draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-00.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Intended status: Standards Track June 24, 2012 Intended status: Informational December 21, 2012
Expires: December 26, 2012 Expires: June 24, 2013
Rate Measurement Problem Statement Rate Measurement Problem Statement
draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-00 draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-01
Abstract Abstract
There is a rate measurement scenario which has wide-spread attention There is a rate measurement scenario which has wide-spread attention
of users and seemingly all industry participants, including of Internet access subscribers and seemingly all industry players,
regulators. This memo presents an access rate-measurement problem including regulators. This memo presents an access rate-measurement
statement for IP Performance Metrics. Key aspects require the problem statement for IP Performance Metrics. Key test protocol
ability to control packet size on the tested path and enable aspects require the ability to control packet size on the tested path
asymmetrical packet size testing in a controller-responder and enable asymmetrical packet size testing in a controller-responder
architecture. architecture.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 December 26, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 24, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Active Rate Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Active Rate Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Measurement Method Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Measurement Method Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Test Protocol Control & Generation Requirements . . . . . . . . 7 5. Test Protocol Control & Generation Requirements . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
There are many possible rate measurement scenarios. This memo There are many possible rate measurement scenarios. This memo
describes one rate measurement problem and presents a rate- describes one rate measurement problem and presents a rate-
measurement problem statement for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM). measurement problem statement for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM).
The access-rate scenario or use case has wide-spread attention of The access-rate scenario or use case has wide-spread attention of
users and seemingly all industry participants, including regulators. Internet access subscribers and seemingly all Internet industry
It is being approached with many different measurement methods. players, including regulators. This problem is being approached with
many different measurement methods.
2. Purpose and Scope 2. Purpose and Scope
The scope and purpose of this memo is to define the measurement The scope and purpose of this memo is to define the measurement
problem statement for access rate measurement on production networks. problem statement for test protocols conducting access rate
We characterize this scenario as follows: measurement on production networks. Relevant test protocols include
[RFC4656] and [RFC5357]), but the problem is stated in a general way
so that it can be addressed by any existing test protocol. This memo
discusses possibilities for methods of measurement, but does not
specify exact methods which would normally be part of the solution,
not the problem.
o The Access portion of the network is the focus of this effort. We characterize the access rate measurement scenario as follows:
The user typically subscribes to a service with bi-directional
access partly described by rates in bits per second. o The Access portion of the network is the focus of this problem
statement. The user typically subscribes to a service with bi-
directional access partly described by rates in bits per second.
o Rates at the edge of the network are several orders of magnitude o Rates at the edge of the network are several orders of magnitude
less than aggregation and core portions. less than aggregation and core portions.
o Asymmetrical ingress and egress rates are prevalent. o Asymmetrical ingress and egress rates are prevalent.
o Extremely large scale of access services requires low complexity o Extremely large scale of access services requires low complexity
devices participating at the user end of the path. devices participating at the user end of the path.
Today, the majority of widely deployed access services achieve rates Today, the majority of widely deployed access services achieve rates
less than 100 Mbit/s, and this is the rate-regime for which a less than 100 Mbit/s, and this is the order of magnitude for which a
solution is sought now. solution is sought now.
This problem statement assumes that the most-likely bottleneck device This problem statement assumes that the most-likely bottleneck device
or link is adjacent to the remote (user-end) measurement device, or or link is adjacent to the remote (user-end) measurement device, or
is within one or two router/switch hops of the remote measurement is within one or two router/switch hops of the remote measurement
device. device.
Other use cases for rate measurement involve situations where the Other use cases for rate measurement involve situations where the
packet switching and transport facilities are leased by one operator packet switching and transport facilities are leased by one operator
from another and the actual capacity available cannot be directly from another and the actual capacity available cannot be directly
determined (e.g., from device interface utilization). These determined (e.g., from device interface utilization). These
scenarios could include mobile backhaul, Ethernet Service access scenarios could include mobile backhaul, Ethernet Service access
networks, and/or extensions of a layer 2 or layer 3 networks. The networks, and/or extensions of layer 2 or layer 3 networks. The
results of rate measurements in such cases could be employed to results of rate measurements in such cases could be employed to
select alternate routing, investigate whether capacity meets some select alternate routing, investigate whether capacity meets some
previous agreement, and/or adapting the rate of certain traffic previous agreement, and/or adapt the rate of traffic sources if a
sources if a capacity bottleneck is found via the rate measurement. capacity bottleneck is found via the rate measurement. In the case
of aggregated leased networks, available capacity may also be
In the case of aggregated leased networks, available capacity may asymmetric. In these cases, the tester is assumed to have a sender
also be asymmetric. In these cases, the tester is assumed to have a and receiver location under their control. We refer to this scenario
sender and receiver location under their control. We refer to this below as the aggregated leased network case.
scenario below as the aggregated leased network case.
Only active measurement methods will be addressed here, consistent Only active measurement methods will be addressed here, consistent
with the IPPM working group's current charter. Active measurements with the IPPM working group's current charter. Active measurements
require synthetic traffic dedicated to testing, and do not use user require synthetic traffic dedicated to testing, and do not use user
traffic. traffic.
The actual path used may influence the rate measurement results for The actual path used by traffic may influence the rate measurement
some forms of access, as it may differ between user and test traffic. results for some forms of access, as it may differ between user and
test traffic if the test traffic has different characteristics,
primarily in terms of the packets themselves (the Type-P described in
[RFC2330]).
o This issue requires further study to list the likely causes for There are several aspects of Type-P where user traffic may be
this behavior. The possibilities include IP address assignment, examined and directed to special treatment that may affect
transport protocol used (where TCP packets may be routed transmission rates. The possibilities include:
differently from UDP).
o Packet length
o IP addresses used
o Transport protocol used (where TCP packets may be routed
differently from UDP)
o Transport Protocol port numbers used
This issue requires further discussion when specific solutions/
methods of measurement are proposed, but for this problem statement
it is sufficient to Identify the problem and indicate that the
solution may require an extremely close emulation of user traffic, in
terms of the factors above.
Although the user may have multiple instances of network access Although the user may have multiple instances of network access
available to them, the primary intent is to measure one form of available to them, the primary problem scope is to measure one form
access at a time. It is plausible that a solution for the single of access at a time. It is plausible that a solution for the single
access problem will be applicable to simultaneous measurement of access problem will be applicable to simultaneous measurement of
multiple access instances, but this is beyond the current scope. multiple access instances, but discussion of this is beyond the
current scope.
A key consideration is whether active measurements will be conducted A key consideration is whether active measurements will be conducted
with user traffic present (In-Service Testing), or not present (Out- with user traffic present (In-Service testing), or not present (Out-
of-Service Testing), such as during pre-service testing or of-Service testing), such as during pre-service testing or
maintenance that interrupts service temporarily. Out-of-Service maintenance that interrupts service temporarily. Out-of-Service
testing includes activities described as "service commissioning", testing includes activities described as "service commissioning",
"service activation", and "planned maintenance". Both In-Service and "service activation", and "planned maintenance". Both In-Service and
Out-of-Service Testing are within the scope of this problem. Out-of-Service testing are within the scope of this problem.
It is a non-goal to solve the measurement protocol specification It is a non-goal to solve the measurement protocol specification
problem in this memo. problem in this memo.
It is a non-goal to standardize methods of measurement in this memo. It is a non-goal to standardize methods of measurement in this memo.
However, the problem statement will mandate that support for one or However, the problem statement will mandate that support for one or
more categories of rate measurement methods and adequate control more categories of rate measurement methods and adequate control
features for the methods in the test protocol. features for the methods in the test protocol.
3. Active Rate Measurement 3. Active Rate Measurement
This section lists features of active measurement methods needed to This section lists features of active measurement methods needed to
measure access rates in production networks. measure access rates in production networks.
Test coordination between Source and Destination devices through Test coordination between source and destination devices through
control messages and other basic capabilities described in the control messages and other basic capabilities described in the
methods of IPPM RFCs [RFC2679][RFC2680] are taken as given (these methods of IPPM RFCs [RFC2679][RFC2680] are taken as given (these
could be listed later, if desired). could be listed later, if desired).
Most forms of active testing intrude on user performance to some Most forms of active testing intrude on user performance to some
degree. One key tenet of IPPM methods is to minimize test traffic degree. One key tenet of IPPM methods is to minimize test traffic
effects on user traffic in the production network. Section 5 of effects on user traffic in the production network. Section 5 of
[RFC2680] lists the problems with high measurement traffic rates, and [RFC2680] lists the problems with high measurement traffic rates, and
the most relevant for rate measurement is the tendency for the most relevant for rate measurement is the tendency for
measurement traffic to skew the results, followed by the possibility measurement traffic to skew the results, followed by the possibility
to introduce congestion on the access link. Obviously, categories of of introducing congestion on the access link. Obviously, categories
rate measurement methods that use less active test traffic than of rate measurement methods that use less active test traffic than
others with similar accuracy SHALL be preferred for In-Service others with similar accuracy SHALL be preferred for In-Service
Testing. testing.
On the other hand, Out-of-Service Tests where the test path shares no On the other hand, Out-of-Service tests where the test path shares no
links with In-Service user traffic have none of the congestion or links with In-Service user traffic have none of the congestion or
skew concerns, but must address other practical concerns such as skew concerns, but these tests must address other practical concerns
conducting measurements within a reasonable time from the tester's such as conducting measurements within a reasonable time from the
point of view. Out-of-Service Tests where some part of the test path tester's point of view. Out-of-Service tests where some part of the
is shared with In-Service traffic MUST respect the In-Service test path is shared with In-Service traffic MUST respect the In-
constraints. Service constraints.
The **intended metrics to be measured** have strong influence over The **intended metrics to be measured** have strong influence over
the categories of measurement methods required. For example, using the categories of measurement methods required. For example, using
the terminology of [RFC5136], a it may be possible to measure a Path the terminology of [RFC5136], a it may be possible to measure a Path
Capacity Metric while In-Service if the level of background (user) Capacity Metric while In-Service if the level of background (user)
traffic can be assessed and included in the reported result. traffic can be assessed and included in the reported result.
The measurement *architecture* MAY be either of one-way (e.g., The measurement *architecture* MAY be either of one-way (e.g.,
[RFC4656]) or two-way (e.g., [RFC5357]), but the scale and complexity [RFC4656]) or two-way (e.g., [RFC5357]), but the scale and complexity
aspects of end-user or aggregated access measurement clearly favor aspects of end-user or aggregated access measurement clearly favor
two-way (with low-complexity user-end device and round-trip results two-way (with low-complexity user-end device and round-trip results
collection, as found in [RFC5357]). However, the asymmetric rates of collection, as found in [RFC5357]). However, the asymmetric rates of
many access services mean that the measurement system MUST be able to many access services mean that the measurement system MUST be able to
assess each direction of transmission. In the two-way architecture, evaluate performance in each direction of transmission. In the two-
it is expected that both end devices MUST include the ability to way architecture, it is expected that both end devices MUST include
launch test streams and collect the results of measurements in both the ability to launch test streams and collect the results of
(one-way) directions of transmission (this requirement is consistent measurements in both (one-way) directions of transmission (this
with previous protocol specifications, it is not a unique problem for requirement is consistent with previous protocol specifications, and
rate measurements). it is not a unique problem for rate measurements).
The following paragraphs describe features for the roles of test The following paragraphs describe features for the roles of test
packet SENDER, RECEIVER, and results REPORTER. packet SENDER, RECEIVER, and results REPORTER.
SENDER: SENDER:
Ability to generate streams of test packets with various Generate streams of test packets with various characteristics as
characteristics as desired (see Section 4). The SENDER may be desired (see Section 4). The SENDER may be located at the user end
located at the user end of the access path, or may be located of the access path, or may be located elsewhere in the production
elsewhere in the production network, such as at one end of an network, such as at one end of an aggregated leased network segment.
aggregated leased network segment.
RECEIVER: RECEIVER:
Ability to collect streams of test packets with various Collect streams of test packets with various characteristics (as
characteristics (as described above), and make the measurements described above), and make the measurements necessary to support rate
necessary to support rate measurement at the other end of an end-user measurement at the other end of an end-user access or aggregated
access or aggregated leased network segment. leased network segment.
REPORTER: REPORTER:
Ability to use information from test packets and local processes to Use information from test packets and local processes to measure
measure delivered packet rates. delivered packet rates.
4. Measurement Method Categories 4. Measurement Method Categories
The design of rate measurement methods can be divided into two The design of rate measurement methods can be divided into two
phases: test stream design and measurement (SENDER and RECEIVER), and phases: test stream design and measurement (SENDER and RECEIVER), and
a follow-up phase for analysis of the measurement to produce results a follow-up phase for analysis of the measurement to produce results
(REPORTER). The measurement protocol that addresses this problem (REPORTER). The measurement protocol that addresses this problem
MUST only serve the test stream generation and measurement functions. MUST only serve the test stream generation and measurement functions.
For the purposes of this problem statement, we categorize the many For the purposes of this problem statement, we categorize the many
possibilities for rate measurement stream generation as follows; possibilities for rate measurement stream generation as follows;
1. Packet pairs, with fixed intra-pair packet spacing and fixed or 1. Packet pairs, with fixed intra-pair packet spacing and fixed or
random time intervals between pairs in a test stream. random time intervals between pairs in a test stream.
2. Multiple streams of packet pairs, with a range intra-pair spacing 2. Multiple streams of packet pairs, with a range of intra-pair
and inter-pair intervals. spacing and inter-pair intervals.
3. One or more packet ensembles in a test stream, using a fixed 3. One or more packet ensembles in a test stream, using a fixed
ensemble size in packets and one or more fixed intra-ensemble ensemble size in packets and one or more fixed intra-ensemble
packet spacings (including zero). packet spacings (including zero spacing).
4. One or more packet chirps, where intra-packet spacing typically 4. One or more packet chirps, where intra-packet spacing typically
decreases between adjacent packets in the same chirp and each decreases between adjacent packets in the same chirp and each
pair of packets represents a rate for testing purposes. pair of packets represents a rate for testing purposes.
For all categories, the test protocol MUST support: For all categories, the test protocol MUST support:
1. Variable payload lengths among packet streams 1. Variable payload lengths among packet streams
2. Variable length (in packets) among packet streams or ensembles 2. Variable length (in packets) among packet streams or ensembles
3. Variable header markings among packet streams
4. Variable number of packets-pairs, ensembles, or streams used in a 3. Variable IP header markings among packet streams
4. Choice of UDP transport and variable port numbers, OR, choice of
TCP transport and variable port numbers for two-way architectures
only, OR BOTH.
5. Variable number of packets-pairs, ensembles, or streams used in a
test session test session
are additional variables that the test protocol MUST be able to The items above are additional variables that the test protocol MUST
communicate. be able to identify and control.
The test protocol SHALL support test packet ensemble generation The test protocol SHALL support test packet ensemble generation
(category 3), as this appears to minimize the demands on measurement (category 3), as this appears to minimize the demands on measurement
accuracy. Other stream generation categories are OPTIONAL. accuracy. Other stream generation categories are OPTIONAL.
>>>>>>
Note: For measurement systems employing TCP Transport protocol, the
ability to generate specific stream characteristics requires a sender
with the ability to establish and prime the connection such that the
desired stream characteristics are allowed. See Mathis' work in
progress for more background [draft-mathis-ippm-model-based-metrics].
The general requirement statements needed to describe an "open-loop"
TCP sender require some additional discussion.
It may also be useful to specify a control for Bulk Transfer Capacity
measurement with fully-specified TCP senders and receivers, as
envisioned in [RFC3148], but this would be a brute-force assessment
which does not follow the conservative tenets of IPPM measurement.
>>>>>>
Measurements for each test packet transferred between SENDER and Measurements for each test packet transferred between SENDER and
RECEIVER MUST be compliant with the singleton measurement methods RECEIVER MUST be compliant with the singleton measurement methods
described in IPPM RFCs [RFC2679][RFC2680] (these could be listed described in IPPM RFCs [RFC2679][RFC2680] (these could be listed
later, if desired). The time-stamp information or loss/arrival later, if desired). The time-stamp information or loss/arrival
status for each packet MUST be available for communication to the status for each packet MUST be available for communication to the
protocol entity that collects results. protocol entity that collects results.
5. Test Protocol Control & Generation Requirements 5. Test Protocol Control & Generation Requirements
Essentially, the test protocol MUST support the measurement features Essentially, the test protocol MUST support the measurement features
skipping to change at page 8, line 19 skipping to change at page 9, line 17
by unauthorized parties. by unauthorized parties.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This memo makes no requests of IANA. This memo makes no requests of IANA.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Dave McDysan provided comments and text for the aggregated leased use Dave McDysan provided comments and text for the aggregated leased use
case. Yaakov Stein suggested many considerations to address, case. Yaakov Stein suggested many considerations to address,
including the in-service vs. out-of-service distinction and its including the In-Service vs. Out-of-Service distinction and its
implication on test traffic limits. implication on test traffic limits and protocols.
9. Appendix 9. Appendix
This Appendix is intended to briefly summarize previous rate This Appendix was proposed to briefly summarize previous rate
measurement experience. (There is a large body of research on rate measurement experience. (There is a large body of research on rate
measurement, so there is a question of what to include and what to measurement, so there is a question of what to include and what to
omit.) omit. Suggestions are welcome.)
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC1305] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) [RFC1305] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, March 1992. Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, March 1992.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
May 1998.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999. Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999. Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006. (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, October 2008. RFC 5357, October 2008.
[RFC5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the [RFC5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618,
August 2009. August 2009.
skipping to change at page 9, line 23 skipping to change at page 10, line 26
[RFC5938] Morton, A. and M. Chiba, "Individual Session Control [RFC5938] Morton, A. and M. Chiba, "Individual Session Control
Feature for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Feature for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP)", RFC 5938, August 2010. (TWAMP)", RFC 5938, August 2010.
[RFC6038] Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement [RFC6038] Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size
Features", RFC 6038, October 2010. Features", RFC 6038, October 2010.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC3148] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining
Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148,
July 2001.
[RFC5136] Chimento, P. and J. Ishac, "Defining Network Capacity", [RFC5136] Chimento, P. and J. Ishac, "Defining Network Capacity",
RFC 5136, February 2008. RFC 5136, February 2008.
Author's Address Author's Address
Al Morton Al Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South 200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748 Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA USA
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
88 lines changed or deleted 144 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/