<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC0768 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0768.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8762 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8762.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8972 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8972.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2104 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2104.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2113 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2113.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4868 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4868.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5884 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5884.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6335 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6335.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6437 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6437.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6936 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6936.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7820 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7820.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8029 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8029.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8085 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8085.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8126 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8186 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8186.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8402 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8402.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8754 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8754.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path.xml">
]>
<rfc submissionType="IETF" docName="draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-00" category="std"  ipr="trust200902">
    <!-- Generated by id2xml 1.5.0 on 2020-02-06T01:41:26Z -->
    <?rfc compact="yes"?>
    <?rfc text-list-symbols="oo*+-"?>
    <?rfc subcompact="no"?>
    <?rfc sortrefs="no"?>
    <?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
    <?rfc strict="yes"?>
    <?rfc toc="yes"?>
    <front>
    <title abbrev="Simple TWAMP Extensions for Segment Routing">Simple TWAMP (STAMP) Extensions for Segment Routing Networks</title>
    <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Gandhi">
    <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
    <address><postal><street>Canada</street>
    </postal>
        <email>rgandhi@cisco.com</email>
    </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils">
    <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
        <address>
        <email>cfilsfil@cisco.com</email>
    </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Daniel Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer">
    <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
        <address>
        <email>daniel.voyer@bell.ca</email>
    </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen" initials="M." surname="Chen">
    <organization>Huawei</organization>
        <address>
        <email>mach.chen@huawei.com</email>
    </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Bart Janssens" initials="B." surname="Janssens">
    <organization>Colt</organization>
        <address>
    <email>Bart.Janssens@colt.net</email>
    </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Richard Foote" initials="R." surname="Foote">
    <organization>Nokia</organization>
        <address>
    <email>footer.foote@nokia.com</email>
    </address>
    </author>
    

    <date day="04" month="June" year="2021"/>
    <workgroup>IPPM Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract><t>
   Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm.  SR is
   applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6
   (SRv6) forwarding planes.  This document specifies RFC 8762 
   (Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP))
   extensions for SR networks, for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 forwarding 
   planes by augmenting the optional extensions defined in RFC 8972.</t>

    </abstract>
    </front>

    <middle>
    <section title="Introduction" anchor="sect-1"><t>
   Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm and
   greatly simplifies network operations for Software Defined Networks
   (SDNs).  SR is applicable to both Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) forwarding planes <xref target="RFC8402"/>.  
   SR Policies as defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy"/> are used
   to steer traffic through a specific, user-defined paths using a stack of Segments. 
   Built-in SR Performance Measurement (PM) is one of the
   essential requirements to provide Service Level Agreements (SLAs).</t>

   <t>The Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) provides
   capabilities for the measurement of various performance
   metrics in IP networks <xref target="RFC8762"/> 
   without the use of a control channel to pre-signal session parameters.
   <xref target="RFC8972"/> defines optional extensions for STAMP.
   Note that the YANG data model defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang"/>
   can be used to provision the STAMP Session-Sender and STAMP Session-Reflector.</t>
	    
   <t>The STAMP test packets are transmitted along an IP path between a Session-Sender 
   and a Session-Reflector to measure performance delay and packet loss along that IP path.  
   It may be desired in SR networks that the same path (same set of links and nodes) between the 
   Session-Sender and Session-Reflector is used for the STAMP test packets in both directions.  
   This is achieved by using the STAMP <xref target="RFC8762"/> extensions for 
   SR-MPLS and SRv6 networks specified in this document by augmenting 
   the optional extensions defined in <xref target="RFC8972"/>.</t>
      
    </section>

    <section title="Conventions Used in This Document" anchor="sect-2">
    <section title="Requirements Language" anchor="sect-2.1"><t>
   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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/>
   when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>

    </section>

    <section title="Abbreviations" anchor="sect-2.2"><t>
   MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.</t>

    <t>
   PM: Performance Measurement.</t>

    <t>
   SID: Segment ID.</t>

    <t>
   SL: Segment List.</t>

    <t>
   SR: Segment Routing.</t>

    <t>
   SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS forwarding plane.</t>

    <t>
   SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 forwarding plane.</t>

    <t>
   SSID: STAMP Session Identifier.</t>

    <t>
   STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol.</t>

    </section>

      <section title="Reference Topology" anchor="sect-2.3"><t>
   In the reference topology shown below, the STAMP Session-Sender R1 initiates a
   STAMP test packet and the STAMP Session-Reflector R3
   transmits a reply test packet.  The reply test packet may be transmitted 
   to the STAMP Session-Sender R1 on the same path (same set of links and nodes) or a different path 
   in the reverse direction from the path taken towards the Session-Reflector.</t>  

   <t>The nodes R1 and R3 may be
   connected via a link or an SR path <xref target="RFC8402"/>.  
   The link may be a physical interface, virtual link, 
   or Link Aggregation Group (LAG) <xref target="IEEE802.1AX"/>, or LAG member link. 
   The SR path may be an SR Policy <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy"/> 
   on node R1 (called head-end) with destination to node R3 (called tail-end).</t>

   <figure><artwork><![CDATA[
                       T1                T2
                      /                   \
             +-------+     Test Packet     +-------+
             |       | - - - - - - - - - ->|       |
             |   R1  |=====================|   R3  |
             |       |<- - - - - - - - - - |       |
             +-------+  Reply Test Packet  +-------+
                      \                   /
                       T4                T3

         STAMP Session-Sender        STAMP Session-Reflector

                       Reference Topology
]]></artwork>
    </figure>
    </section>

   </section>


    <section title="Destination Node Address TLV " anchor="sect-3">
    <t>The STAMP Session-Sender may need to transmit test packets to the 
    STAMP Session-Reflector with a different destination address 
    not matching an address on the Session-Reflector 
    e.g. when the STAMP test packet is encapsulated by a tunneling protocol 
    or an MPLS Segment List with IPv4 address from 127/8 range or Segment Routing 
    Header (SRH) with an IPv6 address.  
    Here, Session-Sender may select an IPv4 address from 127/8 range 
    or select a Flow Label in case of IPv6 address ::1/128 for testing ECMPs. 
    In an error condition, the STAMP test packet may not reach the intended 
    STAMP Session-Reflector, 
    an un-intended node may transmit reply test packets resulting 
    in reporting of invalid measurement metrics.</t>

    <t><xref target="RFC8972"/> defines STAMP test packets that
    can include one or more optional TLVs.
    In this document, Destination Node Address TLV (Type TBA1) 
    is defined for STAMP test packet <xref target="RFC8972"/> 
    and has the following format shown in Figure 1:</t>


    <figure title="Destination Node Address TLV Format" anchor="ure-node-address-tlv-format"><artwork><![CDATA[
 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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |STAMP TLV Flags| Type=TBA1     |         Length                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                           Address                             .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
    </figure>

   <t>The Length field is used to decide the Address Family of the Address.</t>

   <t>The STAMP TLV Flags are set using the procedures described in <xref target="RFC8972"/>.</t>

   <t>The Destination Node Address TLV is optional.  The Destination Node
   Address TLV indicates the address of the intended Session-Reflector node of the
   test packet.</t>
   
   <t>The STAMP Session-Reflector that supports
   this TLV, MUST transmit reply test packet with Error D (Wrong Destination) 
   in the STAMP TLV Flags field if it is not the 
   intended destination of the received Session-Sender test packet.</t>

   <t>D (Wrong Destination):  A one-bit flag.  A Session-Sender MUST set the D flag
   to 0 before transmitting an extended STAMP test packet.  A
   Session-Reflector MUST set the D flag to 1 if the Session-Reflector 
   determined that it is not the intended Destination as identified in the Destination
   Node Address TLV.
   Otherwise, the Session-Reflector MUST set the D flag in the
   Reply test packet to 0.</t>

   <t>Note that the Destination Node Address TLV is applicable to the P2P SR paths only.</t>

    </section>

    <section title="Return Path TLV " anchor="sect-4"><t>
   For end-to-end SR paths, the STAMP Session-Reflector may need to transmit the reply test 
   packet on a specific return path.  The STAMP Session-Sender
   can request this in the test packet to the STAMP Session-Reflector using a Return Path TLV. 
   With this TLV carried in the STAMP Session-Sender test packet,
   signaling and maintaining dynamic SR network state for the
   STAMP sessions on the Session-Reflector are avoided.</t>

   <t>For links, the STAMP Session-Reflector may need to transmit the reply test
   packet on the same incoming link in the reverse direction. 
   The STAMP Session-Sender can request this in the test packet 
   to the STAMP Session-Reflector using a Return Path TLV.</t>

    <t><xref target="RFC8972"/> defines STAMP test packets that
   can include one or more optional TLVs.  In this document, the TLV Type (value TBA2) is
   defined for the Return Path TLV that carries the return path for the STAMP Session-Sender 
   test packet. The format of the Return Path TLV is shown in Figure 2:</t>

    <figure title="Return Path TLV" anchor="ure-return-path-tlv"><artwork><![CDATA[
 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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |STAMP TLV Flags|   Type=TBA2   |         Length                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                   Return Path Sub-TLVs                        |
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
    </figure>

   <t>The STAMP TLV Flags are set using the procedures described in <xref target="RFC8972"/>.</t>

   <t>The Return Path TLV is optional. The STAMP Session-Sender MUST only insert
   one Return Path TLV in the STAMP test packet.
   The STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this TLV,
   MUST only process the first Return Path TLV in the test
   packet and ignore other Return Path TLVs if present, 
   and it MUST NOT add Return Path TLV in the reply test packet.
   The Session-Reflector that supports this TLV MUST reply using the Return Path
   received in the Session-Sender test packet. Otherwise, the procedure 
   defined in [RFC8762] is followed.</t> 

   <section title="Return Path Sub-TLVs" anchor="sect-4.1">
   <t>The Return Path TLV contains one or more Sub-TLVs to carry 
   the information for the requested return path. 
   A Return Path Sub-TLV can carry Return Path Control Code, 
   Return Path IP Address or Return Path Segment List.</t>

   <t>The STAMP Sub-TLV Flags are set using the procedures described in <xref target="RFC8972"/>.</t>

   <t>When Return Path Sub-TLV is present in the Session-Sender test packet,
   the STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this TLV,
   MUST transmit reply test packet using the return path information 
   specified in the Return Path Sub-TLV.</t>

   <t>A Return Path TLV MUST NOT contain both Control Code Sub-TLV as 
   well as Return Address or Return Segment List Sub-TLV.</t>


   <section title="Return Path Control Code Sub-TLV" anchor="sect-4.1.1">
    <t>The format of the Return Path Control Code Sub-TLV is shown in Figure 3. The Type of the Return Path 
    Control Code Sub-TLV is defined as following:</t> 

    <t><list style="symbols"><t>Type (value 1): Return Path Control Code. 
    The STAMP Session-Sender can request the STAMP Session-Reflector
    to transmit the reply test packet based on the flags defined in the Control Code field.</t> 
    </list>
      </t>

    <figure title="Control Code Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV" anchor="ure-control-code-return-path-tlv"><artwork><![CDATA[
 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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |STAMP TLV Flags|   Type        |         Length                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                   Control Code                                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
    </figure>

    <t>Control Code Flags (32-bit): Defined as follows.</t>

    <t><list hangIndent="4" style="hanging"><t>
       0x0: No Reply Requested.</t>
    </list>
    </t>

    <t><list hangIndent="4" style="hanging"><t>
       0x1: Reply Requested on the Same Link.</t> 
    </list>
    </t>

    <t>When Control Code flag is set to 0x0 in the STAMP Session-Sender test packet, 
    the Session-Reflector does not
    transmit reply test packet to the Session-Sender and terminates the
    STAMP test packet. Optionally, the Session-Reflector may locally stream performance metrics
    via telemetry using the information from the received test packet.
    All other Return Path Sub-TLVs are ignored in this case.</t>

    <t>When Control Code flag is set to 0x1 in the STAMP Session-Sender test packet, 
    the Session-Reflector transmits the reply test packet over the same incoming link 
    where the test packet is received in the reverse direction towards the Session-Sender.</t>

    </section>

   <section title="Return Address Sub-TLV" anchor="sect-4.1.2">
   <t>The STAMP reply test packet may be transmitted to the Session-Sender  
   to a different destination address on the Session-Sender using Return Path TLV.
   For this, the Session-Sender can specify in the test packet the receiving destination 
   node address for the Session-Reflector reply test packet.
   When transmitting the STAMP test packet to a different destination address, the Session-Sender 
   MUST follow the procedure defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC8762].</t>

   <t>The format of the Return Address Sub-TLV is shown in Figure 4.
   The Address Family field indicates the type of the address, and it
   SHALL be set to one of the assigned values in the "IANA Address Family Numbers" registry.
   The Type of the Return Address Sub-TLV is defined as following:</t>

    <t><list style="symbols"><t>Type (value 2): Return Address. Destination node address of the
    STAMP Session-Reflector reply test packet different than the Source Address in the Session-Sender test packet.</t>

    </list>
    </t>

    <figure title="Return Address Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV" anchor="ure-return-node-address-tlv-format"><artwork><![CDATA[
 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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |STAMP TLV Flags|     Type      |         Length                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Reserved                      | Address Family                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                           Address                             .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
    </figure>

    </section>

   <section title="Return Segment List Sub-TLVs" anchor="sect-4.1.3">
    <t>The format of the Segment List Sub-TLVs in the Return Path TLV is shown in Figure 5.
    The segment entries MUST be in network order. 
    The Segment List Sub-TLV can be one of the following Types:</t>

    <t><list style="symbols">
    <t>Type (value 3): SR-MPLS Label Stack of the Return Path</t>

    <t>Type (value 4): SRv6 Segment List of the Return Path</t>

    </list>
    </t>


    <figure title="Segment List Sub-TLV in Return Path TLV" anchor="ure-segment-list-sub-tlv-in-return-path-tlv"><artwork><![CDATA[
 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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |STAMP TLV Flags|     Type      |         Length                |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                    Segment(1)                                 |
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                    Segment(n) (bottom of stack)               |
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
    </figure>


   <t>An SR-MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV may carry only Binding SID 
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid"/> of the Return SR-MPLS Policy.</t>

   <t>An SRv6 Segment List Sub-TLV may carry only Binding SID 
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid"/> of the Return SRv6 Policy.</t>

   <t>The STAMP Session-Sender MUST only insert one Segment List Return Path Sub-TLV
   in the test packet.  The STAMP Session-Reflector MUST only process
   the first Segment List Return Path Sub-TLV in the test packet and ignore other
   Segment List Return Path Sub-TLVs if present.</t>

   <t>Note that in addition to the P2P SR paths, the Return Segment List Sub-TLV is 
   also applicable to the P2MP SR paths.
   For example, for P2MP SR paths, it may only carry the Node Segment Identifier of 
   the Session-Sender in order for the reply test packet to follow an SR path
   to the Session-Sender.</t> 

    </section>
    </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations" anchor="sect-5"><t>
   The performance measurement is intended for deployment in
   well-managed private and service provider networks.  As such, it
   assumes that a node involved in a measurement operation has
   previously verified the integrity of the path and the identity of the
   STAMP Session-Reflector.</t>

   <t>If desired, attacks can be mitigated by performing basic validation
   and sanity checks, at the STAMP Session-Sender, of the timestamp fields
   in received reply test packets.  The minimal state
   associated with these protocols also limits the extent of measurement
   disruption that can be caused by a corrupt or invalid test packet to a
   single test cycle.</t>

   <t>The security considerations specified in <xref target="RFC8762"/>
   and <xref target="RFC8972"/> also apply to the extensions
   defined in this document.</t> 

   <t>The STAMP extensions defined in this document may be used for
   potential "proxying" attacks.  For example, a Session-Sender
   may specify a return path that has a destination different from that
   of the Session-Sender.  But normally, such attacks will not happen in an
   SR domain where the Session-Senders and Session-Reflectors belong to the same
   domain.  In order to prevent using the extension defined
   in this document for proxying any possible attacks, the return path
   has destination to the same node where the forward path
   is from.
   The Session-Reflector may drop the Session-Sender test packet when it cannot
   determine whether the Return Path has the destination to the
   Session-Sender.  That means, when sending reply test packet, the Session-Sender
   should choose a proper source address according the specified Return
   Path to help the Session-Reflector to make the decision.
   </t>


    </section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="sect-6"><t>
   IANA will create a "STAMP TLV Type" registry for <xref target="RFC8972"/>. 
   IANA is requested to allocate a value for the following 
   Destination Address TLV Type from the IETF Review TLV range of this registry. 
   This TLV is to be carried in the STAMP test packets.</t>

    <t><list style="symbols"><t>Type TBA1: Destination Node Address TLV</t>

    </list>
    </t>

   <t>IANA is also requested to allocate a value for the following 
   Return Path TLV Type from the IETF Review TLV range of the same registry. 
   This TLV is to be carried in the STAMP test packets.</t>

    <t><list style="symbols"><t>Type TBA2: Return Path TLV</t>

    </list>
    </t>

   <t>
   IANA is requested to create a sub-registry for "Return Path Sub-TLV Type".
   All code points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be
   allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in
   <xref target="RFC8126"/>.  Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this
   registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come First
   Served" procedure as specified in <xref target="RFC8126"/>. 
   Remaining code points are allocated according to <xref target="iana-return-path-tbl"/>:
   </t>

     <texttable anchor="iana-return-path-tbl" title="Return Path Sub-TLV Type Registry">
    <ttcol align="left">Value</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="center">Description</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Reference</ttcol>
     <c>0</c>
    <c>Reserved</c>
    <c>This document</c>
     <c>1 - 175</c>
    <c>Unassigned</c>
    <c>This document</c>
     <c>176 - 239</c>
    <c>Unassigned</c>
    <c>This document</c>
     <c>240 - 251</c>
    <c>Experimental</c>
    <c>This document</c>
     <c>252 - 254</c>
    <c>Private Use</c>
    <c>This document</c>
    <c>255</c>
    <c>Reserved</c>
    <c>This document</c>
   </texttable> 

 
   <t>
   IANA is requested to allocate the values for the following Sub-TLV Types from this registry.</t>

    <t><list style="symbols">
    <t>Type (value 1): Return Path Control Code</t>
                    
    <t>Type (value 2): Return Address</t>

    <t>Type (value 3): SR-MPLS Label Stack of the Return Path</t>

    <t>Type (value 4): SRv6 Segment List of the Return Path</t>

    </list>
    </t>


    </section>

    </middle>

    <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
    &RFC2119;
    &RFC8174;
    &RFC8762;
    &RFC8972;
    </references>
    <references title="Informative References">
    &RFC8402;
    &RFC8126;    
    &I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy;
    &I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid;
    &I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang;

    <reference anchor="IEEE802.1AX"> 
    <front>
    <title>IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation</title>
    <author>    
      <organization>
       IEEE Std. 802.1AX
      </organization>
    </author>
    <date month="November" year="2008"/>
    </front>
    </reference>

    </references>

    <section title="Acknowledgments" numbered="no" anchor="acknowledgments"><t>
   The authors would like to thank Thierry Couture for the discussions
   on the use-cases for Performance Measurement in Segment Routing.  The authors
   would also like to thank Greg Mirsky, Mike Koldychev, Gyan Mishra, Tianran Zhou,  
   and Cheng Li for providing comments and suggestions.</t>

    </section>

    </back>

    </rfc>
