



IPPM Working Group                                        R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                          P. Schoenmaker
Expires: 19 December 2025                           Meta Platforms, Inc.
                                                            17 June 2025


 Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for Bit
                         Error Rate Measurement
                     draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber-02

Abstract

   The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), as defined in
   RFC 8762, along with its optional extensions specified in RFC 8972,
   can be utilized for active measurement.  This document further
   augments the STAMP extensions specified in RFC 8972 to enable the
   measurement of the bit error rate within the "Extra Padding" TLV of
   STAMP packets.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 December 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.










Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.3.  STAMP Reference Topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Bit Errors in Non-measurement Fields of STAMP . . . . . .   5
   4.  STAMP Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  STAMP Session-Sender  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.1.  Considerations for Bit Pattern  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  STAMP Session-Reflector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  STAMP TLV Conformant Check  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Considerations for Link Aggregation Group . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  STAMP Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Bit Pattern in Padding STAMP TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Bit Error Count in Padding STAMP TLV  . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Data Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Configuration Data Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  Operational Data Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   The Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) is designed to
   measure various performance metrics in IP networks without relying on
   a control channel to pre-signal session parameters, as specified in
   [RFC8762].  STAMP test packets are sent between a Session-Sender and
   a Session-Reflector to measure delay and packet loss along the path.





Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   [RFC8972] introduces optional extensions for STAMP in the form of
   Type-Length-Value (TLV) objects, including the capability to transmit
   "Extra Padding" TLV within STAMP test packets.

   Networks may experience transmission bit errors due to various
   factors, such as poor fiber quality.  The bit error can be a single
   bit error or a burst of bit errors at a time.  It is beneficial to
   measure the Bit Error Rate (BER) using active measurement packets
   between two nodes.  For accurate BER measurement, transmitting large-
   sized active measurement packets is preferable, especially on links
   with low bit error rates.  Furthermore, there is a need to transmit
   test packets at a high rate to measure BER on high-capacity links.

   The STAMP test packets use a UDP header with a checksum field that
   may be used for checking the integrity of the header and data.  The
   UDP checksum is optional for the IPv4 header and may be set to 0 for
   the IPv6 header for the STAMP destination UDP port.  However, the
   checksum field does not provide an accurate measurement of bit
   errors.

   Authenticated mode provides data integrity protection for the STAMP
   test packets by adding a Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC),
   such as HMAC-SHA-256 [RFC8762].  However, the authenticated mode does
   not provide an accurate measurement of bit errors.  In addition, the
   HMAC TLV defined in [RFC8972] for authenticating STAMP TLVs does not
   include checking the "Extra Padding" TLV.

   This document further augments the STAMP extensions defined in
   [RFC8972] to enable the measurement of BER within the "Extra Padding"
   TLV of STAMP packets.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

2.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.2.  Abbreviations

   BER: Bit Error Rate

   MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit

   STAMP: Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol



Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   TLV: Type-Length-Value

2.3.  STAMP Reference Topology

   In the STAMP reference topology shown in Figure 1, the STAMP Session-
   Sender S1 initiates Session-Sender test packets, and the STAMP
   Session-Reflector R1 transmits reply Session-Reflector test packets.

   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.

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

     STAMP Session-Sender                     STAMP Session-Reflector

                     Figure 1: STAMP Reference Topology

3.  Overview

   The optional extensions for STAMP test packets [RFC8762] are defined
   in [RFC8762] in the form of TLVs.  The Session-Sender transmits
   optional STAMP TLVs, and the Session-Reflector reflects all received
   STAMP TLVs from the Session-Sender test packets.  [RFC8972] defines
   an optional TLV extension specifically for transmitting "Extra
   Padding" (Type=1) TLV in the STAMP test packets.  The "Extra Padding"
   TLV can be filled using either a predefined fixed pattern or a random
   pattern of bits [RFC8972].

   This document defines a procedure to measure BER within the "Extra
   Padding" TLV.  The process involves the Session-Sender transmitting
   the extra padding filled with a predefined bit pattern.  The Session-
   Reflector then checks for bit errors by comparing the received
   padding against the predefined bit pattern.  This allows for the
   detection of a single bit error or a burst of bit errors and the
   measurement of the BER.  The Session-Reflector does not discard the
   STAMP test packet with bit errors but instead reflects it back to the
   Session-Sender after correcting the bit errors.  The Session-
   Reflector also returns the bit error count to the Session-Sender.




Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   BER is measured in both the forward and reverse directions between
   the Session-Sender and the Session-Reflector using the procedure and
   extensions defined in this document.  The BER is calculated using the
   number of bit errors detected and the number of bits received in the
   extra padding.

   As specified in [RFC8972], the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector
   test packets are symmetric in size.  The Session-Sender and Session-
   Reflector MUST ensure that the resulting test packets do not exceed
   the path MTU after adding the STAMP TLVs.

3.1.  Bit Errors in Non-measurement Fields of STAMP

   Note that the procedure and extensions defined in this document do
   not use the base STAMP packets, packet headers, or STAMP TLVs other
   than the "Extra Padding" TLV for BER measurement.  It is possible
   that the bit errors impact those non-measurement fields of the STAMP
   test packets causing verification failures.  Such STAMP test packets
   are reported using a different measurement metric.  The integrity of
   those fields can be verified using the HMAC mechanisms defined in
   [RFC8762] and [RFC8972].

4.  STAMP Procedure

   This document defines two TLV options for STAMP: "Bit Pattern in
   Padding" TLV (Type=TBA1) and "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV
   (Type=TBA2).

   An example of a STAMP test packet used for measuring BER is shown in
   Figure 2.  It uses the "Extra Padding" TLV, the optional "Bit Pattern
   in Padding" TLV, and the "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV.




















Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            STAMP Packet RFC 8972                              |
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |STAMP TLV Flags|     Type=1    |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                     Extra Padding                             ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |STAMP TLV Flags|     Type=TBA1 |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~            Optional Bit Pattern in Padding                    ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |STAMP TLV Flags|     Type=TBA2 |           Length=4            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Bit Error Count in Padding                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 2: Example STAMP Packet to Measure BER

4.1.  STAMP Session-Sender

   When a STAMP Session-Sender is set up to measure BER, it adds an
   "Extra Padding" (Type=1) TLV, a "Bit Error Count in Padding"
   (Type=TBA2) TLV, and optionally, a "Bit Pattern in Padding"
   (Type=TBA1) TLV in Session-Sender test packets.  The Session-Sender
   test packets carry only one "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV, only
   one "Extra Padding" TLV [RFC8972] and optionally carry only one "Bit
   Pattern in Padding" TLV.

   The Session-Sender MUST add an "Extra Padding" TLV [RFC8972] when it
   adds a "Bit Pattern in Padding" TLV to the Session-Sender test
   packets.  The variable-length data in the "Bit Pattern in Padding"
   TLV MUST contain the bit pattern employed in the "Extra Padding" TLV.
   It is RECOMMENDED to have the length of the extra padding as an
   integer multiple of the length of the Bit Pattern to ease
   implementation.

   The Session-Sender MUST also add an "Extra Padding" TLV [RFC8972]
   when it adds a "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV in the Session-Sender
   test packets.  The bit error count in padding MUST be set to 0.





Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   Note that the integrity of the "Bit Pattern in Padding" and "Bit
   Error Count in Padding" TLVs can be protected using the HMAC
   mechanisms defined in [RFC8972].

4.1.1.  Considerations for Bit Pattern

   It is possible that the bit pattern in the "Bit Pattern in Padding"
   TLV itself has bit errors.  This can result in a measurement error
   due to mismatch between the bit pattern and the extra padding.  One
   way to avoid this issue is for the Session-Sender and Session-
   Reflector to use the local configuration with the default value of
   0xFF00 as the bit pattern.  In this case, the "Bit Pattern in
   Padding" TLV is not transmitted in the STAMP test packets.

4.2.  STAMP Session-Reflector

   When the Session-Reflector receives a STAMP test packet with a "Bit
   Pattern in Padding" TLV, the Session-Reflector that supports this TLV
   MUST check the extra padding in the "Extra Padding" TLV against the
   bit pattern to detect any bits that do not match the bit pattern and
   count them as bit errors.

   When the Session-Reflector receives a STAMP test packet with a "Bit
   Error Count in Padding" TLV, the Session-Reflector that supports this
   TLV MUST check the "Extra Padding" TLV against the expected bit
   pattern to detect if there are any bits not matching the bit pattern
   and count them as bit errors.  The Session-Reflector updates the
   count of bit errors in the received "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV
   and reflects the TLV back to the Session-Sender.  If no bit errors
   are detected, the bit error count remains as 0 in the reflected "Bit
   Error Count in Padding" TLV.

   The Session-Reflector corrects the bit errors in the "Extra Padding"
   TLV by matching the bit pattern and reflects the corrected "Extra
   Padding" TLV to the Session-Sender.  The corrected "Extra Padding"
   TLV is used to measure the BER in the reverse direction.

4.2.1.  STAMP TLV Conformant Check

   If the Session-Reflector receives a STAMP test packet with a "Bit
   Pattern in Padding" TLV or a "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV without
   an "Extra Padding" TLV or with more than one "Extra Padding" TLV, it
   MUST set the C flag (Conformant) defined in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts] to 1 in the STAMP TLV Flags in the
   reflected STAMP test packet for those STAMP TLVs.






Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   If the Session-Reflector receives a STAMP test packet that contains
   more than one "Bit Pattern in Padding" TLV or more than one "Bit
   Error Count in Padding" TLV, it MUST set the C flag (Conformant)
   defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts] to 1 in the STAMP TLV
   Flags in the reflected STAMP test packet for those STAMP TLVs.

4.3.  Considerations for Link Aggregation Group

   Networks may experience transmission bit errors differently for
   different link members of a Link Aggregation Group (LAG).  The
   procedure and extensions defined in this document are equally
   applicable for measuring BER for each individual member of the LAG.

   A separate STAMP micro-session is created for each member of the LAG,
   as defined in [RFC9534].  The STAMP extension for the Micro-Session
   ID TLV, as defined in [RFC9534], is used to identify each member link
   of the LAG associated with the STAMP micro-session on the Session-
   Sender and Session-Reflector.  The Session-Reflector replies on the
   same member of the LAG in the reverse direction based on the received
   Session-Sender test packets and the local configuration or the
   received information from the data plane.

   Note that in order to get a good approximation of the BER, it is
   RECOMMENDED to transmit the STAMP test packets that match the link
   MTU size.

5.  STAMP Extensions

5.1.  Bit Pattern in Padding STAMP TLV

   The "Bit Pattern in Padding" TLV is optional and is carried by
   Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets.  The format of the
   TLV is shown in Figure 3.

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |STAMP TLV Flags|  Type=TBA1    |         Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                  Bit Pattern in Padding                       ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 3: Bit Pattern in Padding STAMP TLV

   The TLV fields are defined as follows:




Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   Type: Type (value TBA1)

   STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described
   in [RFC8972].

   Length: A two-octet field equal to the length of the Data in octets.

5.2.  Bit Error Count in Padding STAMP TLV

   The "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV is optional and is carried by
   Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets.  The format of the
   TLV is shown in Figure 4.

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |STAMP TLV Flags|  Type=TBA2    |         Length=4              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Bit Error Count in Padding                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 4: Bit Error Count in Padding STAMP TLV

   The TLV fields are defined as follows:

   Type: Type (value TBA2)

   STAMP TLV Flags: The STAMP TLV Flags follow the procedures described
   in [RFC8972].

   Length: A two-octet field set to 4 for the Data.

6.  Data Model Parameters

6.1.  Configuration Data Model Parameters

   The configuration data model for the BER measurement using STAMP MUST
   allow to set the following parameters:

      - Padding size (number of bytes)

      - Padding bit pattern (with variable length of bytes)

      - Transmit interval for STAMP test packets

      - Computation interval as a multiple of transmit interval for
      reporting the BER




Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


6.2.  Operational Data Model Parameters

   The operational data model for the BER measurement using STAMP MUST
   allow to telemetry the following parameters:

   Forward direction BER measurement:

      - Number of total packets received in the computation interval

      - Number of total packets received with non-zero Bit Error Count
      in TLV in the computation interval

      - Number of total bits in the padding TLV of all received packets
      in the computation interval

      - Number of total Bit Error Count in TLV of all received packets
      in the computation interval

   Reverse direction BER measurement:

      - Number of total packets received in the computation interval

      - Number of total packets received with bit errors in the
      computation interval

      - Number of total bits in the padding TLV of all received packets
      in the computation interval

      - Number of total bit errors in all received packets in the
      computation interval

   Thresholds are defined for the forward and reverse directions of the
   BER measurement, as number of bit errors per million and number of
   packets with bit errors per million, computed during the computation
   interval.  An alarm is generated, and an event-driven telemetry is
   triggered when the computed metric crosses the threshold.

7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations specified in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972]
   apply to the procedure and extensions defined in this document.

8.  Implementation Status

   Editorial note: Please remove this section prior to publication.

   An open-source implementation of the Simple Two-Way Active
   Measurement Protocol (RFC 8762) is available in Teaparty.



Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   https://github.com/cerfcast/teaparty

   An implementation of the solution in this document is available at
   the following location:

   https://github.com/cerfcast/teaparty/
   commit/592558a38dbcf9b273acb2a2fe8ab0d8f16d0709

   And (as bonus) there is also support for the BER in the Wireshark
   dissector:

   https://github.com/cerfcast/teaparty/
   commit/608b9e89fce2f25ed88eaa367d0bacc693845da2

   Contact:

   William Hawkins

   University of Cincinnati

   Email: hawkinsw@obs.cr

9.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has created the "STAMP TLV Types" registry for [RFC8972].  IANA
   is requested to allocate a value for the "Bit Pattern in Padding" TLV
   Type and a value for the "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV Type from
   the IETF Review TLV range of the same registry.

          +=======+============================+===============+
          | Value |        Description         | Reference     |
          +=======+============================+===============+
          | TBA1  |   Bit Pattern in Padding   | This document |
          +-------+----------------------------+---------------+
          | TBA2  | Bit Error Count in Padding | This document |
          +-------+----------------------------+---------------+

                         Table 1: STAMP TLV Types

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.




Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8762]  Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
              Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.

   [RFC8972]  Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
              and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
              Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts]
              Mirsky, G., Ruffini, E., Nydell, H., Foote, R. F., and W.
              Hawkins, "Performance Measurement with Asymmetrical
              Traffic Using STAMP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-07, 5 May 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
              asymmetrical-pkts-07>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC9534]  Li, Z., Zhou, T., Guo, J., Mirsky, G., and R. Gandhi,
              "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for
              Performance Measurement on a Link Aggregation Group",
              RFC 9534, DOI 10.17487/RFC9534, January 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9534>.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Ianik Semco and Miloslav Kopka for
   the discussions on the bit error rate measurements.  The authors
   would also like to thank Ruediger Geib for reviewing this document
   and providing many useful comments and suggestions.  The authors
   would also like to thank William Hawkins for implementing the
   solution defined in this document and providing many useful
   suggestions.

Authors' Addresses

   Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Canada
   Email: rgandhi@cisco.com




Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          STAMP for Bit Error Rate               June 2025


   Peter Schoenmaker
   Meta Platforms, Inc.
   United Kingdom
   Email: psch@meta.com















































Gandhi & Schoenmaker    Expires 19 December 2025               [Page 13]
