<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
<!ENTITY nbsp   "&#160;">
<!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
<!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
<!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3032 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3032.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3931 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3931.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4026 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4026.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4448 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4448.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5462 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5462.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8762 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8762.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8972 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8972.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2104 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2104.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4385 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4385.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5586 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5586.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5082 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5082.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5085 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5085.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5087 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5087.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5921 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5921.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5960 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5960.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6374 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6374.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6658 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6658.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6790 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6790.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC7708 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7708.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC9780 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9780.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC9801 SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9801.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls SYSTEM "https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls.xml">
]>

<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" submissionType="IETF" docName="draft-ietf-mpls-stamp-pw-07" category="std" consensus="true" ipr="trust200902">
<!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.12.0 -->
<!-- Generated by id2xml 1.5.0 on 2020-02-06T01:41:26Z -->
    <?rfc compact="yes"?>
    <?rfc text-list-symbols="oo*+-"?>
    <?rfc subcompact="no"?>
    <?rfc sortrefs="false"?>
    <?rfc symrefs="true"?>
    <?rfc strict="yes"?>
    <?rfc toc="yes"?>

    <front>
    <title abbrev="STAMP in MPLS Networks">Encapsulation of Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol for LSPs and Pseudowires in MPLS Networks</title>

    <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Gandhi">
    <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
    <address>
    <postal><country>Canada</country>
    </postal>
        <email>rgandhi@cisco.com</email>
    </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Patrice Brissette" initials="P." surname="Brissette">
    <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
        <address>
    <postal><country>Canada</country>
    </postal>
        <email>pbrisset@cisco.com</email>
    </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Edward Leyton" initials="E." surname="Leyton">
     <organization>Verizon Wireless</organization>
     <address>
     <email>edward.leyton@verizonwireless.com</email>
     </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Xiao Min" initials="X." surname="Min">
      <organization>ZTE Corp.</organization>
     <address>
       <postal>
         <street/>
         <city>Nanjing</city>
         <region/>
         <code/>
         <country>China</country>
       </postal>
       <email>xiao.min2@zte.com.cn</email>
     </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2026"/>
    <workgroup>MPLS Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract><t>
    This document describes the procedure for encapsulating 
    the Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), defined in RFC 8762, and its optional 
    extensions defined in RFC 8972, in MPLS networks. 
    Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and Pseudowires (PWs) are used in MPLS networks for various services
    including carrying Layer 2 and Layer 3 data packets and may use the Control Word (CW).
    The procedure is also described for encapsulating 
    STAMP test packets with or without the CW and/or an IP/UDP header for LSPs and PWs.
   </t>
    </abstract>
    </front>

    <middle>
    <section title="Introduction" anchor="sect-1">
  
   <t>The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) provides
   capabilities for measuring various metrics in IP networks
   <xref target="RFC8762"/> without the use of a control channel to 
   pre-signal session parameters.  <xref target="RFC8972"/> defines optional extensions for STAMP.
   </t>

   <t>Label Switched Paths (LSPs) are used in MPLS networks for various services, 
   including carrying Layer 2 and Layer 3 data packets.
   LSPs can be point-to-point or point-to-multipoint. 
   STAMP encapsulations for point-to-multipoint LSPs are outside the scope of this document.
   This document specifies STAMP encapsulations for point-to-point LSPs.
   </t>

   <t>Pseudowires (PWs) are used in MPLS networks for various services, 
   including carrying Layer 2 and Layer 3 data packets <xref target="RFC6658"/>.
   PWs are bidirectional in nature.  
   PWs may use the Control Word (CW) as defined in Section 3 of <xref target="RFC4385"/>.
   This document covers STAMP encapsulations for point-to-point PWs,
   whereas point-to-multipoint PWs are outside the scope of this document.
   PWs can be single-segment PWs or multi-segment PWs. 
   This document specifies STAMP encapsulations for single-segment PWs whereas 
   multi-segment PWs are outside the scope of this document.
   </t>

   <t>
   MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) <xref target="RFC5960"/> is designed to use the MPLS data plane without any changes.
   Therefore, when STAMP is specified over an MPLS data plane, it is equally
   applicable to MPLS-TP networks. 
   As specified in Section 2 of <xref target="RFC5921"/>, 
   "OAM and protection mechanisms, and forwarding of data packets, must
   be able to operate without IP forwarding support".
   </t>

   <t>
   A Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) <xref target="RFC5586"/> provides a mechanism 
   to transport Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) and 
   other control messages over the MPLS data plane. The G-ACh 
   types identify the various OAM messages that are being transported over the channel.
   </t> 

   <t>
   Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) is used as a Control Channel for PWs as described in <xref target="RFC5085"/>.
   A G-ACh can be used as a VCCV Control Channel as described in <xref target="RFC7708"/>.
   </t>

   <t>
   When using STAMP for MPLS and MPLS-TP for both LSPs and PWs, 
   there are unique aspects that need to be considered concerning the use of CW,
   and these aspects are addressed in this document.
   </t>

   <t>This document describes the procedure for the encapsulation of STAMP, 
   defined in <xref target="RFC8762"/>, and its optional extensions, defined 
   in <xref target="RFC8972"/>, for LSPs and PWs in MPLS networks.  
   The procedure is also described for encapsulating 
   STAMP test packets with or without the CW and/or an IP/UDP header for LSPs and PWs.
   </t>

   <t>
   This document defines two new G-ACh types when using STAMP without an IP/UDP header.
   These types are independent of the PW demultiplexer type and hence applicable to both
   the PW label and the Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol version 3 (L2TPv3) PW demultiplexer. 
   This document uses the existing G-ACh types for IPv4 and IPv6 when using the STAMP test packets with an IP/UDP header for the LSPs and PWs that carry CW.
   </t>

   <t>
   Additional considerations for encapsulating STAMP for performance measurement of Segment Routing 
   LSPs over the MPLS data plane are described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls"/>, and
   are outside the scope of this document.
   </t>

   <section title="Requirements" anchor="sect-1.1">

   <t>
   The STAMP test packets need to be transmitted with the same 
   label stack as that used by the LSPs and PWs to ensure proper validation 
   of the underlay path taken by the actual data traffic. Also, the STAMP test packets need 
   to follow the same Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) underlay path taken by the LSPs and PWs data traffic in the network. 
   PW data traffic may be encapsulated using CW as defined in Section 3 of <xref target="RFC4385"/> and an IP header.
   As such, STAMP test packets need to be transmitted over these PWs using a G-ACh and an IP/UDP header.
   </t>

   <t>
   When a STAMP test packet is transmitted to a target IP address of a STAMP Session-Reflector, it would be 
   encapsulated for an MPLS LSP by the data plane based on the reachability of the IP address over the LSP.
   Hence, the STAMP test packets would be treated the same way as the data traffic forwarded over the LSP by the transit nodes along the path.
   </t>

   <t>
   Data traffic over the L2-Specific Sublayer (L2SS), as used in L2TPv3 PWs, carries CW but does not carry an IP/UDP header.
   As such, STAMP test packets need to be transmitted over these L2TPv3 PWs
   using a G-ACh carrying only the STAMP payload without any IP/UDP header.
   </t>

   <t>
   Private Line Emulation (PLE) <xref target="RFC9801"/> 
   traffic is sent over a Packet Switched Network (PSN) as Virtual Private Wire Services (VPWS) using PWs.
   The data packets are encapsulated with PLE CW, but they do not carry any IP header. 
   As such, STAMP test packets need to be transmitted using the same label stack,
   including the VPWS PW Label as the PLE traffic <xref target="RFC9801"/>, 
   and encapsulated using a G-ACh but without an IP/UDP header.
   This allows STAMP test packets to experience the same forwarding 
   behaviour, follow the same underlay path as the PLE traffic, and avoid different ECMP behaviour on intermediate nodes.</t> 

   <t>
   The G-ACh types allow for the demultiplexing of the VCCV Control Channel for PWs <xref target="RFC7708"/>. 
   The G-ACh types for STAMP test packets with or without IP/UDP headers are also used to demultiplex the VCCV Control Channel for PWs.
   Signaling extensions for the VCCV Control Channel for PWs for STAMP are outside the scope of this document.
   </t>

   <t>
   The G-ACh provides support for the OAM Control Channel associated
   with MPLS-TP <xref target="RFC5960"/> LSPs and PWs.
   The OAM Control Channel for MPLS-TP needs to be extended to encapsulate STAMP test packets 
   (just like the delay and loss measurement packets defined in <xref target="RFC6374"/>).
   The G-ACh types for STAMP also allow for the demultiplexing of the OAM Control Channel for MPLS-TP.
   </t>
   
   <t>
   The requirements for the encapsulation of 
   the STAMP test packets for the LSPs and PWs in MPLS networks can be summarized as follows:
   </t>

  <ul>
  <li>
  <t>The G-ACh MUST support STAMP test packets with an IP/UDP header.</t>
  </li>
  <li>
  <t>The G-ACh MUST support STAMP test packets without an IP/UDP header.</t>
  </li>
  <li>
  <t>The G-ACh types MUST support demultiplexing of the Control Channel for STAMP test packets.</t>
  </li>
  <li>
  <t>Session-Sender test packets MUST follow the underlay path taken by the data traffic that uses CW.</t>
  </li>
  <li>
  <t>Session-Sender test packets MUST follow the same ECMP underlay path taken by the data traffic that uses CW and an Entropy Label defined in <xref target="RFC6790"/>.</t>
  </li>
  <li>
  <t>Session-Sender test packets MUST follow the same ECMP underlay path taken by the data traffic that uses CW but does not use an Entropy Label defined in <xref target="RFC6790"/>.</t>
  </li>
  <li>
  <t>Session-Reflector test packets MAY follow the reverse underlay path taken by Session-Sender test packets.</t>
  </li>
  <li>
  <t>Session-Reflector test packets MAY follow the same reverse ECMP underlay path taken by Session-Sender test packets.</t>
  </li>
  </ul>


   </section>

   <section title="Examples of MPLS Data Traffic Use Cases" anchor="sect-1.2">

    <t>Examples of MPLS data traffic use cases for STAMP test packets with IP/UDP headers: </t>
    <ol>
     <li>
      <t>MPLS PW Data Traffic (with CW and IP header)</t>
     </li>
     <li>
      <t>MPLS-TP PW Data Traffic (with CW and IP header)</t>
     </li>
     <li>
      <t>MPLS LSP Data Traffic (with IP header)</t>
     </li>
    </ol>
    
    <t>Examples of MPLS data traffic use cases for STAMP test packets without IP/UDP headers: </t>
    <ol>
     <li>
      <t>MPLS Ethernet PW Data Traffic <xref target="RFC4448"/></t>
     </li>
     <li>
      <t>L2SS used in L2TPv3 PW Data Traffic <xref target="RFC3931"/></t>
     </li>
     <li>
      <t>Private Line Emulation <xref target="RFC9801"/> PW Data Traffic</t>
     </li>
     <li>
      <t>TDM over IP <xref target="RFC5087"/> PW Data Traffic (with no IP header)</t>
     </li>
     <li>
      <t>MPLS-TP LSP Data Traffic</t>
     </li>
    </ol>

    </section>

   </section>

   <section title="Conventions Used in This Document" anchor="sect-2">
       
   <section title="Requirements Language" anchor="sect-2.1">
  <t>
 The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
 "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
 described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
        </t>
    </section>

   <section title="Abbreviations" anchor="sect-2.2">

   <table anchor="abbreviations">
   <name>Abbreviations</name>
   <thead>
   <tr>
   <th align="left">Abbreviation</th>
   <th align="left">Meaning</th>
   <th align="left">Reference</th>
   </tr>
   </thead>
   <tbody>
   <tr>
   <td>CE</td>
   <td>Customer Edge</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC4026"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
  <td>CW</td>
  <td>Control Word</td>
  <td><xref target="RFC4385"/></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td>ECMP</td>
   <td>Equal-Cost Multi-Path</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC6790"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>G-ACh</td>
   <td>Generic Associated Channel</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC5586"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>GAL</td>
  <td>Generic Associated Channel Label</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC5586"/></td>
   </tr>
  <tr>
  <td>GTSM</td>
  <td>Generalized TTL Security Mechanism</td>
  <td><xref target="RFC5082"/></td>
  </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>HMAC</td>
   <td>Hash-based Message Authentication Code</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC2104"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>L2SS</td>
   <td>L2-Specific Sublayer</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC3931"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
  <td>L2TPv3</td>
  <td>Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol version 3</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC3931"/></td>
   </tr>
  <tr>
  <td>L2VPN</td>
  <td>Layer 2 Virtual Private Network</td>
  <td><xref target="RFC4026"/></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
  <td>L3VPN</td>
  <td>Layer 3 Virtual Private Network</td>
  <td><xref target="RFC4026"/></td>
  </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>LSP</td>
   <td>Label Switched Path</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC3032"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>MPLS</td>
   <td>Multiprotocol Label Switching</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC3032"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>MPLS-TP</td>
   <td>MPLS Transport Profile</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC5960"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>OAM</td>
   <td>Operations, Administration, and Maintenance</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC5586"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>PE</td>
   <td>Provider Edge</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC4026"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>PLE</td>
   <td>Private Line Emulation</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC9801"/></td>
   </tr>
  <tr>
  <td>PSN</td>
  <td>Packet Switched Network</td>
  <td><xref target="RFC9801"/></td>
  </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>PW</td>
   <td>Pseudowire</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC6658"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>S bit</td>
   <td>Bottom of Stack bit</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC3032"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>SSID</td>
   <td>STAMP Session Identifier</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC8972"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>STAMP</td>
   <td>Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC8762"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>TC</td>
   <td>Traffic Class</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC5462"/></td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
  <td>TDM</td>
  <td>Time-Division Multiplexing</td>
  <td><xref target="RFC5087"/></td>
  </tr>
   <tr>
   <td>TTL</td>
  <td>Time to Live</td>
   <td><xref target="RFC3032"/></td>
   </tr>
  <tr>
  <td>VCCV</td>
  <td>Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification</td>
  <td><xref target="RFC5085"/></td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
  <td>VPWS</td>
  <td>Virtual Private Wire Service</td>
  <td><xref target="RFC9801"/></td>
  </tr>
   </tbody>
   </table>

   </section>

   <section title="STAMP Reference Topology" anchor="sect-2.3">
   <t>
   In the STAMP reference topology shown in <xref target="ure-stamp-reference-top"/>, 
   there exists an LSP or a PW to transport data between Provider Edge (PE) endpoints S1 and R1.
   The STAMP Session-Sender on PE node S1 initiates a
   Session-Sender test packet, and the STAMP Session-Reflector on PE node R1
   transmits a reply Session-Reflector test packet.  The Session-Reflector test packet may be transmitted 
   to the STAMP Session-Sender node S1 on the same path (same set
   of links and nodes) in the reverse direction of 
   the path taken towards the Session-Reflector node R1.
   </t>

   <figure title="STAMP Reference Topology using LSP and PW" anchor="ure-stamp-reference-top"><artwork><![CDATA[

                 |<-------- Pseudowire ------->|
                 |<-------- LSP -------------->|
                 |                             |
                 |     T1                T2    |
                 |    /                   \    |
             +-------+      Test Packet    +-------+
             |       | - - - - - - - - - ->|       |
             |   S1  |=====================|   R1  |
             |       |<- - - - - - - - - - |       |
             +-------+  Reply Test Packet  +-------+
                      \                   /
                       T4                T3

         STAMP Session-Sender        STAMP Session-Reflector
         Provider Edge Endpoint      Provider Edge Endpoint
]]></artwork>
    </figure>

   <t>
   T1 is a transmit timestamp, and T4 is a receive timestamp added by node S1.
   T2 is a receive timestamp, and T3 is a transmit timestamp added by node R1.
   </t> 

   <t>
   The STAMP test packets are used for both one-way and round-trip performance metrics, like delay, delay
   variation, and packet loss <xref target="RFC8972"/>.
   </t> 

    </section>

   </section>
   
    <section title="Overview" anchor="sect-3">
    <t>
    The STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets defined 
    in <xref target="RFC8972"/> are encapsulated and transmitted over the LSPs and PWs in MPLS networks.  
    The base STAMP test packets can be encapsulated using an IP/UDP 
    header and may use destination UDP port 862 <xref target="RFC8762"/>.
    The source UDP port is chosen by the Session-Sender.
    </t> 

    <section title="G-ACh Types for STAMP" anchor="sect-3.1">
    <t>STAMP test packets are encapsulated over G-ACh in two formats:
    Format-1 (with an IP/UDP header) and Format-2 (without an IP/UDP header).
    </t>

    <t>For encapsulating the STAMP test packets over a G-ACh with IP/UDP headers (in Format-1), IPv4 and IPv6 
    channel types <xref target="RFC4385"/> are used for both Session-Sender 
    and Session-Reflector test packets.  The destination UDP port number in the 
    Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets distinguishes the test packets.
    The IP version (IPv4 or IPv6) MUST match the IP version used 
    for the LSPs and PWs being measured.  When an LSP carries both IPv4 and IPv6
    data traffic, the IP version used in the STAMP test packet MUST match the IP
    version of the specific data traffic flow being measured.
    </t>

    <t>For encapsulating the STAMP test packets over a G-ACh without adding IP/UDP headers (in Format-2),
    two new channel types are defined in this document: one for the 
    Session-Sender test packets and one for the Session-Reflector 
    test packets.  The different channel types are required for the 
    Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets as the STAMP test packets 
    do not have a way to discriminate between them.
    </t>

    </section>

    <section title="Using STAMP for LSPs and PWs" anchor="sect-3.2">
    <t>
    The STAMP test packets are encapsulated with an MPLS 
    header using the same label stack as the PW data traffic (including the PW label) and a G-ACh header 
    (instead of the CW used by the data traffic). 
    The encapsulation allows STAMP test packets to follow the 
    same path as the PW data traffic and provides the same ECMP behaviour on the intermediate nodes.
    </t>

    <t>
    Similarly, the STAMP test packets are encapsulated with an IP/UDP header without a G-ACh header, and with an MPLS 
    header using the same label stack as the MPLS LSP and MPLS-TP LSP data traffic that contains an IP header, without CW.
    The label stack may include the L2 or L3 VPN label for the service carried over the LSP.
    The encapsulation provides the STAMP test packets with the same ECMP behaviour on the intermediate nodes.
    </t>

    <t>
    The OAM Control Channel traffic between two PE endpoints is not forwarded past the PE
    endpoints towards Customer Edge (CE) devices; instead, the OAM 
    messages are intercepted at the PE endpoints for exception processing in the control plane.
    <xref target="RFC5085"/> defines mechanisms for the VCCV Control Channel to carry OAM messages for PWs.
    </t>

    <t>
    The "In-band VCCV for Control Word with 0001b as first nibble (Type 1)" defined in Section 5.1.1 of <xref target="RFC5085"/> 
    MUST be added when measuring PWs with CW to avoid different ECMP hashing behaviour.
    </t>

    <t>
    The method for "TTL Expiry VCCV (Type 3)" defined in Section 5.1.3 of <xref target="RFC5085"/> 
    allows the termination of OAM messages on the remote PE endpoint nodes.
    This method is applied to the STAMP test packets to force the test packets 
    to be processed on Session-Sender and Session-Reflector control planes by adding the PW label with a TTL value of 1.
    </t>

    <t>
    VCCV Type 2 is also referred to as the "MPLS Router Alert Label" <xref target="RFC5085"/>. 
    This method could result in a different ECMP hashing behaviour, 
    and thus result in the STAMP test packets taking a path that differs from that of the actual data traffic under test <xref target="RFC5085"/>. 
    Hence, the use of VCCV Type 2 for STAMP when measuring PW traffic is not supported by the procedures defined in this document.
    </t>

    <t>
    The procedure to encapsulate STAMP test packets for PWs is also applicable to MPLS LSPs and MPLS-TP LSPs when using CW.
    For measuring the data traffic over MPLS LSPs using an IP header, STAMP test packets in Format-1 are transmitted.
    For measuring the data traffic over MPLS-TP LSPs, not using an IP header, 
    STAMP test packets in Format-2 are transmitted with a TTL value of 1 in the ultimate LSP label in the MPLS header.
    </t>

    <t>
    The IPv4 Time to Live (TTL), IPv6 Hop Limit, and Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM)
    procedures from <xref target="RFC5082"/> also apply to the
    encapsulation of STAMP test packets; hence, the IPv4 TTL, non-ultimate MPLS label TTL,
    and IPv6 Hop Limit MUST be set to 255.  Note that the TTL in the ultimate PW label or LSP label
    is set separately to 1 when using the TTL Expiry method (VCCV Type 3) described above.
    </t>

    <t>
    The G-ACh label (GAL) defined in <xref target="RFC5586"/> also applies to the G-ACh types defined in this document
    with STAMP test packets without an IP/UDP header (Format-2).
    This use case is similar to the use case for MPLS-TP LSP performance measurement defined in <xref target="RFC6374"/>.
    As specified in Section 4.2 of <xref target="RFC5586"/>, the GAL MUST NOT be used with PWs in MPLS-TP networks.
    Therefore, Format-2 encapsulation using GAL does not apply to MPLS-TP PWs.
    </t>

    <t>
    The GAL applies to Format-1 using the G-ACh channel type for IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057) as described in <xref target="RFC5586"/>.
    </t>

    </section>

    <section title="Applicability of Control Channel Types to STAMP for LSPs and PWs" anchor="sect-3.3">

    <t>Control Channel Types defined in <xref target="RFC5085"/> are applicable to STAMP test packets for LSPs and PWs as shown in <xref target="iana-cc-type-tbl"/>: </t>

    <texttable anchor="iana-cc-type-tbl" title="Control Channel Types for LSPs and PWs">

    <ttcol align="left">Control Channel Type</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Control Channel Name</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">STAMP Header Format</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">G-ACh Type</ttcol>

    <c>Type 1</c>
    <c>In-band: Control Word with 0001b as first nibble</c>
    <c>Format-1 (IP/UDP Headers)</c>
    <c>IPv4 G-ACh (0x0021) and IPv6 G-ACh (0x0057)</c>

    <c>Type 1</c>
    <c>In-band: Control Word with 0001b as first nibble</c>
    <c>Format-2 (No IP/UDP Headers)</c>
    <c>STAMP G-ACh (TBA1 and TBA2)</c>

    <c>Type 2</c>
    <c>Out-of-band: MPLS Router Alert Label</c>
    <c>Not supported</c>
    <c>Not supported</c>

    <c>Type 3</c>
    <c>TTL Expiry: Label with TTL as 1</c>
    <c>Format-1 (IP/UDP Headers)</c>
    <c>IPv4 G-ACh (0x0021) and IPv6 G-ACh (0x0057)</c>

    <c>Type 3</c>
    <c>TTL Expiry: Label with TTL as 1</c>
    <c>Format-2 (No IP/UDP Headers)</c>
    <c>STAMP G-ACh (TBA1 and TBA2)</c>

    </texttable>

    </section>

    </section>

    <section title="Session-Sender Test Packet" anchor="sect-4">

   <t>
   STAMP Session-Sender test packets are transmitted for an LSP or a PW 
   using an MPLS header with or without an IP/UDP header.
   For PWs, Session-Sender test packets are transmitted using the label stack of the PW, including the PW label and the G-ACh.
   For LSPs, Session-Sender test packets are transmitted using the label stack of the LSP with or without a G-ACh.
   </t>

    <section title="Session-Sender Test Packet with IP/UDP Header" anchor="sect-4.1"><t>
   The content of an example STAMP Session-Sender test packet for an LSP or a PW encapsulated using a
   G-ACh and an IP/UDP header is shown in <xref target="ure-stamp-sender-packet1"/>. 
   </t>

    <figure title="Example Session-Sender Test Packet with G-ACh and IP/UDP Header" anchor="ure-stamp-sender-packet1"><artwork><![CDATA[
  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Label(1)               | TC  |0|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    PW Label or Ultimate LSP Label     | TC  |1|      1        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |0 0 0 1|Version|    Reserved   | IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057)|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | IP Header                                                     |
 .  Source IP Address                                            .
 .     = Session-Sender IPv4 or IPv6 Address                     .
 .  Destination IP Address                                       .
 .     = Session-Reflector IPv4 or IPv6 Address                  .
 .  IPv4 Protocol or IPv6 Next Header = UDP (17)                 .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | UDP Header                                                    |
 .  Source Port = As chosen by Session-Sender                    .
 .  Destination Port = User-configured Destination Port or 862   .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972   |
 .           in Figure 1 and Figure 3                            .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
    </figure>

   <t>
   The destination address in the IP header of a STAMP test packet can be one of the following when adding an MPLS encapsulation for an LSP or a PW.
   </t>

     <ul>
     <li>
     <t>A routable IPv4 address</t>
     </li>
     <li>
     <t>A routable IPv6 address</t>
     </li>
     <li>
     <t>An IPv4 address from the 127/8 range</t>
     </li>
     <li>
     <t>An IPv6 address from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix address 100:0:0:1::/64 block <xref target="RFC9780"/> <xref target="IANA-IPv6-REG" format="default"/></t>
     </li>
     </ul>

<t>
Examples of implementations are:
</t>
<ul>
<li>
<t>An implementation using a routable IP address as the destination address during the initial forwarding step, before the STAMP test packet gets forwarded into the MPLS LSP or PW.</t>
</li>
<li>
<t>An implementation using a non-routable IP address as the destination address while adding both an IP header and an MPLS encapsulation in the same forwarding step.</t>
</li>
</ul>

   <t>
   The G-ACh header <xref target="RFC5586"/> with the channel type for IPv4 or IPv6 MUST immediately follow the bottom of the label stack.
   The payload contains the STAMP Session-Sender test packet defined in <xref target="RFC8972"/>.</t>

   <t>The STAMP Session-Sender test packet G-ACh header contains the following fields:</t>

   <ul>
   <li>
   <t>Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in <xref target="RFC4385"/>.</t>
   </li>
   <li>
   <t>Reserved: Reserved bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and ignored upon receipt.</t>
   </li>
   <li>
   <t>Channel Type: G-ACh type for IPv4 header (0x0021) or IPv6 header (0x0057) <xref target="RFC4385"/>.</t>
   </li>
   </ul>

    </section>

    <section title="Session-Sender Test Packet without IP/UDP Header" anchor="sect-4.2"><t>
   The content of an example STAMP Session-Sender test packet for an LSP or a PW encapsulated using GAL and a
   G-ACh without an IP/UDP header is shown in <xref target="ure-stamp-sender-packet2"/>. 
        </t>

    <figure title="Example Session-Sender Test Packet with GAL and G-ACh without IP/UDP Header" anchor="ure-stamp-sender-packet2"><artwork><![CDATA[
  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Label(1)               | TC  |0|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    PW Label or Ultimate LSP Label     | TC  |0|      1        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    GAL                                | TC  |1|      1        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |0 0 0 1|Version|    Reserved   | STAMP Sender G-ACh (TBA1)     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972   |
 .           in Figure 1 and Figure 3                            .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
    </figure>

   <t>
   The G-ACh header <xref target="RFC5586"/> 
   with the new STAMP Session-Sender channel type (value TBA1) MUST immediately follow the bottom of the label stack.
   The payload contains the STAMP 
   Session-Sender test packet defined in <xref target="RFC8972"/>.</t>

   <t>The STAMP channel type allows the identification of the
   encapsulated STAMP payload when demultiplexing G-ACh.
   </t>

    <t>The STAMP Session-Sender test packet G-ACh header contains the following fields:</t>

    <ul>
    <li>
    <t>Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in <xref target="RFC4385"/>.</t>
    </li>
    <li>
    <t>Reserved: Reserved bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and ignored upon receipt.</t>
    </li>
    <li>
    <t>Channel Type: G-ACh type for STAMP Session-Sender packet (TBA1).</t>
    </li>
    </ul>

    </section>

    </section>

    <section title="Session-Reflector Test Packet" anchor="sect-5">
    <t>
   The STAMP Session-Reflector reflects the test packet back to the
   Session-Sender using the same channel in the reverse direction of the
   LSP or PW on which it was received.  The Session-Reflector has enough
   information to reflect the received test packet to the Session-Sender using the LSP or PW context.
   </t>

   <t>
   The STAMP Session-Reflector test packet is transmitted on the same path in the reverse direction of the LSP or the PW. 
   </t>

   <t>
   The STAMP test packet can be transmitted using an MPLS header with or without an IP/UDP header.
   The Session-Reflector test packet is sent with an IP/UDP header 
   if the Session-Sender test packet is received with an IP/UDP 
   header; otherwise, it is sent without an IP/UDP header.
   </t>

   <t>
   The Session-Reflector can use the PW label or the ultimate LSP label in the received packet to find the LSP or the PW in the reverse direction.
   If the received packet context is a PW, the Session-Reflector uses the reverse-direction PW label stack and G-ACh
   to transmit the Session-Reflector test packet.
   The reverse-direction PW label stack is determined by the Session-Reflector through static configuration
   or the signaling protocol used to establish the PW.
   If the received packet context is an LSP, the Session-Reflector uses the reverse-direction LSP label stack,
   with or without a G-ACh as applicable, to transmit the Session-Reflector test packet.
   When a G-ACh is used, the Session-Reflector test packet uses the same G-ACh as that received in the Session-Sender test packet.
   </t>

   <section title="Session-Reflector Test Packet with IP/UDP Header" anchor="sect-5.1"><t>
   The content of an example STAMP Session-Reflector test packet for an LSP or a PW encapsulated using a
   G-ACh and an IP/UDP header is shown in <xref target="ure-test-reply-packet1"/>. 
   </t>

   <figure title="Example Session-Reflector Test Packet with G-ACh and IP/UDP Header" anchor="ure-test-reply-packet1"><artwork><![CDATA[
  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Label(1)               | TC  |0|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    PW Label or Ultimate LSP Label     | TC  |1|      1        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |0 0 0 1|Version|    Reserved   | IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057)|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | IP Header                                                     |
 .  Source IP Address                                            .
 .     = As chosen by Session-Reflector                          .
 .  Destination IP Address                                       .
 .     = Source IP Address from Session-Sender Test Packet       .
 .  IPv4 Protocol or IPv6 Next Header = UDP (17)                 .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | UDP Header                                                    |
 .  Source Port = As chosen by Session-Reflector                 .
 .  Destination Port                                             .
 .     = Source Port from Session-Sender Test Packet             .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972   |
 .           in Figure 2 and Figure 4                            .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
    </figure>

   <t>
   The G-ACh header <xref target="RFC5586"/> 
   with the channel type IPv4 or IPv6 MUST immediately follow the bottom of the label stack.
   The payload contains the STAMP Session-Reflector test 
   packet defined in <xref target="RFC8972"/>.
   </t>

   <t>
   The STAMP Session-Reflector test packet MUST use the IP/UDP 
   information from the received test packet when an IP/UDP header 
   is present in the received test packet.
   </t>

    <t>The STAMP Session-Reflector test packet G-ACh header contains the following fields:</t>

     <ul>
     <li>
     <t>Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in <xref target="RFC4385"/>.</t>
     </li>
     <li>
     <t>Reserved: Reserved bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and ignored upon receipt.</t>
     </li>
     <li>
     <t>Channel Type: G-ACh type for IPv4 header (0x0021) or IPv6 header (0x0057) <xref target="RFC4385"/>.</t>
     </li>
     </ul>

   </section>

   <section title="Session-Reflector Test Packet without IP/UDP Header" anchor="sect-5.2">
   <t>
   The content of an example STAMP Session-Reflector test packet for an LSP or a PW encapsulated using GAL and a
   G-ACh without an IP/UDP header is shown in <xref target="ure-test-reply-packet2"/>. 
   </t>

   <figure title="Example Session-Reflector Test Packet with GAL and G-ACh without IP/UDP Header" anchor="ure-test-reply-packet2"><artwork><![CDATA[
  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                Label(1)               | TC  |0|      TTL      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 .                                                               .
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    PW Label or Ultimate LSP Label     | TC  |0|      1        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |    GAL                                | TC  |1|      1        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |0 0 0 1|Version|    Reserved   | STAMP Reflector G-ACh (TBA2)  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 | Payload = Test Packet as specified in Section 3 of RFC 8972   |
 .           in Figure 2 and Figure 4                            .
 .                                                               .
 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
    </figure>

   <t>
   The G-ACh header <xref target="RFC5586"/> with the new STAMP Session-Reflector
   channel type (value TBA2) MUST immediately follow the bottom of 
   the label stack.  The payload contains the STAMP 
   Session-Reflector test packet defined in <xref target="RFC8972"/>.
   </t>

   <t>The STAMP channel type allows the identification of the
   encapsulated STAMP payload when demultiplexing G-ACh.
   </t>

   <t>The STAMP Session-Reflector test packet G-ACh header contains the following fields:</t>

     <ul>
     <li>
     <t>Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in <xref target="RFC4385"/>.</t>
     </li>
     <li>
     <t>Reserved: Reserved bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and ignored upon receipt.</t>
     </li>
     <li>
    <t>Channel Type: G-ACh type for STAMP Session-Reflector packet (TBA2).</t>
     </li>
     </ul>

    </section>

    </section>

    <section title="Operational Considerations" anchor="sect-6">

    <t>The operational considerations specified in Section 5 of <xref target="RFC8762"/> also apply to the procedure described in this document. 
    Further, the operation and management of performance measurement based on STAMP specified in Section 3 of <xref target="RFC8762"/>
    also apply to the procedure described in this document.
    </t>

    <t>
    An operator may wish to only add MPLS encapsulation in STAMP test packets destined to addresses within
    the MPLS administrative domain based on some local policy.
    </t>

    <t>The encapsulation procedure defined in this document uses a G-ACh for STAMP test packets
    to follow the path of the data packets with CW.
    This assumes that intermediate nodes apply the same ECMP hashing behaviour
    to STAMP test packets with G-ACh as to data packets with CW when using the same label stack.
    </t>

    <section title="Considerations for Broken LSPs" anchor="sect-6.1">
    <t>
    Forwarding STAMP test packets on a broken LSP would lead to the STAMP session being down when all packets on the LSP are dropped.
    Otherwise, when the packets are incorrectly forwarded by MPLS or IP to the egress node (hosting the STAMP Session-Reflector), 
    it could lead to an invalid measurement of the LSP, for example, if the packets followed a different path than the LSP.
    A non-routable IPv4/IPv6 destination address, described in <xref target="sect-4.1"/>, avoids IP forwarding of
    the Session-Sender test packets to the egress node on a different path than the LSP.
    However, there is a potential risk of receiving Session-Reflector test packets from an unintended
    STAMP Session-Reflector hosted on the node where the broken LSP terminates, since the STAMP
    Session-Reflector may not know that the test packets were received due to a broken LSP.
    In this case, network analytics would detect invalid measurements reported by STAMP over a broken LSP path.
    </t>

    <t>
    Further, the destination IP address-based filtering SHOULD be provisioned on the edges of the MPLS administrative domain
    to prevent the IP forwarded STAMP test packets for a broken LSP within the domain from leaking outside that domain.
    A non-routable IPv4/IPv6 destination address, described in <xref target="sect-4.1"/>, MAY be used in STAMP test packets to help avoid this.
    </t>

    </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations" anchor="sect-7">
   <t>
   The procedures defined in this document are intended for deployment in a single 
   network administrative domain.  As such, the Session-Sender address, Session-Reflector address, and IP and
   MPLS forward and return paths are provisioned by the operator for the STAMP session.
   It is assumed that the operator has verified the integrity of the IP and MPLS forward 
   and return paths used to transmit STAMP test packets.</t>

   <t>The security considerations specified in <xref target="RFC8762"/>
   and <xref target="RFC8972"/> also apply to the procedure
   described in this document. Specifically,
   the message integrity protection using HMAC, as defined in Section 4.4 of <xref target="RFC8762"/>,
   also applies to the procedure described in this document.
   The measures specified in Section 7 of <xref target="RFC8762"/> to mitigate attacks using the registered UDP port number also apply.
   </t> 

   <t>Routers that support G-ACh are subject to the same security
   considerations as defined in <xref target="RFC4385"/> and <xref target="RFC5586"/>.</t>

   <t>The message throttling mechanisms described in the security considerations in Section 10 of <xref target="RFC5085"/> 
   to protect against potential (deliberate or unintentional) attacks also apply to the procedure described in this document.
   </t>

   <t>If desired, attacks can be mitigated by performing basic validation
   checks (such as whether timestamp T2 is later than timestamp T1 in the STAMP Reference Topology shown in <xref target="ure-stamp-reference-top"/>, 
   when the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector clocks are synchronized)   
   in received Session-Reflector test packets at the Session-Sender.  The minimal state
   associated with this protocol also limits the extent of measurement
   disruption that can be caused by a corrupt or invalid test packet to a
   single test cycle.</t>

   <t>
   An attacker can send a forged STAMP test packet to the ingress or egress node of an LSP, causing 
   the STAMP session to be terminated prematurely.  To mitigate these threats, operators SHOULD filter STAMP test
   packets at the edges of the MPLS administrative domain.
   </t>

   <t>
   Furthermore, implementations SHOULD NOT assign STAMP Session Identifiers (SSIDs) <xref target="RFC8972"/> in a predictable
   manner. To avoid predictability, implementations can
   leverage a Cryptographically Secure Pseudorandom Number Generator
   <xref target="NIST-CSPRNG" format="default"/>.
   </t>

   <t>
   The STAMP test packets received via a PW or an LSP are processed in the context of that PW or
   LSP, and the encapsulations defined in this document do not introduce a mechanism for
   cross-service OAM interactions.
   </t>

    </section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="sect-8">
  
    <t>IANA maintains the G-ACh Type Registry 
    (see <eref target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/g-ach-parameters.xhtml"/>).  
    IANA is requested to allocate values for the G-ACh Types for STAMP  
    from the "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) 
    Types (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry.</t>

    <texttable anchor="iana-gach-tbl" title="STAMP G-ACh Types">

    <ttcol align="left">Value</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Description</ttcol>
    <ttcol align="left">Reference</ttcol>
    <c>TBA1</c>
    <c>STAMP Session-Sender G-ACh Type</c>
    <c>This document</c>
    <c>TBA2</c>
    <c>STAMP Session-Reflector G-ACh Type</c>
    <c>This document</c>
    </texttable>

    </section>


    </middle>

    <back>

    <references>
      <name>References</name>

    <references title="Normative References">
    &RFC2119; 
    &RFC3032;
    &RFC4385;
    &RFC5082;
    &RFC5085;
    &RFC5586;
    &RFC6790;
    &RFC8174;
    &RFC8762;
    &RFC8972;
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
    &RFC2104;
    &RFC3931;
    &RFC4026;
    &RFC4448;
    &RFC5087;
    &RFC5462;
    &RFC5921;
    &RFC5960;
    &RFC6374;
    &RFC6658;
    &RFC7708;
    &RFC9780;
    &RFC9801;
    &I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls; 
        

    <reference anchor="NIST-CSPRNG">
          <front>
            <title>Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators, Revision 1</title>
            <author>
              <organization>NIST Special Publication 800-90A Revision 1</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="June" year="2015"/>
          </front>
    </reference>

    <reference anchor="IANA-IPv6-REG" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="IANA-IPv6-REG">
          <front>
            <title>IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry</title>
            <author>
              <organization showOnFrontPage="true">IANA</organization>
            </author>
          </front>
    </reference>

    </references>

    </references>

    <section title="Acknowledgments" numbered="no" anchor="acknowledgments">

    <t>
    The authors would like to thank 
    Bharath Vasudevan, Ali Sianati, and Parag Jain for the discussions on the method to punt STAMP test packets to the control plane for processing.
    The authors would also like to thank Greg Mirsky, Loa Andersson, Li Zhang, Richard Foote (Footer), and Stewart Bryant 
    for reviewing this document and providing useful comments and suggestions. 
    Thanks to Carlos Pignataro for the PerfMetrdir review, Russ White for the early Rtgdir review,
    Russ Housley for the Genart review, Giuseppe Fioccola for the Opsdir review,
    and Yaron Sheffer for the early Secdir review which helped improve this document.
    </t>

    </section>

    </back>

    </rfc>
