



IPPM Working Group                                        R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                          P. Schoenmaker
Expires: 29 November 2026                           Meta Platforms, Inc.
                                                                R. Foote
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                L. Zhang
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                             28 May 2026


   Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Extensions for
                  Residual Bit Error Rate Measurement
                     draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ber-06

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.  Networks may experience
   transmission bit errors due to various factors, including poor fiber
   quality.  Even with efficient CRC and FEC mechanisms, some bit errors
   may escape detection and correction, referred to as residual bit
   errors.  This document further augments the STAMP extensions
   specified in RFC 8972 to enable the measurement of the residual bit
   error rate within the "Extra Padding" TLV of STAMP test 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 29 November 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  STAMP Reference Topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Bit Errors in Non-measurement Fields of STAMP . . . . . .   5
   4.  STAMP Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     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  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Considerations for Link Aggregation Group . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  STAMP Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Bit Pattern in Padding STAMP TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Bit Error Count in Padding STAMP TLV  . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Maximum Bit Error Burst Size in Padding STAMP TLV . . . .  10
   6.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Configuration Data Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Operational Data Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Open Source Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Cisco Implementation of IOS-XR  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15










Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


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.

   [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, thereby corrupting packets.  Bit
   errors can be single-bit errors or a burst of bit errors at a time.
   The bit errors in the received packets can be detected using a Cyclic
   Redundancy Check (CRC).  Packets with CRC checksum failures may be
   dropped or corrected using Forward Error Correction (FEC).  Even with
   efficient CRC and FEC mechanisms, some bit errors may escape
   detection and correction, referred to as residual bit errors.  These
   bit errors result in upper-layer (such as UDP or TCP) checksum
   failures and packet drops.  It is beneficial to measure the residual
   Bit Error Rate (BER) using active measurement packets between two
   nodes to detect service degradation.  For accurate residual BER
   measurement, transmitting large 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 residual BER on high-capacity links.

   The STAMP test packets use a UDP header with a checksum field that
   can be used for checking the integrity of the header and payload
   data.  The UDP checksum is optional for the IPv4 header.  The UDP
   checksum may be set to 0 to bypass the UDP check for IPv4 and IPv6
   headers 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 for data integrity.

   This document further augments the STAMP extensions defined in
   [RFC8972] to enable the measurement of residual bit error rate within
   the "Extra Padding" TLV of STAMP test packets.





Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


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

   CRC: Cyclic Redundancy Check

   FEC: Forward Error Correction

   MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit

   STAMP: Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol

   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




Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


3.  Overview

   The optional extensions for STAMP test packets [RFC8762] are defined
   in [RFC8972] 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 residual 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 extra 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 residual 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 in the reflected STAMP test packet.

   Residual 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 residual BER
   is calculated using the number of bit errors detected and the number
   of bits received, both 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 test packets, packet headers, or STAMP TLVs
   other than the "Extra Padding" TLV for residual BER measurement.  It
   is possible that the bit errors impact those non-measurement fields
   of the STAMP test packets, causing packet verification failures.
   Such STAMP test packets are generally reported using a different
   measurement metric, such as packet loss.  The integrity of those
   fields in the STAMP test packets can be verified using the HMAC
   mechanisms defined in [RFC8762] and [RFC8972].






Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


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 residual 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.

   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              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                     Bit Pattern in Padding                    ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |STAMP TLV Flags|  Type=TBA2    |           Length=4            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Bit Error Count in Padding                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |STAMP TLV Flags|  Type=TBA3    |           Length=4            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Maximum Bit Error Burst Size in Padding   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 2: Example STAMP Packet to Measure Residual BER

4.1.  STAMP Session-Sender

   When a STAMP Session-Sender is set up to measure residual 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], may optionally carry one "Bit



Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


   Pattern in Padding" TLV, and may optionally carry one "Maximum Bit
   Error Burst Size 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.
   The length of the extra padding MUST be 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 the extra padding MUST be set
   to 0.

   Note that the integrity of the "Bit Pattern in Padding", "Bit Error
   Count in Padding", and "Maximum Bit Error Burst Size in Padding" TLVs
   in the STAMP test packets can be protected using the HMAC mechanisms
   defined in [RFC8972].

   If the Session-Sender receives the TLVs defined in this document back
   with the U flag (Unrecognized) set to 1 in the STAMP TLV Flags, it
   assumes that the Session-Reflector does not support the residual BER
   measurement and therefore disables the residual BER measurement but
   continues with the other STAMP measurements.

4.1.1.  Considerations for Bit Pattern

   It is possible that the bit pattern in the "Bit Pattern in Padding"
   TLV itself might contain bit errors.  This can result in a
   measurement error due to a 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, which is repeated in the extra
   padding.  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



Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


   pattern to detect if there are any bits not matching the bit pattern
   and count them as bit errors.  The Session-Reflector updates the bit
   error count 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 for BER measurement in the reverse
   direction.  The corrected "Extra Padding" TLV is used to measure the
   residual BER in the reverse direction.

   If the Session-Reflector does not recognize a TLV defined in this
   document, it returns the TLV with the U flag (Unrecognized) set to 1
   in the STAMP TLV Flags of that TLV as described in [RFC8972].

4.2.1.  STAMP TLV Conformant Check

   If a Session-Reflector receives a STAMP test packet with a "Bit
   Pattern in Padding" TLV, a "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV, or a
   "Maximum Bit Error Burst Size 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 of the reflected STAMP test packet for
   those STAMP TLVs.

   If a 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, or more than one "Maximum Bit Error
   Burst Size 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 of the reflected STAMP test packet for those STAMP TLVs.

   The Session-Reflector MUST set the C flag (Conformant) defined in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts] to 1 in the STAMP TLV Flags of the
   "Bit Pattern in Padding" TLV if the length of the extra padding is
   not an integer multiple of the length of the Bit Pattern.

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 to measuring residual BER in both directions for each
   individual member of the LAG.





Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


   For delay measurement of LAG member links, a separate STAMP micro-
   session is created for each member of the LAG.  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 information in the received Session-Sender
   test packet and on either the local configuration for the micro-
   session or the information from the data plane where the test packet
   was received.

   Note that in order to obtain a good approximation of the residual BER
   measurement, it is RECOMMENDED to transmit the STAMP test packets
   with the extra padding that matches 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 the
   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:

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

   Type: Type (value TBA1)

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

   Bit Pattern in Padding: The repeated bit pattern used in the extra
   padding.





Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


5.2.  Bit Error Count in Padding STAMP TLV

   The "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV is optional and is carried by
   the 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:

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

   Type: Type (value TBA2)

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

   Bit Error Count in Padding: The count of bit errors in the extra
   padding.

5.3.  Maximum Bit Error Burst Size in Padding STAMP TLV

   The "Maximum Bit Error Burst Size in Padding" TLV is optional and is
   carried by the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector test packets.
   The format of the TLV is shown in Figure 5.

   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=TBA3    |         Length=4              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Maximum Bit Error Burst Size in Padding              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Figure 5: Maximum Bit Error Burst Size in Padding STAMP TLV

   The TLV fields are defined as follows:

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



Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


   Type: Type (value TBA3)

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

   Maximum Bit Error Burst Size in Padding: The maximum size of the bit
   error burst, i.e., the maximum number of consecutive bit errors in
   the extra padding.

6.  Operational Considerations

   The operational considerations specified in [RFC8762] apply to the
   procedure and extensions defined in this document.  Additional
   operational considerations are specified in the following sub-
   sections.

6.1.  Configuration Data Model Parameters

   The configuration data model for the residual BER measurement using
   STAMP MUST allow the setting of the following parameters:

      - Padding size (number of bytes, which is an integer multiple of
      the padding bit pattern size in 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 residual BER measurements

6.2.  Operational Data Model Parameters

   The operational data model for the residual BER measurement using
   STAMP MUST allow the generation of the following parameters:

   Forward direction (near-end) residual BER measurement:

      - Total number of STAMP test packets received in the computation
      interval

      - Total number of STAMP test packets received with non-zero Bit
      Error Count in TLV in the computation interval

      - Total number of bits in the extra padding TLV of all received
      STAMP test packets in the computation interval

      - Total Bit Error Count in TLV of all received STAMP test packets
      in the computation interval



Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


   Reverse direction (far-end) residual BER measurement:

      - Total number of STAMP test packets received in the computation
      interval

      - Total number of STAMP test packets received with bit errors in
      the computation interval

      - Total number of bits in the extra padding TLV of all received
      STAMP test packets in the computation interval

      - Total number of bit errors in all received STAMP test packets in
      the computation interval

   Thresholds are defined for the forward and reverse directions of the
   residual BER metrics measured in the computation interval for:

   - Number of bit errors per million

   - Number of STAMP test packets with bit errors per million

   An alarm is generated, and 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.

8.1.  Open Source Implementation

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

   https://github.com/cerfcast/teaparty

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

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






Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


   This implementation uses the "Experimental Use" Type 240 for Bit
   Pattern in Padding TLV and Type 241 for Bit Error Count in Padding
   TLV.

   Additionally, there is also support for residual BER in the Wireshark
   dissector:

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

   Contact:

   William Hawkins

   University of Cincinnati

   Email: hawkinsw@obs.cr

8.2.  Cisco Implementation of IOS-XR

   An implementation of the solution defined in this document is
   shipping in IOS-XR Software Release 26.1.1 running on Cisco's C8000
   series of products.

   This implementation uses the "Experimental Use" Type 240 for Bit
   Pattern in Padding TLV and Type 241 for Bit Error Count in Padding
   TLV.

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, a value for the "Bit Error Count in Padding" TLV Type, and a
   value for the "Maximum Bit Error Burst Size 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 |
    +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
    | TBA3  | Maximum Bit Error Burst Size in Padding | This document |
    +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+

                          Table 1: STAMP TLV Types




Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


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>.

   [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 Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
              (STAMP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-14, 16 March 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
              asymmetrical-pkts-14>.

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>.











Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      STAMP for Residual Bit Error Rate           May 2026


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, Zhenqiang Li, Carsten
   Rossenhoevel, Ernesto Ruffini, and Xiao Min 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


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


   Richard Foote
   Nokia
   Email: footer.foote@nokia.com


   Li Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   China
   Email: zhangli344@huawei.com

















Gandhi, et al.          Expires 29 November 2026               [Page 15]
