<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" submissionType="IETF" docName="draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-07" category="info" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" xml:lang="en" sortRefs="false" consensus="yes" symRefs="true" tocInclude="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.12.0 -->
  <!-- Generated by id2xml 1.5.0 on 2020-02-06T01:41:26Z -->
    <front>
    <title abbrev="Using Simple TWAMP for Segment Routing">Performance Measurement Using Simple TWAMP (STAMP) for Segment Routing Networks</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-07"/>
    <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="29" month="May" year="2023"/>
    <workgroup>SPRING 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) data planes.  This document describes procedures  
   for Performance Measurement in SR networks using the 
   mechanisms defined in RFC 8762 (Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP))
   and its optional extensions defined in RFC 8972 and further augmented in draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm.
   The procedure described is used for both links and
   end-to-end SR paths including SR Policies and SR Flexible Algorithm IGP paths as well as services, and is applicable
   to both SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="sect-1" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <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) data planes <xref target="RFC8402" format="default"/>.  SR takes advantage of the
   Equal-Cost Multipaths (ECMPs) between source and transit nodes,
   between transit nodes and between transit and destination nodes.  SR
   Policies as defined in <xref target="RFC9256" format="default"/> are used
   to steer traffic through a specific, user-defined paths using a stack
   of Segments.  A comprehensive SR Performance Measurement (PM) toolset is one of the
   essential requirements to measure network performance 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" format="default"/>
   without the use of a control channel to pre-signal session parameters. 
   <xref target="RFC8972" format="default"/> defines optional extensions, in the form of TLVs, for STAMP.
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/> augments that framework 
   to define STAMP extensions for SR networks.</t>

      <t>This document describes procedures for Performance Measurement in SR networks using the 
   mechanisms defined in STAMP <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/> 
   and its optional extensions defined in <xref target="RFC8972" format="default"/> 
   and further augmented in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/>. 
   The procedure described is used for both links and end-to-end SR paths including 
   SR Policies <xref target="RFC8402" format="default"/> and SR Flexible Algorithm IGP paths 
   <xref target="RFC9350" format="default"/> as well as services, and is applicable
   to both SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes.</t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="sect-2" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Conventions Used in This Document</name>
      <section anchor="sect-2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <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" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"/>
   when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-2.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Abbreviations</name>
        <t>
   BSID: Binding Segment ID.</t>
        <t>
   C-SID: Compressed Segment ID.</t>
        <t>
   DM: Delay Measurement.</t>
        <t>
   ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path.</t>
        <t>
   HL: Hop Limit.</t>
        <t>
   HMAC: Hashed Message Authentication Code.</t>
        <t>
   LM: Loss Measurement.</t>
        <t>
   MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.</t>
        <t>
   NTP: Network Time Protocol.</t>
        <t>
   OWAMP: One-Way Active Measurement Protocol.</t>
        <t>
   PM: Performance Measurement.</t>
        <t>
   PSID: Path Segment Identifier.</t>
        <t>
   PTP: Precision Time Protocol.</t>
        <t>
   SHA: Secure Hash Algorithm.</t>
        <t>
   SID: Segment ID.</t>
        <t>
   SL: Segment List.</t>
        <t>
   SR: Segment Routing.</t>
        <t>
   SRH: Segment Routing Header.</t>
        <t>
   SR-MPLS: Segment Routing with MPLS data plane.</t>
        <t>
   SRv6: Segment Routing with IPv6 data plane.</t>
        <t>
   SSID: STAMP Session Identifier.</t>
        <t>
   STAMP: Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol.</t>
        <t>
   TC: Traffic Class.</t>
        <t>
   TTL: Time To Live.</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="sect-2.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Reference Topology</name>
        <t>
   In the Reference Topology shown below, the STAMP Session-Sender S1 initiates a
   STAMP test packet and the STAMP Session-Reflector R1
   transmits a reply STAMP test packet.  The reply test packet may be transmitted 
   to the STAMP Session-Sender S1 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 S1 and R1 may be
   connected via a link or an SR path <xref target="RFC8402" format="default"/>.  
   The link may be a physical interface, virtual link, 
   or Link Aggregation Group (LAG) <xref target="IEEE802.1AX" format="default"/>, or LAG member link. 
   The SR path may be an SR Policy <xref target="RFC9256" format="default"/> 
   on node S1 (called head-end) with destination to node R1 (called tail-end) <xref target="RFC8402" format="default"/> 
   or SR Flexible Algorithm IGP path <xref target="RFC9350" format="default"/>. </t>

        <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
                       T1                T2
                      /                   \
             +-------+     Test Packet     +-------+
             |       | - - - - - - - - - ->|       |
             |   S1  |=====================|   R1  |
             |       |<- - - - - - - - - - |       |
             +-------+  Reply Test Packet  +-------+
                      \                   /
                       T4                T3

         STAMP Session-Sender        STAMP Session-Reflector

                       Reference Topology
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-3" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Overview</name>
      <t>
    For performance measurement in SR networks, the STAMP Session-Sender and 
    Session-Reflector can use the base test packets defined <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>.
    The test packets defined in <xref target="RFC8972" format="default"/>, however, are preferred because of the extensions  
    being used in SR environments.
    The STAMP test packets MUST be encapsulated and transmitted on a
    desired SR path under measurement.  The STAMP
    test packets are encapsulated using IP/UDP header and may 
    use Destination UDP port 862 <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>. In this document,
    the STAMP test packets using IP/UDP header are considered for SR networks, 
    where the STAMP test packets are further encapsulated with an SR-MPLS or SRv6 header.</t>
      <t>The STAMP test packets are used in one-way, two-way (i.e., round-trip) and loopback measurement modes in SR networks. 
    Note that one-way and round-trip are referred to in <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/> 
    and are further described in this document because of the introduction of 
    loopback measurement mode in SR networks.  The procedures defined in this document 
    are also applicable to measure packet loss in SR networks.</t>
      <t>The procedure defined in <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/> is used to measure packet loss based 
    on the transmission and reception of the STAMP test packets.  
    The optional STAMP extensions defined in <xref target="RFC8972" format="default"/> are used for
    direct measurement of packet loss in SR networks.</t>
      <t>The STAMP test packets are transmitted on the same path as the data 
    traffic flow under measurement to measure the delay and packet 
    loss experienced by the data traffic flow.</t>
      <t>Typically, the STAMP test packets are transmitted along an IP path 
    between a Session-Sender and a Session-Reflector to measure delay and 
    packet loss along that IP path.  Matching the forward and reverse 
    direction paths for STAMP test packets, even for directly connected 
    nodes are not guaranteed.</t>
      <t>It may be desired in SR networks that the same path (same set of 
    links and nodes) between the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector 
    be used for the STAMP test packets in both directions.  
    This is achieved by using the optional STAMP extensions for SR-MPLS 
    and SRv6 networks specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/>.  
    The STAMP Session-Reflector uses the return path parameters 
    for the reply test packet from the received STAMP test packet,
    as described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/>.
    This way signaling and maintaining dynamic SR network state for 
    the STAMP sessions on the Session-Reflector are avoided.</t>
      <section anchor="sect-3.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Example STAMP Reference Model</name>
        <t>
    An example of a STAMP reference model with some of the typical measurement 
    parameters including the Destination UDP port 
    for STAMP test session is shown in the following Figure 1:</t>
        <figure anchor="ure-example-reference-model">
          <name>Example STAMP Reference Model</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[

                            +------------+
                            | Controller |
                            +------------+
                                /    \
  Destination UDP Port         /      \      Destination UDP Port
  Authentication Mode         /        \     Authentication Mode
      Keychain               /          \        Keychain
  Timestamp Format          /            \   Timestamp Format
  Packet Loss Type         /              \  Session-Reflector Mode
  Delay Measurement Mode  /                \
                         v                  v
                     +-------+          +-------+
                     |       |          |       |
                     |   S1  |==========|   R1  |
                     |       |          |       |
                     +-------+          +-------+

              STAMP Session-Sender  STAMP Session-Reflector
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>A Destination UDP port number MUST be selected as described in
    <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>.  The same Destination UDP 
    port is used for the STAMP test sessions for link and end-to-end SR paths.
    In this case, the Destination UDP port does not distinguish between 
    the link or end-to-end SR path STAMP test sessions.</t>
        <t>Example of the Timestamp Format is Precision Time Protocol 64-bit truncated 
    (PTPv2) <xref target="IEEE1588" format="default"/> and Network Time Protocol (NTP).
    By default, the Session-Reflector replies in kind to the timestamp 
    format received in the received Session-Sender test packet, 
    as indicated by the "Z" field in the Error Estimate field 
    as described in <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>.</t>
        <t>The Session-Reflector mode can be Stateful or Stateless as 
    defined in <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>.</t>
        <t>Example of Delay Measurement Mode is one-way, two-way (i.e., round-trip) and 
    loopback mode as described in this document.</t>
        <t>Example of Packet Loss Type can be round-trip, near-end (forward direction) and far-end 
    (backward direction) packet loss as defined in <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>.</t>
        <t>When using the authentication mode for the STAMP test sessions, the matching
    Authentication Type (e.g., HMAC-SHA-256) and Keychain MUST be user-configured
    on STAMP Session-Sender and STAMP Session-Reflector <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>.</t>
        <t>The controller shown in the example reference model is intended for provisioning the STAMP test sessions and not intended 
    for the dynamic signaling of the SR parameters for STAMP test sessions 
    between the STAMP Session-Sender and STAMP Session-Reflector.</t>
        <t>Note that the YANG data model defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang" format="default"/>
    can be used to provision the STAMP Session-Sender and STAMP Session-Reflector and for streaming telemetry of the operational data.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-4" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Delay Measurement for Links and SR Paths</name>
      <section anchor="sect-4.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Session-Sender Test Packet</name>
        <t>
   The content of an example Session-Sender test packet using an IP and  
   UDP header <xref target="RFC0768" format="default"/> is shown in Figure 2. 
   The payload contains the Session-Sender test 
   packet defined in Section 3 of <xref target="RFC8972" format="default"/>
   as transmitted in an IP network. 
   Note that <xref target="RFC8972" format="default"/> updates the Session-Sender 
   test packet defined in <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/> 
   with optional STAMP Session Identifier (SSID).
   The SR encapsulation of the STAMP test packet 
   is further described later in this document. 
        </t>
        <figure anchor="ure-dm-sender-test-packet">
          <name>Example Session-Sender Test Packet</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | IP Header                                                     |
 .  Source IP Address = Session-Sender IPv4 or IPv6 Address      .
 .  Destination IP Address=Session-Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address.
 .  Protocol = UDP                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | UDP Header                                                    |
 .  Source Port = Dynamically 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                            .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <section anchor="sect-4.1.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Session-Sender Test Packet for Links</name>
          <t>
   The Session-Sender test packet as shown in Figure 2 is 
   transmitted over the link for delay measurement.
   The local and remote IP addresses of the link are used 
   as Source and Destination Addresses, respectively. 
   For IPv6 links, the link local addresses <xref target="RFC7404" format="default"/> can be used in the IPv6 header.
   The Session-Sender MAY use the local Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) table,
   Neighbor Solicitation or other bootstrap method to find the IP address for the links and refresh.
   SR encapsulation (e.g., adjacency SID of the link) can be added for transmitting the STAMP test packets for links.
          </t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-4.1.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Session-Sender Test Packet for SR Paths</name>
          <t> The delay measurement for end-to-end SR path in an SR network is
  applicable to both end-to-end SR-MPLS and SRv6 paths including SR Policies and 
  SR Flexible Algorithm IGP path.</t>

          <t>The Session-Sender (the head-end of the SR Policy, for example) 
   IPv4 or IPv6 address MUST be used as the Source Address in the IP header of the STAMP test packet. 
   The Session-Reflector (the SR Policy endpoint, for example) IPv4 or IPv6 address MUST be
   used as the Destination Address in the IP header of the STAMP test packet.</t>

          <t>In the case of SR Policy with Color-Only Destination Steering, with endpoint as unspecified address 
   (the null endpoint is 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 or :: for IPv6 (all bits set to the 0 value)) as 
   defined in Section 8.8.1 of <xref target="RFC9256" format="default"/>,
   the loopback address from the range 127/8 for IPv4, or the loopback address ::1/128 
   for IPv6 <xref target="RFC4291" format="default"/> can be used as the ultimate Destination 
   Address in the IP header of the STAMP test packets, respectively.</t>

          <t>In the case of SR-MPLS Flexible Algorithm IGP path, the STAMP test packets carry the 
   Flexible Algorithm Node SID on the Session-Reflector in the MPLS header.</t>

          <t>In the case of SRv6 Flexible Algorithm IGP path, the STAMP test packets carry the 
   Flexible Algorithm Node SID on the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector as the Source and Destination Address in the IPv6 header, respectively.</t>

          <section anchor="sect-4.1.2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Session-Sender Test Packet for SR-MPLS Policies</name>
            <t>
   An SR-MPLS Policy may contain a number of Segment Lists (SLs).
   Each Segment List may contain a number of MPLS Labels.
   A Session-Sender test packet MUST be transmitted using each Segment List of the SR-MPLS Policy.
   The content of an example Session-Sender test packet for an
   end-to-end SR-MPLS Policy is shown in Figure 3.</t>
            <figure anchor="ure-test-packet-for-sr-mpls-policy">
              <name>Example Session-Sender Test Packet for SR-MPLS Policy</name>
              <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Segment(1)             | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Segment(n)             | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                PSID (optional)        | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Test Packet as shown in Figure 2               |
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
            </figure>
            <t>The Segment List can be empty in the case of a single-hop SR-MPLS Policy with Implicit NULL label.</t>
            <t>The Path Segment Identifier (PSID) <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment" format="default"/> of
   an SR-MPLS Policy can be carried in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 3,
   and can be used for direct measurement as described in Section 6, titled "Direct Measurement for Links and SR Paths".</t>
          </section>

 
      <section anchor="sect-4.1.2.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Session-Sender Test Packet for SRv6 Policies</name>
            <t>
   An SRv6 Policy may contain a number of Segment Lists.
   Each Segment List may contain a number of SRv6 SIDs as defined in  
   <xref target="RFC8986" format="default"/>.
   The Segment in the Segment List may be an SRv6 C-SID container as defined 
   in <xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression" format="default"/>. 
   A Session-Sender test packet MUST be transmitted using each Segment List of the SRv6 Policy.
   An SRv6 Policy may contain an SRv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) carrying 
   a Segment List as described in <xref target="RFC8754" format="default"/> and <xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression" format="default"/>. 
   The content of an example Session-Sender test packet for an end-to-end 
   SRv6 Policy using an SRH is shown in Figure 4.</t>
            <t>The SRv6 network programming is described in <xref target="RFC8986" format="default"/>. 
   The procedure defined for Upper-Layer (UL) Header processing for SRv6 End SIDs 
   in Section 4.1.1 of <xref target="RFC8986" format="default"/>
   MUST be used to process the IPv6/UDP header in the received test packets
   on the Session-Reflector.</t>
            <figure anchor="ure-test-packet-for-srv6-policy">
              <name>Example Session-Sender Test Packet for SRv6 Policy</name>
              <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | IP Header                                                     |
 .  Source IP Address = Session-Sender IPv6 Address              .
 .  Destination IP Address=Session-Reflector IPv6 Address |      .
 .                Segment List[Segments Left]                    . 
 .  Next-Header = 43, Routing Type =  SRH (4)                    .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | SRH as specified in RFC 8754                                  |
 .  <PSID (optional), Segment List>                              .
 .  Next-Header = UDP (17)                                       .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | UDP Header                                                    |
 .  Source Port = Dynamically 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                            .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
            </figure>
   <t>The Destination Address may carry SRv6 C-SIDs <xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression" format="default"/>.</t>
   <t>The Segment List (SL) of an SR Policy may be empty and no SRH may be carried.</t>
   <t>The Path Segment Identifier (PSID) <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment" format="default"/> of
   the SRV6 Policy can be carried in the SRH as shown in Figure 4 
   and can be used for direct measurement as described in 
   Section 6, titled "Direct Measurement for Links and SR Paths".</t>
          </section>

      </section>

      <section anchor="sect-4.1.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Session-Sender Test Packet for Service over SR Path</name>

    <t>The delay measurement procedure defined in this document for end-to-end SR path is also applicable to 
    VPN services in an SR network for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes.</t>

          <section anchor="sect-4.1.3.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Session-Sender Test Packet for Service over SR-MPLS Path</name>
          <t>
     The delay measurement of end-to-end VPN service over SR-MPLS path, the same MPLS label stack as the 
     data packets of the service including the service MPLS label is used by the Session-Sender test packets. 
     The Source Address and Destination Address added in the IP header of the test packets MUST be 
     reachable via the specific IP table lookup associated with the service MPLS label used. 
    </t>
      </section>

          <section anchor="sect-4.1.3.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Session-Sender Test Packet for Service over SRv6 Path</name>
            <t>
    The delay measurement of end-to-end VPN service over SRv6 path, the same IPv6/SRv6 header as the 
    data packets of the service including the service SRv6 SID (for example, End.DT6 SID, End.DT4 SID, etc. 
    defined in <xref target="RFC8986" format="default"/>) is used by the Session-Sender test packets. 
    An inner IP header MUST be added in the test packets and the Source Address and Destination Address added 
    in the inner IP header MUST be reachable via the specific IPv4 or IPv6 table lookup associated with the service SRv6 SID. 
        </t>
          </section>

      </section>
      </section>


      <section anchor="sect-4.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Session-Reflector Test Packet</name>
        <t>
   The Session-Reflector reply test packet uses the IP/UDP
   information from the received test packet as shown in Figure 5.
   The payload contains the Session-Reflector test 
   packet defined in Section 3 of <xref target="RFC8972" format="default"/>.</t>
        <figure anchor="ure-test-reply-packet">
          <name>Example Session-Reflector Test Packet</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | IP Header                                                     |
 .  Source IP Address = Session-Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address   .
 .  Destination IP Address                                       .
 .              = Source IP Address from Received Test Packet    .
 .  Protocol = UDP                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | 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                            .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <section anchor="sect-4.2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>One-Way Measurement Mode</name>
          <t>
   In one-way delay measurement mode, a reply test packet
   as shown in Figure 5 is transmitted by the Session-Reflector,
   for both links and end-to-end SR Policies.  The reply test packet MAY be 
   transmitted on the same path or a different path in the reverse direction.</t>
          <t>The Session-Sender address may not
   be reachable via IP route from the Session-Reflector.  The Session-Sender
   in this case MUST send its reachability path information to the
   Session-Reflector using the Return Path TLV defined 
   in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/>.</t>
          <t>In this mode, as per Reference Topology, 
   all timestamps T1, T2, T3, and T4 are collected by the STAMP test packets.
   However, only timestamps T1 and T2 are used to measure one-way delay as (T2 - T1).
   Note that delay value (T2-T1) is also referred to as near-end (forward direction) one-way delay
   and delay value (T4-T3) is referred to as far-end (backward direction) one-way delay.
   The one-way delay measurement mode requires the clocks on the Session-Sender 
   and Session-Reflector to be synchronized.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-4.2.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Two-Way Measurement Mode</name>
          <t>
   In two-way (i.e., round-trip) delay measurement mode, a reply test packet as shown in 
   Figure 5 SHOULD be transmitted by the Session-Reflector 
   on the same path in the reverse direction as the forward direction, 
   e.g., on the reverse direction link or associated reverse SR path
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path" format="default"/>.</t>

          <t>In two-way delay measurement mode for links, 
   the Session-Sender can request in the test packet to the 
   Session-Reflector to transmit the reply test packet back on the same link in an ECMP environment.
   It may use 
   the Control Code Sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/>.
   The Session-Reflector 
   MUST transmit the reply test packet on the same link where the test packet 
   is received when the Control Code Sub-TLV 
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/> is included in the test packet. 
          </t>

          <t>In two-way delay measurement mode for end-to-end SR paths, 
   the Session-Sender
   can request in the test packet to the Session-Reflector to
   transmit the reply test packet back on a specific reverse path in an ECMP environment.
   It may use a Segment List sub-TLV in the 
   Return Path TLV defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/>.
   The Session-Reflector MUST transmit 
   the reply test packet on the specified reverse path when the Return Path 
   TLV <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/> is included in the test packet.  
          </t>

          <t>In this mode, as per Reference Topology, 
   all timestamps T1, T2, T3, and T4 are collected by the test packets.
   All four timestamps are used to measure two-way delay as ((T4 - T1) - (T3 - T2)).
   When clock synchronization on the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector nodes is
   not possible, the one-way delay can be derived using two-way delay divided by two.</t>
          <section anchor="sect-4.2.2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Session-Reflector Test Packet for SR-MPLS Policies</name>
            <t>
   The content of an example Session-Reflector reply test packet transmitted on the
   same path as the data traffic flow under measurement for two-way delay 
   measurement of an end-to-end SR-MPLS Policy is shown in Figure 6.</t>
            <figure anchor="ure-test-reply-packet-for-sr-mpls-policy">
              <name>Example Session-Reflector Test Packet for SR-MPLS Policy</name>
              <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Segment(1)             | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Segment(n)             | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Test Packet as shown in Figure 5               |
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
            </figure>
          </section>
          <section anchor="sect-4.2.2.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Session-Reflector Test Packet for SRv6 Policies</name>
            <t>
   The content of an example Session-Reflector reply test packet transmitted on the
   same path as the data traffic flow under measurement for two-way delay 
   measurement of an end-to-end SRv6 Policy using an SRH is shown in Figure 7.</t>
            <t>The procedure defined for Upper-Layer Header processing for SRv6 End SIDs
   in Section 4.1.1 in <xref target="RFC8986" format="default"/>
   MUST be used to process the IPv6/UDP header in the received reply test packets
   on the Session-Sender.</t>
            <figure anchor="ure-test-reply-packet-for-srv6-policy">
              <name>Example Session-Reflector Test Packet for SRv6 Policy</name>
              <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | IP Header                                                     |
 .  Source IP Address = Session-Reflector IPv6 Address           .
 .  Destination IP Address=Session-Sender IPv6 Address |         .
 .                Segment List[Segments Left]                    . 
 .  Next-Header = 43, Routing Type = SRH (4)                     .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | SRH as specified in RFC 8754                                  |
 .  <Segment List>                                               .
 .  Next-Header = UDP (17)                                       .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | 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                            .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
            </figure>
          </section>
        </section>

        <section anchor="sect-4.2.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Loopback Measurement Mode</name>
          <t>
   The Session-Sender test packets are transmitted in loopback mode to 
   measure loopback delay of a bidirectional circular path. In this mode,  
   the received Session-Sender test packets MUST NOT be punted out of the fast path in forwarding 
   (i.e., to slow path or control-plane) at the Session-Reflector. In other words, 
   the Session-Reflector does not process them and generate Session-Reflector test packets.
   This is a new measurement mode, not defined by the STAMP process in   
   <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>.
          </t>
          <t>In this mode, as per Reference Topology, the test packet received back 
   at the Session-Sender retrieves the timestamp T1 from the test packet and adds the received timestamp T4 locally. 
   Both these timestamps are used to measure the loopback delay as (T4 - T1).  
   The one-way delay can be derived using the loopback delay divided by two.  
   In loopback mode, the loopback delay includes the processing delay on the Session-Reflector.
   The Session-Reflector processing delay component includes only the time
   required to loop the test packet from the incoming interface to the
   outgoing interface in the forwarding plane.
          </t>

          <section anchor="sect-4.2.3.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
            <name>Loopback Measurement Mode STAMP Packet Processing</name>
            <t>The Session-Sender MUST set the Destination UDP port to 
   the UDP port it uses to receive the reply test packets (other than UDP port 862).
   Since the Session-Reflector does not support the STAMP process, the loopback function simply 
   makes the necessary changes to the encapsulation including IP, SR and UDP headers 
   to forward the test packet to the Session-Sender.  The typical Session-Reflector test packet 
   is not used in this mode.  The loopback function simply returns the received Session-Sender test packet 
   to the Session-Sender without STAMP modifications defined in <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>.
            </t>
            <t>The Session-Sender may use the STAMP Session ID (SSID) field in the received reply test packet 
   or local configuration to identify its test session that uses the loopback mode.
   At the Session-Sender, the 'Session-Sender Sequence Number', 'Session-Sender Timestamp', 
   'Session-Sender Error Estimate', and 'Session-Sender TTL' fields in the received Session-Sender 
   test packets are not applicable in this mode and MUST be ignored.
            </t>
    </section>

   <section anchor="sect-4.2.3.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
       <name>Loopback Measurement Mode for Links</name>
   <t>
   In the case of loopback mode for links, an inner IP header for return path is added as shown in Figure 9 
   in the Session-Sender test packets and it MUST set the Destination Address equal to the Session-Sender address.
      </t>

        <figure anchor="ure-dm-sender-test-packet-lb-return">
          <name>Example Session-Sender Return Test Packet in Loopback</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Inner IP Header (Return Path)                                 |
 .  Source IP Address = Session-Sender IP Address                .
 .  Destination IP Address = Session-Sender IP Address           .
 .  Protocol = UDP                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | UDP Header                                                    |
 .  Source Port = Dynamically chosen by Session-Sender           .
 .  Destination Port = Source Port                               .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972   |
 .           in Figure 1 and Figure 3                            .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>


        <figure anchor="ure-dm-sender-test-packet-lb">
          <name>Example Session-Sender Test Packet in Loopback</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | IP Header                                                     |
 .  Source IP Address = Session-Sender IP Address                .
 .  Destination IP Address = Session-Reflector IP Address        .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 |                Test Packet as shown in Figure 8               |
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>

   </section>

   <section anchor="sect-4.2.3.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
       <name>Loopback Measurement Mode for SR-MPLS Policies</name>
   <t>
   In the case of loopback mode for SR-MPLS paths, the SR-MPLS header can contain the MPLS label stack of 
   the forward SR path only or both the forward and the reverse SR paths.
   </t> 

         <figure anchor="ure-dm-sender-test-packet-lb-mpls">
          <name>Example Session-Sender Test Packet for SR-MPLS in Loopback</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Segment(1)             | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Segment(n)             | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Test Packet as shown in Figure 8               |
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>

   <section anchor="sect-4.2.3.3.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
       <name>Reverse SR-MPLS Path</name>
   <t>
   In the case where the packet carries both the forward and the
   reverse SR paths, in order to receive the return test packet on a specific
   SR path in an ECMP environment, the MPLS label stack of the specific reverse direction path 
   is used. For example, it may contain the corresponding MPLS label stack of the 
   Reverse SR Policy <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path" format="default"/>
   or the Binding SID of the reverse SR Policy or the node Segment Identifier of the Session-Sender.</t> 

   <t>
   The IP header of the SR-MPLS Session-Sender test packets
   MUST set the Destination Address equal to the Session-Sender address as shown in Figure 10.
   </t>

   </section>

   <section anchor="sect-4.2.3.3.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
       <name>Reverse IP/UDP Path</name>
   <t>
   In the case of loopback mode for SR-MPLS paths, the SR-MPLS header can contain the MPLS label stack of 
   the forward SR path only.
   In the case of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) for SR-MPLS Policy, the Session-Sender MUST ensure that 
   the STAMP test packets reach the Session-Reflector (for example, by adding an IPv4 header for the forward direction path).
   The inner IP header for return path of the SR-MPLS Session-Sender test packets
   MUST set the Destination Address equal to the Session-Sender address as shown in Figure 10.
   </t>

   </section>
   </section>

   <section anchor="sect-4.2.3.4" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Loopback Measurement Mode for SRv6 Policies</name>
   <t>In the case of loopback mode for SRv6 paths, the test packet can either contain the Segment List of the forward SRv6 path only or both
   the forward and the reverse SRv6 paths. 
   </t>

       <section anchor="sect-4.2.3.4.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Reverse SRv6 Path</name>
   <t>In the case where the packet carries both the forward and the
   reverse SRv6 paths, in order to receive the return test packet on a specific
   path in an ECMP environment, the Segment List carries the specific reverse direction SRv6 path. 
   For example, the Segment List may contain the Segment List of the 
   Reverse SR Policy <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path" format="default"/>
   or the Binding SID of the reverse SR Policy or the node Segment Identifier of the Session-Sender.  
   In this case, an inner IPv6 header is not required. </t>

    <t>
   In the case of loopback mode for SRv6 paths, the IPv6 Destination Address can also 
   contain the SRv6 C-SID container <xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression" format="default"/> 
   for both the forward and the reverse paths. In the case where the packet contains 
   both the forward and the reverse SRv6 paths as the C-SID container in the IPv6 Destination Address, an inner IPv6 header is not required. </t>  

    </section>


   <section anchor="sect-4.2.3.4.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
	<name>Reverse IP/UDP Path</name>
   <t>In the case of loopback mode for SRv6 paths, the test packet can contain the Segment List of the forward SRv6 path only. 
   </t>

   <t>In the case where the packet contains only the forward SRv6 path, 
   an inner IPv6 header (before
   the UDP header) is added that MUST set the Destination Address equal
   to the Session-Sender address.  In this case, the inner IPv6
   return path is used to forward the packet to the Session-Sender.</t>

    <t>
   In the case of loopback mode for SRv6 paths, the IPv6 Destination Address can also 
   contain the SRv6 C-SID container <xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression" format="default"/> 
   for the forward path only.</t>

   <t>In the case of Penultimate Segment Popping (PSP) for SRv6 Policy, the Session-Sender MUST ensure that 
   the STAMP test packets reach the Session-Reflector (for example, by adding the Node SID of the Session-Reflector in the path).</t>

    </section>
    </section>

        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-4.6" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Delay Measurement for P2MP SR Policies</name>
        <t>
   The Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) SR path
   that originates from a root node terminates on multiple destinations called leaf nodes 
   (e.g., P2MP SR Policy <xref target="I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy" format="default"/>).</t>
        <t>The procedures for delay and loss measurement described in this
   document for end-to-end P2P SR Policies are also equally applicable to the P2MP SR Policies. 
   The procedure for one-way measurement is defined as following:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>The Session-Sender root node transmits test packets using the
      Tree-SID defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy" format="default"/> for the
      P2MP SR-MPLS Policy as shown in Figure 11.  The Session-Sender test packets may contain
      the replication SID as defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment" format="default"/>.</li>
          <li>The Destination Address MUST be set to the loopback 
      address from the range 127/8 for IPv4, or the loopback address ::1/128 for IPv6.</li>
          <li>Each Session-Reflector leaf node MUST transmit its node address in the Source
      Address of the reply test packets shown in Figure 5.  This
      allows the Session-Sender root node to identify the Session-Reflector leaf nodes
      of the P2MP SR Policy.</li>
          <li>The P2MP root node measures the delay for each P2MP leaf node individually.</li>
      <li>The Return Segment List Sub-TLV defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/>
      is also applicable to the P2MP SR paths. 
      For P2MP SR paths, the TLV may 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. 
      </li>
        </ul>

        <figure anchor="ure-with-replication-segment-for-sr-mpls-policy">
          <name>Example Session-Sender Test Packet with Tree-SID for SR-MPLS Policy</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              Tree-SID                 | TC  |S|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |   Test Packet as shown in Figure 2                            |
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>


        <t>The considerations for two-way measurement mode (e.g., for co-routed
   bidirectional SR-MPLS path) and loopback measurement mode for P2MP
   SR-MPLS Policy are outside the scope of this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-4.5" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Additional STAMP Test Packet Processing Rules</name>
        <t>
   The processing rules described in this section are applicable to the
   STAMP test packets for links and end-to-end SR paths including SR Policies.</t>
        <section anchor="sect-4.5.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>TTL</name>
          <t>
   The TTL field in the IPv4 and MPLS headers of the
   Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packet 
   MUST be set to 255 as per Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) <xref target="RFC5082" format="default"/>.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-4.5.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>IPv6 Hop Limit</name>
          <t>
   The Hop Limit (HL) field in the IPv6 and SRH headers of the
   Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packet
   MUST be set to 255 as per Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) <xref target="RFC5082" format="default"/>.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="sect-4.5.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Router Alert Option</name>
          <t>
   The Router Alert IP option (RAO) <xref target="RFC2113" format="default"/> MUST NOT 
   be set in the STAMP test packets for links and end-to-end SR paths.</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="sect-4.5.4" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>IPv6 Flow Label</name>
          <t>
  The Flow Label field in the IPv6 header of the STAMP test packet is set to the value that is used by the 
  data traffic flow on the SR path being measured by the Session-Sender. 
  The Session-Reflector returns the same Flow Label value it received in the STAMP test packet 
  IPv6 header in the STAMP reply test packet, 
  and it can be based on the local policy on the Session-Reflector.
   </t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="sect-4.5.5" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>UDP Checksum</name>
          <t>For IPv4 test packets, where the hardware is not capable
    of re-computing the UDP checksum or adding checksum complement
    <xref target="RFC7820" format="default"/>, the Session-Sender can set the UDP checksum value to 0 <xref target="RFC8085" format="default"/>.</t>
          <t>For IPv6 test packets, where the hardware is not capable
    of re-computing the UDP checksum or adding checksum complement
    <xref target="RFC7820" format="default"/>, the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector
    can use the procedure defined in <xref target="RFC6936" format="default"/>
    for the UDP checksum for the UDP port being used for STAMP.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="sect-5" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Packet Loss Measurement for Links and SR Paths</name>
      <t>
   The procedure described in Section 4 for delay measurement using STAMP test packets 
   can also be used to detect packet loss for links and end-to-end SR paths.
   The Sequence Number field in the STAMP test packet is used as 
   described in Section 4 "Theory of Operation" 
   where Stateful and Stateless Session-Reflector operations are defined            
   <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>, to detect round-trip, near-end (forward direction) and far-end 
   (backward direction) packet loss. </t>

   <t>In the case of Stateless Session-Reflector, only the detection of round-trip packet loss is applicable.
   In the case of the loopback mode introduced 
   in this document, only the detection of round-trip packet loss is applicable.</t>

   <t>This method as defined in <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/> can be used for inferred packet loss measurement,
   however, it provides only approximate view of the data packet loss.</t>

    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-6" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Direct Measurement for Links and SR Paths</name>
      <t>
   The STAMP "Direct Measurement" TLV (Type 5) defined in <xref target="RFC8972" format="default"/> 
   can be used in SR networks for data packet loss measurement.
   The STAMP test packets with this TLV are transmitted using the
   procedures described in Section 4 for delay measurement using STAMP test packets to collect the transmit and receive counters 
   of the data packet flow for the links and end-to-end SR paths.</t>

   <t>In the case of the Stateless Session-Reflector, the direct measurement is not applicable.
   In the case of the loopback mode introduced 
   in this document, the direct measurement is not applicable.</t>

      <t>The PSID carried in the received data packet for the traffic
   flow under measurement can be used to measure receive data packets 
   (for receive traffic counter) for an end-to-end SR path  
   on the Stateful Session-Reflector.  The PSID in the received Session-Sender test packet
   header can be used to associate the receive traffic counter on 
   the Stateful Session-Reflector to the end-to-end SR path.</t>

      <t>The STAMP "Direct Measurement" TLV (Type 5) lacks the support to
   identify the Block Number of the Direct Measurement traffic counters, which is  
   required for the Alternate-Marking Method <xref target="RFC9341" format="default"/> 
   for accurate data packet loss metric.</t>
    </section>


    <section anchor="sect-8" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>STAMP Session State for Links and SR Paths</name>
       <t>
       The STAMP test session state monitoring allows to know if the performance measurement test is active or idle. 
       The threshold-based notification for delay and packet loss may not be generated if the delay and packet loss 
       values do not change significantly. For an unambiguous monitoring, the controller needs to distinguish 
       the cases whether the performance measurement is active, or delay and packet loss values are not changing significantly to cross the threshold.</t>
       <t>
    The STAMP test session state is initially notified as active as soon as one or more reply 
    test packets are received at the Session-Sender. The STAMP test session state is notified as 
    idle (or failed) when consecutive N number of reply test packets are not received at the Session-Sender 
    after the session state is notified as active, where N (consecutive packet loss count) is a locally provisioned value. 
    The failed state of the STAMP test session on the Session-Sender also indicates that the connectivity verification to the Session-Reflector has failed.</t>     
       <t>
    In the loopback mode where the Session-Reflector does not generate reply test packets, the connectivity 
    failure on the reverse direction path can cause the return test packets to not reach the Session-Sender. 
    This is also true in the case where the return test packets are generated by the stateless Session-Reflector, 
    e.g., in two-way mode. The stateful Session-Reflector can solve this issue by maintaining the forwarding direction 
    state and signaling the STAMP test session state to the Session-Sender based on the Packet Loss Count, N. 
    This signaling is outside the scope of this document.
       </t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="sect-9" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>ECMP Support for SR Policies</name>
      <t>
   An SR Policy can have ECMPs between the source and transit nodes,
   between transit nodes and between transit and destination nodes.
   Usage of Anycast SID <xref target="RFC8402" format="default"/> by an SR Policy can result in ECMP
   paths via transit nodes part of that Anycast group.  The test
   packets SHOULD be transmitted to traverse different ECMP paths to measure
   end-to-end delay of an SR Policy.</t>
      <t>Forwarding plane has various hashing functions available to forward
   packets on specific ECMP paths.  The mechanisms described in
   <xref target="RFC8029" format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC5884" format="default"/> for 
   handling ECMPs are also applicable to the delay measurement.</t>
      <t>For SR-MPLS Policy, sweeping of MPLS entropy label <xref target="RFC6790" format="default"/> values can 
   be used in Session-Sender test packets and Session-Reflector test 
   packets to take advantage of the hashing function in forwarding 
   plane to influence the ECMP path taken by them.</t>
      <t>In IPv4 header of the Session-Sender test packets,
   sweeping of Session-Reflector Address from the range 127/8 can be 
   used to exercise ECMP paths.  In this case, both the forward and the 
   return paths MUST be SR-MPLS paths when using the loopback mode.</t>
      <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC6437" format="default"/>, Flow Label field in
   the outer IPv6 header can also be used for sweeping to exercise different IPv6 ECMP paths.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-10" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>
   The usage of STAMP protocol is intended for deployment in limited
   domains <xref target="RFC8799" format="default"/>.  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 Session-Reflector.</t>
      <t>If desired, attacks can be mitigated by performing basic validation
   and sanity checks, at the Session-Sender, of the counter or timestamp fields
   in received measurement 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 packet to a
   single test cycle.</t>
      <t>Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data
   integrity of the test packets.  SRv6 can use the HMAC protection
   authentication defined for SRH <xref target="RFC8754" format="default"/>.
   Cryptographic measures may be enhanced by the correct configuration
   of access-control lists and firewalls.</t>
      <t>The security considerations specified in <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>
   and <xref target="RFC8972" format="default"/> also apply to the procedures
   described in this document.  Specifically, the    
   message integrity protection using HMAC, as defined in Section 4.4 of <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/> 
   also apply to the procedure described in this document.</t>
      <t>The Security Considerations specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" format="default"/> 
   are also equally applicable to the procedures defined in this document.</t>
      <t>STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number that could become a target    
   of denial of service (DoS) or could be used to aid man-in-the-middle    
   (MITM) attacks.  Thus, the security considerations and measures to    
   mitigate the risk of the attack documented in Section 6 of <xref target="RFC8545" format="default"/>
   equally apply to the procedures in this document.</t>
      <t>When using the procedures defined in [RFC6936], the 
   security considerations specified in <xref target="RFC6936" format="default"/> also apply.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-11" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>
   This document does not require any IANA action.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC0768" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0768.xml">
          <front>
            <title>User Datagram Protocol</title>
            <author initials="J." surname="Postel" fullname="J. Postel">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="1980" month="August"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="STD" value="6"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="768"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC0768"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="1997" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC6790" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6790.xml">
          <front>
            <title>The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding</title>
            <author initials="K." surname="Kompella" fullname="K. Kompella">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Drake" fullname="J. Drake">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Amante" fullname="S. Amante">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="W." surname="Henderickx" fullname="W. Henderickx">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="L." surname="Yong" fullname="L. Yong">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2012" month="November"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6790"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6790"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2017" month="May"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8762" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8762.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol</title>
            <author initials="G." surname="Mirsky" fullname="G. Mirsky">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Jun" fullname="G. Jun">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="H." surname="Nydell" fullname="H. Nydell">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="R." surname="Foote" fullname="R. Foote">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2020" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8762"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8762"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8972" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8972.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Optional Extensions</title>
            <author initials="G." surname="Mirsky" fullname="G. Mirsky">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="X." surname="Min" fullname="X. Min">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="H." surname="Nydell" fullname="H. Nydell">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="R." surname="Foote" fullname="R. Foote">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="A." surname="Masputra" fullname="A. Masputra">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="E." surname="Ruffini" fullname="E. Ruffini">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2021" month="January"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8972"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8972"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-12.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Simple TWAMP (STAMP) Extensions for Segment Routing Networks</title>
            <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer">
              <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Bart Janssens">
              <organization>Colt</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Richard Foote">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="May" day="29" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-12"/>
        </reference>
      </references>

      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="IEEE1588">
          <front>
            <title>1588-2008 IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems</title>
            <author>
              <organization>IEEE</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="March" year="2008"/>
          </front>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC2113" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2113" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2113.xml">
          <front>
            <title>IP Router Alert Option</title>
            <author initials="D." surname="Katz" fullname="D. Katz">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="1997" month="February"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2113"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2113"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC4291" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml">
          <front>
            <title>IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture</title>
            <author initials="R." surname="Hinden" fullname="R. Hinden">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Deering" fullname="S. Deering">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2006" month="February"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4291"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4291"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC5082" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5082.xml">
          <front>
            <title>The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM)</title>
            <author initials="V." surname="Gill" fullname="V. Gill">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Heasley" fullname="J. Heasley">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="D." surname="Meyer" fullname="D. Meyer">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="P." surname="Savola" fullname="P. Savola" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="C." surname="Pignataro" fullname="C. Pignataro">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2007" month="October"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5082"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5082"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC5884" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5884" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5884.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
            <author initials="R." surname="Aggarwal" fullname="R. Aggarwal">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="K." surname="Kompella" fullname="K. Kompella">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="T." surname="Nadeau" fullname="T. Nadeau">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Swallow" fullname="G. Swallow">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2010" month="June"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5884"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5884"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC6437" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6437.xml">
          <front>
            <title>IPv6 Flow Label Specification</title>
            <author initials="S." surname="Amante" fullname="S. Amante">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="B." surname="Carpenter" fullname="B. Carpenter">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Jiang" fullname="S. Jiang">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Rajahalme" fullname="J. Rajahalme">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2011" month="November"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6437"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6437"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC6936" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6936.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Applicability Statement for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums</title>
            <author initials="G." surname="Fairhurst" fullname="G. Fairhurst">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="M." surname="Westerlund" fullname="M. Westerlund">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2013" month="April"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6936"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6936"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC7404" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7404" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7404.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Using Only Link-Local Addressing inside an IPv6 Network</title>
            <author initials="M." surname="Behringer" fullname="M. Behringer">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="E." surname="Vyncke" fullname="E. Vyncke">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2014" month="November"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7404"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7404"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC7820" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7820" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7820.xml">
          <front>
            <title>UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)</title>
            <author initials="T." surname="Mizrahi" fullname="T. Mizrahi">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2016" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7820"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7820"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8029" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8029.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures</title>
            <author initials="K." surname="Kompella" fullname="K. Kompella">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Swallow" fullname="G. Swallow">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="C." surname="Pignataro" fullname="C. Pignataro" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="N." surname="Kumar" fullname="N. Kumar">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Aldrin" fullname="S. Aldrin">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="M." surname="Chen" fullname="M. Chen">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2017" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8029"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8029"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8085" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8085.xml">
          <front>
            <title>UDP Usage Guidelines</title>
            <author initials="L." surname="Eggert" fullname="L. Eggert">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Fairhurst" fullname="G. Fairhurst">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Shepherd" fullname="G. Shepherd">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2017" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="145"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8085"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8085"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC9341" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9341.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Alternate-Marking Method</title>
            <author initials="G." surname="Fioccola" fullname="G. Fioccola" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="M." surname="Cociglio" fullname="M. Cociglio">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Mirsky" fullname="G. Mirsky">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="T." surname="Mizrahi" fullname="T. Mizrahi">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2022" month="December"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9341"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9341"/>
        </reference>

      <reference anchor="RFC9350" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9350" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9350.xml">
          <front>
            <title>IGP Flexible Algorithm</title>
            <author initials="P." surname="Psenak" fullname="Peter Psenak" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Hegde" fullname="Shraddha Hegde">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="C." surname="Filsfils" fullname="Clarence Filsfils">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="K." surname="Talaulikar" fullname="Ketan Talaulikar">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="A." surname="Gulko" fullname="Arkadiy Gulko">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2023" month="February"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9350"/>
        </reference>

 
        <reference anchor="RFC8402" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8402.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing Architecture</title>
            <author initials="C." surname="Filsfils" fullname="C. Filsfils" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Previdi" fullname="S. Previdi" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="L." surname="Ginsberg" fullname="L. Ginsberg">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="B." surname="Decraene" fullname="B. Decraene">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Litkowski" fullname="S. Litkowski">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="R." surname="Shakir" fullname="R. Shakir">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2018" month="July"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8402"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8402"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8545" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8545.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Well-Known Port Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)</title>
            <author initials="A." surname="Morton" fullname="A. Morton" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="G." surname="Mirsky" fullname="G. Mirsky" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2019" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8545"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8545"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8754" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8754.xml">
          <front>
            <title>IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)</title>
            <author initials="C." surname="Filsfils" fullname="C. Filsfils" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="D." surname="Dukes" fullname="D. Dukes" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Previdi" fullname="S. Previdi">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Leddy" fullname="J. Leddy">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Matsushima" fullname="S. Matsushima">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="D." surname="Voyer" fullname="D. Voyer">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2020" month="March"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8754"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8754"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8799" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8799.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Limited Domains and Internet Protocols</title>
            <author initials="B." surname="Carpenter" fullname="B. Carpenter">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="B." surname="Liu" fullname="B. Liu">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2020" month="July"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8799"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8799"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC8986" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8986.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming</title>
            <author initials="C." surname="Filsfils" fullname="C. Filsfils" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="P." surname="Camarillo" fullname="P. Camarillo" role="editor">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="J." surname="Leddy" fullname="J. Leddy">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="D." surname="Voyer" fullname="D. Voyer">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="S." surname="Matsushima" fullname="S. Matsushima">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author initials="Z." surname="Li" fullname="Z. Li">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="2021" month="February"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8986"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8986"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="RFC9256" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9256.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing Policy Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Ketan Talaulikar">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer">
              <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Alex Bogdanov">
              <organization>British Telecom</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Paul Mattes">
              <organization>Microsoft</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="July" year="2022"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9256"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-04.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Compressed SRv6 Segment List Encoding in SRH</title>
            <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Zhenbin Li">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Bruno Decraene">
              <organization>Orange</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Dennis Cai">
              <organization>Alibaba</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer">
              <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Francois Clad">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Shay Zadok">
              <organization>Broadcom</organization>
            </author>

            <date month="March" day="31" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-04"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-13.txt">
          <front>
            <title>SR Replication Segment for Multi-point Service Delivery</title>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer (editor)">
              <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rishabh Parekh">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Zhaohui Zhang">
              <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="March" day="02" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-13"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-06.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy</title>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer (editor)">
              <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rishabh Parekh">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Zhaohui Zhang">
              <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="April" day="13" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-06"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-08.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network</title>
            <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Han Li">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Royi Zigler">
              <organization>Broadcom</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="September" day="28" year="2022"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-08"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-06.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6)</title>
            <author fullname="Cheng Li">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Dhruv Dhody">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Yongqing Zhu">
              <organization>China Telecom</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="May" day="04" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-06"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-11.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment Routing (SR) Paths</title>
            <author fullname="Cheng Li">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Quan Xiong">
              <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="March" day="08" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-11"/>
        </reference>

        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang" xml:base="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang.xml" target="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-11.txt">
          <front>
            <title>Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model</title>
            <author fullname="Greg Mirsky">
              <organization>ZTE Corp.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Xiao Min">
              <organization>ZTE Corp.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Wei S Luo">
              <organization>Ericsson</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="March" day="13" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-11"/>
        </reference>

        <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>
    </references>

    <section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <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, Gyan Mishra, Xie Jingrong, Amit Dhamija,  
   and Mike Koldychev for reviewing this document and
   providing useful comments and suggestions.  Patrick Khordoc and Radu
   Valceanu have helped improve the mechanisms described in this document.</t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
