A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM
draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7680.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Guy Almes , Sunil Kalidindi , Matthew J. Zekauskas , Al Morton | ||
Last updated | 2015-08-20 (Latest revision 2015-08-12) | ||
Replaces | draft-morton-ippm-2680-bis | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-03)
by Joel Halpern
Ready w/issues
|
||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Bill Cerveny | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2015-08-14 | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7680 (Internet Standard) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date |
(None)
Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
Responsible AD | Spencer Dawkins | ||
Send notices to | "Bill Cerveny" <ietf@wjcerveny.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis@ietf.org | ||
IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04
Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 2.8.1. Type-P As noted in the Framework document, section 13 of [RFC2330], the value of the metric may depend on the type of IP packets used to make the measurement, or "Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780], ECN [RFC3168], or RSVP) changes. Additional packet distinctions included in future extensions of the Type-P definition will apply. The exact Type-P used to make the measurements MUST be accurately reported. 2.8.2. Loss Threshold The threshold, Tmax, (or methodology to distinguish) between a large finite delay and loss MUST be reported. 2.8.3. Calibration Results The degree of synchronization between the Src and Dst clocks MUST be reported. If possible, possibility that a test packet that arrives at the Dst network interface is reported as lost due to resource exhaustion on Dst SHOULD be reported. 2.8.4. Path Finally, the path traversed by the packet SHOULD be reported, if possible. In general it is impractical to know the precise path a given packet takes through the network. The precise path may be known for certain Type-P on short or stable paths. If Type-P includes the record route (or loose-source route) option in the IP header, and the path is short enough, and all routers* on the path support record (or loose-source) route, then the path will be precisely recorded. This is impractical because the route must be short enough, many routers do not support (or are not configured for) record route, and use of this feature would often artificially worsen the performance observed by removing the packet from common-case processing. However, partial information is still valuable context. For example, if a host can choose between two links* (and hence two separate routes from Src to Dst), then the initial link used is valuable context. {Comment: Backbone path selection services come and go. A historical example was Merit's NetNow setup, where a Src on one NAP can reach a Dst on another NAP by either of several different backbone networks.} Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 3. A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss Given the singleton metric Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss, we now define one particular sample of such singletons. The idea of the sample is to select a particular binding of the parameters Src, Dst, and Type- P, then define a sample of values of parameter T. The means for defining the values of T is to select a beginning time T0, a final time Tf, and an average rate lambda, then define a pseudo-random Poisson process of rate lambda, whose values fall between T0 and Tf. The time interval between successive values of T will then average 1/ lambda. Note that Poisson sampling is only one way of defining a sample. Poisson has the advantage of limiting bias, but other methods of sampling will be appropriate for different situations. For example, a truncated Poisson distribution may be needed to avoid reactive network state changes during intervals of inactivity, see section 4.6 of [RFC7312]. Sometimes, the goal is sampling with a known bias, and [RFC3432] describes a method for periodic sampling with random start times. 3.1. Metric Name: Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream 3.2. Metric Parameters: + Src, the IP address of a host + Dst, the IP address of a host + T0, a time + Tf, a time + Tmax, a loss threshold waiting time + lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds 3.3. Metric Units: A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are: + T, a time, and + L, either a zero or a one Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 The values of T in the sequence are monotonic increasing. Note that T would be a valid parameter to Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss, and that L would be a valid value of Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss. 3.4. Definition: Given T0, Tf, and lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0 and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times in this process, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss at this time. The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the resulting <time, loss> pairs. If there are no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty. 3.5. Discussion: The reader should be familiar with the in-depth discussion of Poisson sampling in the Framework document [RFC2330], which includes methods to compute and verify the pseudo-random Poisson process. We specifically do not constrain the value of lambda, except to note the extremes. If the rate is too large, then the measurement traffic will perturb the network, and itself cause congestion. If the rate is too small, then you might not capture interesting network behavior. {Comment: We expect to document our experiences with, and suggestions for, lambda elsewhere, culminating in a "best current practices" document.} Since a pseudo-random number sequence is employed, the sequence of times, and hence the value of the sample, is not fully specified. Pseudo-random number generators of good quality will be needed to achieve the desired qualities. The sample is defined in terms of a Poisson process both to avoid the effects of self-synchronization and also capture a sample that is statistically as unbiased as possible. The Poisson process is used to schedule the loss measurements. The test packets will generally not arrive at Dst according to a Poisson distribution, since they are influenced by the network. Time-slotted links described in section 3.4 [RFC7312] can greatly modify the sample characteristics. The main concern is that un-biased packet streams with randomized inter- packet time intervals will be converted to some new distribution after encountering a time-slotted links, possibly with strong periodic characteristics instead. {Comment: there is, of course, no claim that real Internet traffic arrives according to a Poisson arrival process. Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 It is important to note that, in contrast to this metric, loss ratios observed by transport connections do not reflect unbiased samples. For example, TCP transmissions both (1) occur in bursts, which can induce loss due to the burst volume that would not otherwise have been observed, and (2) adapt their transmission rate in an attempt to minimize the loss ratio observed by the connection.} All the singleton Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss metrics in the sequence will have the same values of Src, Dst, and Type-P. Note also that, given one sample that runs from T0 to Tf, and given new time values T0' and Tf' such that T0 <= T0' <= Tf' <= Tf, the subsequence of the given sample whose time values fall between T0' and Tf' are also a valid Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream sample. 3.6. Methodologies: The methodologies follow directly from: + the selection of specific times, using the specified Poisson arrival process, and + the methodologies discussion already given for the singleton Type- P-One-way-Packet-Loss metric. Care must be given to correctly handle out-of-order arrival of test packets; it is possible that the Src could send one test packet at TS[i], then send a second one (later) at TS[i+1], while the Dst could receive the second test packet at TR[i+1], and then receive the first one (later) at TR[i]. Metrics for reordering may be found in [RFC4737]. 3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: In addition to sources of errors and uncertainties associated with methods employed to measure the singleton values that make up the sample, care must be given to analyze the accuracy of the Poisson arrival process of the wire-times of the sending of the test packets. Problems with this process could be caused by several things, including problems with the pseudo-random number techniques used to generate the Poisson arrival process. The Framework document shows how to use the Anderson-Darling test to verify the accuracy of the Poisson process over small time frames. {Comment: The goal is to ensure that the test packets are sent "close enough" to a Poisson schedule, and avoid periodic behavior.} Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 3.8. Reporting the metric: The calibration and context for the underlying singletons MUST be reported along with the stream. (See "Reporting the metric" for Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss.) 4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss Given the sample metric Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream, we now offer several statistics of that sample. These statistics are offered mostly to be illustrative of what could be done. See [RFC6703] for additional discussion of statistics that are relevant to different audiences. 4.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Ratio Given a Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream, the average of all the L values in the Stream is the ratio of losses to total packets in the stream. In addition, the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Ratio is undefined if the sample is empty. Example: suppose we take a sample and the results are: Stream1 = < <T1, 0> <T2, 0> <T3, 1> <T4, 0> <T5, 0> > Then the average of loss results would be 0.2, the loss ratio. Note that, since healthy Internet paths should be operating at loss ratios below 1% (particularly if high delay-bandwidth products are to be sustained), the sample sizes needed might be larger than one would like. Thus, for example, if one wants to discriminate between various fractions of 1% over one-minute periods, then several hundred samples per minute might be needed. This would result in larger values of lambda than one would ordinarily want. Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 Note that although the loss threshold should be set such that any errors in loss are not significant, if the possibility that a packet which arrived is counted as lost due to resource exhaustion is significant compared to the loss ratio of interest, Type-P-One-way- Packet-Loss-Ratio will be meaningless. 5. Security Considerations Conducting Internet measurements raises both security and privacy concerns. This memo does not specify an implementation of the metrics, so it does not directly affect the security of the Internet nor of applications which run on the Internet. However, implementations of these metrics must be mindful of security and privacy concerns. There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by the measurements, and potential harm to the measurements. The measurements could cause harm because they are active, and inject packets into the network. The measurement parameters MUST be carefully selected so that the measurements inject trivial amounts of additional traffic into the networks they measure. If they inject "too much" traffic, they can skew the results of the measurement, and in extreme cases cause congestion and denial of service. The measurements themselves could be harmed by routers giving measurement traffic a different priority than "normal" traffic, or by an attacker injecting artificial measurement traffic. If routers can recognize measurement traffic and treat it separately, the measurements will not reflect actual user traffic. If an attacker injects artificial traffic that is accepted as legitimate, the loss ratio will be artificially lowered. Therefore, the measurement methodologies SHOULD include appropriate techniques to reduce the probability measurement traffic can be distinguished from "normal" traffic. Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may be used where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks. The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active measurements described in this memo. Unlike passive measurements, there can be no release of existing user data. 6. Acknowledgements For [RFC2680], thanks are due to Matt Mathis for encouraging this work and for calling attention on so many occasions to the significance of packet loss. Thanks are due also to Vern Paxson for his valuable comments on early drafts, and to Garry Couch and Will Leland for several useful suggestions. Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 For RFC 2680 bis, thanks to Joachim Fabini, Ruediger Geib, Nalini Elkins, and Barry Constantine for sharing their measurement experience as part of their careful reviews. Brian Carpenter and Scott Bradner provided useful feedback at IETF Last Call. 7. Changes from RFC 2680 Note: This section's placement currently preserves minimal differences between this memo and RFC 2680. The RFC Editor should place this section in an appropriate place. The text above constitutes RFC 2680 bis proposed for advancement on the IETF Standards Track. [RFC7290] provides the test plan and results supporting [RFC2680] advancement along the standards track, according to the process in [RFC6576]. The conclusions of [RFC7290] list four minor modifications for inclusion: 1. Section 6.2.3 of [RFC7290] asserts that the assumption of post- processing to enforce a constant waiting time threshold is compliant, and that the text of the RFC should be revised slightly to include this point. The applicability of post- processing was added in the last list item of section 2.6, above. 2. Section 6.5 of [RFC7290] indicates that Type-P-One-way-Packet- Loss-Average statistic is more commonly called Packet Loss Ratio, so it is re-named in RFC2680bis (this small discrepancy does not affect candidacy for advancement) The re-naming was implemented in section 4.1, above. 3. The IETF has reached consensus on guidance for reporting metrics in [RFC6703], and this memo should be referenced in RFC2680bis to incorporate recent experience where appropriate. This reference was added in the last list item of section 2.6, in section 2.8, and in section 4 above. 4. There are currently two errata with status "Verified" and "Held for document update" for [RFC2680], and these minor revisions were incorporated in section 1 and section 2.7. A number of updates to the [RFC2680] text have been implemented in the text, to reference key IPPM RFCs that were approved after [RFC2680] (see sections 3 and 3.6, above), and to address comments on the IPPM mailing list describing current conditions and experience. Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 1. Near the end of section 1.1, update of a network example using ATM and clarification of TCP's affect on queue occupation and importance of one-way delay measurement. 2. Clarification of the definition of "resolution" in section 1.2. 3. Explicit inclusion of the maximum waiting time input parameter in sections 2.2, 2.4, and 3.2, reflecting recognition of this parameter in more recent RFCs and ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540. 4. Addition of reference to RFC 6703 in the discussion of packet life time and application timeouts in section 2.5. 5. Replaced "precedence" with updated terminology (DS Field) in 2.6 and 2.8.1 (with reference). 6. Added parenthetical guidance on minimizing interval between timestamp placement to send time or reception time in section 2.6. Also, the text now recognizes the timestamp acquisition process and that practical systems measure both delay and loss (thus require the max waiting time parameter). 7. Added reference to RFC 3432 Periodic sampling alongside Poisson sampling in section 3, and also noting that a truncated Poisson distribution may be needed with modern networks as described in the IPPM Framework update, [RFC7312]. 8. Recognition that Time-slotted links described in [RFC7312] can greatly modify the sample characteristics, in section 3.5. 9. Add reference to RFC 4737 Reordering metric in the related discussion of section 3.6, Methodologies. Section 5.4.4 of [RFC6390] suggests a common template for performance metrics partially derived from previous IPPM and BMWG RFCs, but also contains some new items. All of the [RFC6390] Normative points are covered, but not quite in the same section names or orientation. Several of the Informative points are covered. Maintaining the familiar outline of IPPM literature has value and minimizes unnecessary differences between this revised RFC and current/future IPPM RFCs. 8. IANA Considerations This memo makes no requests of IANA. Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>. [RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity", RFC 2678, DOI 10.17487/RFC2678, September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2678>. [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679, September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>. [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>. [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>. [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>. Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 [RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>. [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep] Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V. Hegde, "Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework: Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets", draft- morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00 (work in progress), August 2015. [RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>. [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>. [RFC6703] Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View", RFC 6703, DOI 10.17487/RFC6703, August 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6703>. [RFC7290] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track", RFC 7290, DOI 10.17487/RFC7290, July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7290>. Authors' Addresses Guy Almes Texas A&M Email: almes@acm.org Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM August 2015 Sunil Kalidindi Ixia Email: skalidindi@ixiacom.com Matt Zekauskas Internet2 Email: matt@internet2.edu Al Morton (editor) AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue South Middletown, NJ 07748 USA Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 Email: acmorton@att.com URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/ Almes, et al. Expires February 13, 2016 [Page 20]