IP Performance Measurement (ippm)
|WG||Name||IP Performance Measurement|
|Area||Transport Area (tsv)|
|Status Update||Show update (last changed 2018-02-05)|
|Dependencies||Document dependency graph (SVG)|
|Jabber chat||Room address||xmpp:email@example.com?join|
Charter for Working Group
The IP Performance Measurement (IPPM) Working Group develops and maintains
standard metrics that can be applied to the quality, performance, and
reliability of Internet data delivery services and applications running over
transport layer protocols (e.g. TCP, UDP) over IP. It also develops and
maintains methodologies and protocols for the measurement of these metrics.
These metrics, protocols, and methodologies are designed such that they can be
used by network operators, end users, or independent testing groups. Metrics
developed by the IPPM WG are intended to provide unbiased quantitative
The IPPM WG works to foster commonality and comparability of metrics and
measurements across IETF protocols at different layers. Its work is limited to
metrics and methodologies which are applicable over transport-layer protocols
over IP, and does not specify encapsulations required for measurements over
The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and procedures
for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The working group will
continue advancing the most useful of these metrics along the standards track,
using the guidelines stated in RFC 6576. To the extent possible, these metrics
will be used as the basis for future work on metrics in the WG.
The WG will seek to develop new metrics and models to accurately characterize
the network paths under test and/or the performance of transport and application
layer protocols on these paths. The WG will balance the need for new metrics
with the desire to minimize the introduction of new metrics, and will require
that new metric definitions state how the definition improves on an existing
metric definition, or assesses a property of network performance not previously
covered by a defined metric. Metric definitions will follow the template given
in RFC 6390.
Additional methods will be defined for the composition and calibration of
IPPM-defined metrics, as well as active, passive and hybrid measurement methods
for these metrics. In addition, the WG encourages work which describes the
applicability of metrics and measurement methods, especially to improve
understanding of the tradeoffs involved among active, passive, and hybrid
The WG may update its core framework RFC 2330 as necessary to accommodate these activities.
The WG has produced protocols for communication among test equipment to enable
the measurement of the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP respectively).
These protocols will be advanced along the standards track. The work of the WG
will take into account the suitability of measurements for automation, in order
to support large-scale measurement efforts. This may result in further
developments in protocols such as OWAMP and TWAMP.
Agreement about the definitions of metrics and methods of measurement enables
accurate, reproducible, and equivalent results across different implementations.
To this end, the WG defines and maintains a registry of metric definitions.
The WG encourages work which assesses the comparability of measurements of IPPM
metrics with metrics developed elsewhere. The WG also encourages work which
improves the availability of information about the context in which measurements
were taken, for example (but not limited to) measurement implementation
information, estimates of confidence in these measurements, conditions on the
network(s) on which measurements are taken, and/or information about the
data-plane topology of these network(s).
In the interest of measurement comparability, the WG may define data formats and
information models for the storage and exchange of the results of measurements
defined within IPPM.
The IPPM WG seeks cooperation with other appropriate standards bodies and forums
to promote consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF process, IPPM
metric definitions and measurement protocols will be subject to as rigorous a
scrutiny for usefulness, clarity, and accuracy as other protocol standards. The
IPPM WG will interact with other areas of IETF activity whose scope intersects
with the requirement of these specific metrics. The WG will, on request, provide
input to other IETF working groups on the use and implementation of these
|Done||Submit draft on core registry for performance metrics to IESG as Proposed Standard|
|Nov 2018||submit a Standards Track draft on inband OAM based measurement methodologies to the IESG|
submit a Standards Track document to the IESG updating RFC2330 to cover IPv6
|Done||submit a Standards Track document to the IESG defining initial contents of performance metric registry|
|Done||Submit an Experimental draft on coloring-based hybrid measurement methodologies for loss and delay to the IESG|
|Oct 2017||submit a Standards Track document to the IESG for a YANG model for managing TWAMP clients and servers|
|Done||submit a Standards Track document to the IESG adding support for IEEE-1588 timestamps to TWAMP|
|Done||Submit a draft on the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option as Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity metrics to IESG as Experimental|
|Done||Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and active measurement to the IESG as Informational|
|Done||Submit draft on the UDP Checksum Trailer in OWAMP and TWAMP to the IESG as Informational|
|Done||Submit draft on DSCP and ECN monitoring in TWAMP to IESG as Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit draft on "A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM" (RFC 2680 bis) as Internet Standard|
|Done||Submit draft on "A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM" (RFC 2679 bis) as Internet Standard|
|Done||Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit draft on access rate measurement protocol problem statement to IESG as Informational|
|Done||Submit draft on reference path for measurement location to IESG as Informational|
|Done||Submit draft updating the IPPM Framework (2330-update) to IESG as Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit draft on RFC 2680 standards-track advancement testing to IESG as Informational|
3 new milestones currently in Area Director review.