A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric
draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-08
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 5560.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dr. Henk A.J Uijterwaal | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2009-04-17) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 5560 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Lars Eggert | ||
| Send notices to | matt@internet2.edu |
draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-08
Network Working Group H. Uijterwaal
Internet-Draft RIPE NCC
Intended status: Standards Track April 17, 2009
Expires: October 19, 2009
A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric
draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-08.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
When a packet is sent from one host to the other, one normally
expects that exactly one copy of the packet that was sent arrives at
the destination. It is, however, possible that a packet is either
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
lost or that multiple copies arrive.
In earlier work a metric for packet loss has been defined. This
metric quantifies the case where a packet that is sent, does not
arrive at its destination within a reasonable time. In this memo, a
metric for another case is defined: a packet is sent, but multiple
copies arrive. The document also discusses streams and methods to
summarize the results of streams.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. A Singleton Definition for one-way packet arrival count . . . 5
2.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Metrics Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.7. Errors and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.8. Reporting the metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. A Singleton Definition for one-way packet duplication . . . . 7
3.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Metrics Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Definition for samples for one-way Packet Duplication . . . . 8
4.1. Poisson Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.5. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.6. Errors and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.7. Reporting the metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Periodic Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.5. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.6. Errors and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.7. Reporting the metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Some statistics definitions for one-way Duplication . . . . . 10
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
5.1. Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Type-P-one-way-replicated-packet-rate . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
1. Introduction
This document defines a metric for one-way packet duplication across
Internet paths. It builds on the IPPM Framework document [RFC2330];
the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document.
This document follows the same structure as the document for one-way
Packet Loss [RFC2680]; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that
document as well.
The structure of this memo is as follows:
o First, a singleton metric, called Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-
count, is introduced to measure the number of arriving packets for
each packet sent.
o Then, a singleton metric, called Type-P-one-way-packet-
duplication, is defined to describe a single instance of packet
duplication.
o Next, this singleton metric is used to define samples, Type-P-one-
way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream and Type-P-one-way-Packet-
Duplication-Periodic-Stream. These are introduced to measure
duplication in a series of packets sent with either Poisson-
distributed [RFC2680] or periodic [RFC3432] intervals between the
packets.
o Finally, statistics that summarize the properties of these samples
are introduced.
1.1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Although RFC 2119 was written with protocols in mind, the key words
are used in this document for similar reasons. They are used to
ensure the results of measurements from two different implementations
are comparable, and to note instances when an implementation could
perturb the network.
1.2. Motivation
When a packet is sent from one host to the other, one normally
expects that exactly one copy of the packet that was sent arrives at
the destination. It is, however, possible that a packet is either
lost or that multiple copies arrive.
In earlier work a metric for packet loss has been defined [RFC2680].
This metric distinguishes between cases where the packet arrives and
where the packet does not arrive within a reasonable time. In this
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
memo, a metric for a third outcome is defined: a single packet is
sent but multiple copies arrive.
As this document describes a case similar to the one discussed in
[RFC2680], all considerations from that document on timing and
accuracy apply.
2. A Singleton Definition for one-way packet arrival count
2.1. Metric Name
Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count
2.2. Metrics Parameters
o Src, the IP address of a host
o Dst, the IP address of a host
o T, the wire time of a packet at the source
o T0, the maximum waiting time for a packet to arrive at the
destination.
2.3. Metric Units
An integer number
2.4. Definition
Two packets are considered identical if and only if:
o Both contain identical information fields (see section 2.5). The
recipient thus could take either packet and use the data in an
application. The other packet does not contain any additional
information.
o Both packets appear to have been sent by one and the same host, to
one and the same destination. Host are identified by their IP
addresses.
The value of a Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count is a positive
integer number indicating the number of (uncorrupted and identical)
copies received by dst in the interval [T, T+T0] for a packet sent by
src at time T.
If a packet is sent, but it is lost or does not arrive in the
interval [T, T+T0], then the metric is undefined. Applications MAY
report an "impossible" value (for example, -1) to indicate this
condition instead of undefined.
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
If a packet is fragmented during transport and if, for whatever
reason, re-assembly does not occur, then the packet will be deemed
lost. It is thus not included in the Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-
count.
2.5. Discussion
This metric counts the number of packets arriving for each packet
sent. The time-out value T0 SHOULD be set to a value when the
application could potentially still use the packet and would not
discard it automatically.
If this metrics is used in parallel with the Packet Loss Metric
[RFC2680], the value of T0 MUST be the same for both cases in order
to keep the results comparable.
The metric only counts packets that are not corrupted during
transmission and may have been resent automatically by lower layers
or intermediate devices. Packets that were corrupted during
transmission but nevertheless still arrived at dst are not counted.
Clocks do have to be synchronized between src and dst such that it is
possible to uniquely and accurately determine the interval [T, T+T0]
at both sides.
If this metric is used in an active measurement system, the system
MUST NOT send multiple packets with identical information fields, in
order to avoid that all packets will be declared duplicates. This
metric can be used inside a passive measurement system as well, using
packets generated by another source. However, if the source can send
two identical packets within the interval [T, T+T0], this will be
incorrectly labelled as a duplicate, resulting in a false positive.
It is up to the implementor to estimate if this scenario is likely to
happen and the rate of false positives is acceptable.
The definition of identical information fields is such that two
packets are considered to be identical if they are sent from the same
source and contain the same information. This does not necessarily
mean that all bits in the packet are the same. For example, when a
packet is replicated and the copies are transferred along different
paths, the TTL may be different. The implementation MUST specify
which fields are compared when deciding if two packets are identical
or not.
In case of IPv4, these will usually be: version, ihl, identification,
src, dst, protocol, some or all upper layer protocol data
In IPv6, these will usually be: version, next header, source,
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
destination, some or all upper layer protocol data
Note that the use of the identification field is not present in non-
fragmented IPv6 packets and may not be sufficient to distinguish
packets from each even in IPv4, particularly at higher transmission
speeds
2.6. Methodology
The basic technique to measure this metrics follows the methodology
described in [RFC2680], section 2.6, with one exception.
[RFC2680] does not specify that the receiving host should be able to
receive multiple copies of a single packet, as it only needs one copy
to determine the metrics. Implementations for this metric should
obviously be capable to receive multiple copies.
2.7. Errors and uncertainties
Refer to section 2.7 of [RFC2680]
2.8. Reporting the metric
Refer to section 2.8 of [RFC2680]
3. A Singleton Definition for one-way packet duplication
3.1. Metric Name
Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication
3.2. Metrics Parameters
o Src, the IP address of a host
o Dst, the IP address of a host
o T, the wire time of a packet at the source
o T0, the maximum waiting time for a packet to arrive at the
destination.
3.3. Metric Units
An integer number.
3.4. Definition
The value of a Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication is a positive
integer number indicating the number of (uncorrupted and identical)
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
additional copies of an individual packet received by dst in the
interval [T, T+T0] sent by src at time T.
If a packet is sent and only one copy arrives in the interval [T,
T+T0], then the metric is 0. If no copy arrives in this interval,
then the metric is undefined. Applications MAY report an
"impossible" value (for example, -1) to indicate this condition.
3.5. Discussion
This metric is equal to
Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count - 1
This metric is expected to be used for applications that need to know
duplication for an individual packet. All considerations regarding
methodology, errors and reporting from the previous section apply.
4. Definition for samples for one-way Packet Duplication
4.1. Poisson Streams
4.1.1. Metric Name
Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream
4.1.2. Metric Parameters
o Src, the IP address of a host
o Dst, the IP address of a host
o Ts, a time
o Tf, a time. Ts and Tf specify the time interval when packets can
be sent for this stream.
o T0, the maximum waiting time for a packet to arrive at the
destination.
o lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds
4.1.3. Metric Units
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
o T, a time
o Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count for the packet sent at T.
4.1.4. Definition
Given Ts, Tf and lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
beginning at or before Ts, with average rate lambda and ending at or
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to Ts, 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-arrival-count.
The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the resulting
{time, duplication} pairs. If there are no such pairs, the sequence
is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty.
4.1.5. Methodology
Refer to [RFC2680], section 3.6.
4.1.6. Errors and uncertainties
Refer to [RFC2680], section 3.7.
4.1.7. Reporting the metric
Refer to [RFC2680], section 3.8.
4.2. Periodic Streams
4.2.1. Metric Name
Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Periodic-Stream
4.2.2. Metric Parameters
o Src, the IP address of a host
o Dst, the IP address of a host
o Ts, a time
o Tf, a time. Ts and Tf specify the time interval when packets can
be sent for this stream.
o T0, the maximum waiting time for a packet to arrive at the
destination.
o lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds
4.2.3. Metric Units
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
o T, a time
o Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count for the packet sent at T.
4.2.4. Definition
At time Ts, we start sending packets with a constant rate lambda,
until time Tf. For each packet sent, we obtain the value of Type-P-
one-way-packet-arrival-count. The value of the sample is the
sequence made up of the resulting {time, duplication} pairs. If
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
there are no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the
sample is said to be empty.
4.2.5. Methodology
Refer to [RFC3432], section 4.5.
4.2.6. Errors and uncertainties
Refer to [RFC3432], section 4.6.
4.2.7. Reporting the metric
Refer to [RFC3432], section 4.7.
5. Some statistics definitions for one-way Duplication
Note: the statistics described in this section can be used for both
Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream and Type-P-one-way-
Packet-Duplication-Periodic-Stream. The application SHOULD report
which sample was used as input.
5.1. Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction
This statistic gives the fraction of additional packets that arrived
in a stream.
Given a Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream, one first
removes all values of Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication which are
undefined. For the remaining pairs in the stream, one calculates:
(Sum Type-P-one-Way-packet-arrival-count/Number of pairs left) - 1
(In other words, (number of packets received)/(number of packets sent
and not lost).)
The number can be expressed as a percentage.
Note: this statistic is the equivalent of the Y.1540 IPDR [Y1540]
5.2. Type-P-one-way-replicated-packet-rate
This statistic gives the fraction of packets that was duplicated (one
or more times) in a stream.
Given a Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream, one first
removes all values of Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count which are
undefined. For the remaining pairs in the stream, one counts the
number of pairs with Type-P-one-Way-packet-arrival-count greater than
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
1. Then one calculates the fraction of packets that meet this
criterion as a fraction of the total. (In other words: (number of
duplicated packets)/(number of packets sent and not lost).).
The number can be expressed as a percentage.
Note: this statistic is the equivalent of the Y.1540 RIPR [Y1540]
5.3. Examples
Consider a stream of 4 packets, sent as:
(1, 2, 3, 4)
and arriving as:
o Case 1: (1, 2, 3, 4)
o Case 2: (1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4)
o Case 3: (1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4)
o Case 4: (1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4)
Case 1: No packets are duplicated in a stream and both the Type-P-
one-way-packet-duplication-fraction and the type-P-one-way-packet-
replicated-packet-rate are 0.
Case 2: Every packet is duplicated once and the Type-P-one-way-
packet-duplication-fraction is 100%. The type-P-one-way-replicated-
packet-rate is 100% too.
Case 3: Every packet is duplicated twice, so the Type-P-one-way-
packet-duplication-fraction is 200%. The type-P-one-way-replicated-
packet-rate is still 100%.
Case 4: Half the packets are duplicated twice and the other half are
not duplicated. The Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction is
again 100% and this number does not show the difference with case 2.
However, the type-P-one-way-packet-replicated-packet-rate is 50% in
this case and 100% in case 2.
However, the type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-rate will not show the
difference between case 2 and 3. For this, one has to look at the
Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction.
Finally, note that the order in which the packets arrived, do not
affect the results. For example, these variations of case 2:
o Case 2a: (1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4)
o Case 2b: (1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4)
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
o Case 2c: (1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1)
(as well as any other permutation) all yield the same results for
Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction and the type-P-one-way-
replicated-packet-rate.
6. 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
rate 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.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to add this metrics to the IANA IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM) Metrics Registry, see [RFC4148]. This section can be removed
after this has been done and upon publication as a RFC.
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
8. Acknowledgements
The idea to write this draft came up in a meeting with Al Morton,
Stanislav Shalunov, Emile Stephan and the author, on the IPPM
reporting draft.
This document relies heavily on [RFC2680] and the author likes to
thank the authors of that document for writing it.
Finally, thanks are due to Lars Eggert, Al Morton, Martin Swany and
Matt Zekauskas for their comments.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
May 1998.
[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
[Y1540] "Y.1540 ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 (2007), Internet
protocol data communication service IP packet transfer
and availability performance parameters.", 2007.
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Packet Duplication Metric April 2009
Author's Address
Henk Uijterwaal
RIPE NCC
Singel 258
1016 AB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 535 4444
Email: henk@ripe.net
Uijterwaal Expires October 19, 2009 [Page 14]