draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-05.txt 
Network Working Group G. Almes Network Working Group G. Almes
Internet-Draft Texas A&M Internet-Draft Texas A&M
Obsoletes: 2680 (if approved) S. Kalidindi Obsoletes: 2680 (if approved) S. Kalidindi
Intended status: Standards Track Ixia Intended status: Standards Track Ixia
Expires: February 13, 2016 M. Zekauskas Expires: February 21, 2016 M. Zekauskas
Internet2 Internet2
A. Morton, Ed. A. Morton, Ed.
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
August 12, 2015 August 20, 2015
A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM
draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04 draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-05
Abstract Abstract
This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets
across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed
in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be
familiar with that document. This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete. familiar with that document. This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 21, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 39 skipping to change at page 2, line 39
3.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss . . . . . 14 4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss . . . . . 14
4.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Changes from RFC 2680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Changes from RFC 2680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This memo defines a metric for one-way packet loss across Internet This memo defines a metric for one-way packet loss across Internet
paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM
Framework document, [RFC2330]; the reader is assumed to be familiar Framework document, [RFC2330]; the reader is assumed to be familiar
with that document, and its recent update [RFC7312]. with that document, and its recent update [RFC7312].
This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a companion This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a companion
document for One-way Delay ("A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM") document for One-way Delay ("A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM")
skipping to change at page 10, line 12 skipping to change at page 10, line 12
for extensive discussion of reporting considerations for different for extensive discussion of reporting considerations for different
audiences). audiences).
2.8.1. Type-P 2.8.1. Type-P
As noted in the Framework document, section 13 of [RFC2330], the 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 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 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 could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or
arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780], ECN arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780], ECN
[RFC3168], or RSVP) changes. Additional packet distinctions included [RFC3168], or RSVP) changes. Additional packet distinctions
in future extensions of the Type-P definition will apply. The exact identified in future extensions of the Type-P definition will apply.
Type-P used to make the measurements MUST be accurately reported. The exact Type-P used to make the measurements MUST be accurately
reported.
2.8.2. Loss Threshold 2.8.2. Loss Threshold
The threshold, Tmax, (or methodology to distinguish) between a large The threshold, Tmax, (or methodology to distinguish) between a large
finite delay and loss MUST be reported. finite delay and loss MUST be reported.
2.8.3. Calibration Results 2.8.3. Calibration Results
The degree of synchronization between the Src and Dst clocks MUST be The degree of synchronization between the Src and Dst clocks MUST be
reported. If possible, possibility that a test packet that arrives reported. If possible, possibility that a test packet that arrives
skipping to change at page 15, line 41 skipping to change at page 15, line 41
an attacker injecting artificial measurement traffic. If routers can an attacker injecting artificial measurement traffic. If routers can
recognize measurement traffic and treat it separately, the recognize measurement traffic and treat it separately, the
measurements will not reflect actual user traffic. If an attacker measurements will not reflect actual user traffic. If an attacker
injects artificial traffic that is accepted as legitimate, the loss injects artificial traffic that is accepted as legitimate, the loss
ratio will be artificially lowered. Therefore, the measurement ratio will be artificially lowered. Therefore, the measurement
methodologies SHOULD include appropriate techniques to reduce the methodologies SHOULD include appropriate techniques to reduce the
probability measurement traffic can be distinguished from "normal" probability measurement traffic can be distinguished from "normal"
traffic. Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may traffic. Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may
be used where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks. be used where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks.
The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those
measurements described in this memo. Unlike passive measurements, whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to
there can be no release of existing user data. potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques
which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user
traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer
the reader to the privacy considerations described in the Large Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework], which covers active and passive
techniques.
Collecting measurements or using measurement results for
reconnaissance to assist in subsequent system attacks is quite
common. Access to measurement results, or control of the measurement
systems to perform reconnaissance should be guarded against. See
Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework] (security considerations of
the LMAP Framework) for system requirements that help to avoid
measurement system compromise.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
For [RFC2680], thanks are due to Matt Mathis for encouraging this For [RFC2680], thanks are due to Matt Mathis for encouraging this
work and for calling attention on so many occasions to the work and for calling attention on so many occasions to the
significance of packet loss. Thanks are due also to Vern Paxson for significance of packet loss. Thanks are due also to Vern Paxson for
his valuable comments on early drafts, and to Garry Couch and Will his valuable comments on early drafts, and to Garry Couch and Will
Leland for several useful suggestions. Leland for several useful suggestions.
For RFC 2680 bis, thanks to Joachim Fabini, Ruediger Geib, Nalini For RFC 2680 bis, thanks to Joachim Fabini, Ruediger Geib, Nalini
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 16
4. There are currently two errata with status "Verified" and "Held 4. There are currently two errata with status "Verified" and "Held
for document update" for [RFC2680], and these minor revisions for document update" for [RFC2680], and these minor revisions
were incorporated in section 1 and section 2.7. were incorporated in section 1 and section 2.7.
A number of updates to the [RFC2680] text have been implemented in A number of updates to the [RFC2680] text have been implemented in
the text, to reference key IPPM RFCs that were approved after the text, to reference key IPPM RFCs that were approved after
[RFC2680] (see sections 3 and 3.6, above), and to address comments on [RFC2680] (see sections 3 and 3.6, above), and to address comments on
the IPPM mailing list describing current conditions and experience. the IPPM mailing list describing current conditions and experience.
1. Near the end of section 1.1, update of a network example using 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 ATM and clarification of TCP's affect on queue occupation and
importance of one-way delay measurement. importance of one-way delay measurement.
2. Clarification of the definition of "resolution" in section 1.2. 2. Clarification of the definition of "resolution" in section 1.2.
3. Explicit inclusion of the maximum waiting time input parameter in 3. Explicit inclusion of the maximum waiting time input parameter
sections 2.2, 2.4, and 3.2, reflecting recognition of this in sections 2.2, 2.4, and 3.2, reflecting recognition of this
parameter in more recent RFCs and ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540. parameter in more recent RFCs and ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540.
4. Addition of reference to RFC 6703 in the discussion of packet 4. Addition of reference to RFC 6703 in the discussion of packet
life time and application timeouts in section 2.5. life time and application timeouts in section 2.5.
5. Replaced "precedence" with updated terminology (DS Field) in 2.6 5. Replaced "precedence" with updated terminology (DS Field) in 2.6
and 2.8.1 (with reference). and 2.8.1 (with reference).
6. Added parenthetical guidance on minimizing interval between 6. Added parenthetical guidance on minimizing interval between
timestamp placement to send time or reception time in section timestamp placement to send time or reception time in section
2.6. Also, the text now recognizes the timestamp acquisition 2.6. Also, the text now recognizes the timestamp acquisition
process and that practical systems measure both delay and loss process and that practical systems measure both delay and loss
(thus require the max waiting time parameter). (thus require the max waiting time parameter).
7. Added reference to RFC 3432 Periodic sampling alongside Poisson 7. Added reference to RFC 3432 Periodic sampling alongside Poisson
sampling in section 3, and also noting that a truncated Poisson sampling in section 3, and also noting that a truncated Poisson
distribution may be needed with modern networks as described in distribution may be needed with modern networks as described in
the IPPM Framework update, [RFC7312]. the IPPM Framework update, [RFC7312].
8. Recognition that Time-slotted links described in [RFC7312] can 8. Recognition that Time-slotted links described in [RFC7312] can
greatly modify the sample characteristics, in section 3.5. greatly modify the sample characteristics, in section 3.5.
9. Add reference to RFC 4737 Reordering metric in the related 9. Add reference to RFC 4737 Reordering metric in the related
discussion of section 3.6, Methodologies. discussion of section 3.6, Methodologies.
10. Expanded and updated the material on Privacy, and added cautions
on use of measurements for reconnaissance in section 5, Security
Considerations.
Section 5.4.4 of [RFC6390] suggests a common template for performance Section 5.4.4 of [RFC6390] suggests a common template for performance
metrics partially derived from previous IPPM and BMWG RFCs, but also metrics partially derived from previous IPPM and BMWG RFCs, but also
contains some new items. All of the [RFC6390] Normative points are contains some new items. All of the [RFC6390] Normative points are
covered, but not quite in the same section names or orientation. covered, but not quite in the same section names or orientation.
Several of the Informative points are covered. Maintaining the Several of the Informative points are covered. Maintaining the
familiar outline of IPPM literature has value and minimizes familiar outline of IPPM literature has value and minimizes
unnecessary differences between this revised RFC and current/future unnecessary differences between this revised RFC and current/future
IPPM RFCs. IPPM RFCs.
skipping to change at page 19, line 17 skipping to change at page 19, line 27
Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>. 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", draft-ietf-
lmap-framework-14 (work in progress), April 2015.
[I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep] [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep]
Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V. Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V.
Hegde, "Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework: Hegde, "Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework:
Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets", draft- Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets", draft-
morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00 (work in progress), morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00 (work in progress),
August 2015. August 2015.
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov, [RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006,
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 62 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/