OWAMP- | ||||
| Control and OWAMP-Test are REQUIRED for standards-track OWAMP | Control and OWAMP-Test are REQUIRED for standards-track OWAMP | |||
| specified in [RFC4656]. | specified in [RFC4656] (aplying the consensus of many dictionary | |||
| definitions of "consist"). | ||||
| TWAMP-Control is the protocol defined in Section 3 of [RFC5357]. | TWAMP-Control is the protocol defined in Section 3 of [RFC5357]. | |||
| TWAMP-Test is the protocol defined in Section 4 of [RFC5357]. | TWAMP-Test is the protocol defined in Section 4 of [RFC5357]. | |||
| TWAMP is described in a direct quote from Section 1.1 of [RFC5357]: | TWAMP is described in a direct quote from Section 1.1 of [RFC5357]: | |||
| "Similar to OWAMP [RFC4656], TWAMP consists of two inter-related | "Similar to OWAMP [RFC4656], TWAMP consists of two inter-related | |||
| protocols: TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test." Since the consensus of | protocols: TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test." For avoidance of doubt, | |||
| many dictionary definitions of "consist" is "composed or made up of", | ||||
| implementation of both TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test are REQUIRED for | implementation of both TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test are REQUIRED for | |||
| standards-track TWAMP specified in [RFC5357]. | standards-track TWAMP specified in [RFC5357] (aplying the consensus | |||
| of many dictionary definitions of "consist"). | ||||
| TWAMP Light is an idea described in Informative Appendix I of | TWAMP Light is an idea described in Informative Appendix I of | |||
| [RFC5357], and includes an un-specified control protocol (possibly | [RFC5357], and includes an un-specified control protocol combined | |||
| communicating through non-standard means) combined with the TWAMP- | with the TWAMP-Test protocol. The TWAMP Light idea was relegated to | |||
| Test protocol. The TWAMP Light idea was relegated to the | the Appendix because it failed to meet the requirements for IETF | |||
| Appendix because it failed to meet the requirements for IETF | ||||
| protocols (there are no specifications for negotiating this form of | protocols (there are no specifications for negotiating this form of | |||
| operation, and no specifications for mandatory-to-implement security | operation, and no specifications for mandatory-to-implement security | |||
| features), as described in Appendix A of this memo, which cites | features), as described in Appendix A of this memo, which cites | |||
| [LarsAD] and [TimDISCUSS] . | [LarsAD] and [TimDISCUSS] . | |||
| Since the idea of TWAMP Light clearly includes the TWAMP-Test | Since the idea of TWAMP Light clearly includes the TWAMP-Test | |||
| component of TWAMP, it is considered reasonable for future systems to | component of TWAMP, it is considered reasonable for future systems to | |||
| use the TWAMP-Test well-known UDP port (whose re-allocated assignment | use the TWAMP-Test well-known UDP port (whose re-allocated assignment | |||
| is requested here). Clearly, the TWAMP Light idea envisions many | is requested here). Clearly, the TWAMP Light idea envisions many | |||
| components and communication capabilities beyond TWAMP-Test | components and communication capabilities beyond TWAMP-Test | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 24 ¶ | |||
| When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those | When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those | |||
| whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to | whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to | |||
| potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques | potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques | |||
| which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user | which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user | |||
| traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer | traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer | |||
| the reader to the security and privacy considerations described in | the reader to the security and privacy considerations described in | |||
| the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework | the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework | |||
| [RFC7594], which covers both active and passive techniques. | [RFC7594], which covers both active and passive techniques. | |||
| The registered UDP port as the Receiver Port for OWAMP/TWAMP-Test | The registered UDP port as the Receiver Port for OWAMP/TWAMP-Test | |||
| could become a target of denial-of-service (DoS) or used to aid man- | could become a target of denial-of-service (DoS), or used to aid man- | |||
| in-the-middle (MITM) attacks. To improve protection from the DoS | in-the-middle (MITM) attacks. To improve protection from the DoS | |||
| following methods are recommended: | following methods are recommended: | |||
| o filtering access to the OWAMP/TWAMP Receiver Port by access list; | o filtering access to the OWAMP/TWAMP Receiver Port by access list; | |||
| o using a non-globally routable IP address for the OWAMP/TWAMP | o using a non-globally routable IP address for the OWAMP/TWAMP | |||
| Session-Reflector address. | Session-Reflector address. | |||
| A MITM attack may try to modify the content of the OWAMP/TWAMP-Test | A MITM attack may try to modify the content of the OWAMP/TWAMP-Test | |||
| packets in order to alter the measurement results. However, an | packets in order to alter the measurement results. However, an | |||
| implementation can use authenticated mode to detect modification of | implementation can use authenticated mode to detect modification of | |||
| data. In addition, use encrypted mode to prevent eavesdropping and | data. In addition, use encrypted mode to prevent eavesdropping and | |||
| un-detected modification of the OWAMP/TWAMP-Test packets. | un-detected modification of the OWAMP/TWAMP-Test packets. | |||
| There is also a risk of a network under test giving special treatment | ||||
| to flows involving the well-known UDP port, with or without knowing | ||||
| source and destination addresses of measurement systems, and thus | ||||
| biasing the results through preferential or detrimental processing. | ||||
| 7. IANA Considerations | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
| This memo requests re-allocation of two UDP port numbers from the | This memo requests re-allocation of two UDP port numbers from the | |||
| System Ports range [RFC6335]. Specifically, this memo requests that | System Ports range [RFC6335]. Specifically, this memo requests that | |||
| IANA re-allocate UDP ports 861 and 862 as shown below, leaving the | IANA re-allocate UDP ports 861 and 862 as shown below, leaving the | |||
| TCP port assignments as-is: | TCP port assignments as-is: | |||
| +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+ | +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+ | |||
| | Service | Port | Transp. | Description | Reference | | | Service | Port | Transp. | Description | Reference | | |||
| | Name | Num. | Protocol| | | | | Name | Num. | Protocol| | | | |||
| End of changes. 12 change blocks. | ||||
| 20 lines changed or deleted | 25 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||