draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-03.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04.txt 
Network Working Group J. Fabini Network Working Group J. Fabini
Internet-Draft Vienna University of Technology Internet-Draft Vienna University of Technology
Updates: 2330 (if approved) A. Morton Updates: 2330 (if approved) A. Morton
Intended status: Informational AT&T Labs Intended status: Informational AT&T Labs
Expires: September 24, 2014 March 23, 2014 Expires: October 18, 2014 April 16, 2014
Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM
draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-03 draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04
Abstract Abstract
To obtain repeatable results in modern networks, test descriptions To obtain repeatable results in modern networks, test descriptions
need an expanded stream parameter framework that also augments need an expanded stream parameter framework that also augments
aspects specified as Type-P for test packets. This memo proposes to aspects specified as Type-P for test packets. This memo updates the
update the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework with advanced IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC 2330 with advanced
considerations for measurement methodology and testing. The existing considerations for measurement methodology and testing. The existing
framework mostly assumes deterministic connectivity, and that a framework mostly assumes deterministic connectivity, and that a
single test stream will represent the characteristics of the path single test stream will represent the characteristics of the path
when it is aggregated with other flows. Networks have evolved and when it is aggregated with other flows. Networks have evolved and
test stream descriptions must evolve with them, otherwise unexpected test stream descriptions must evolve with them, otherwise unexpected
network features may dominate the measured performance. This memo network features may dominate the measured performance. This memo
describes new stream parameters for both network characterization and describes new stream parameters for both network characterization and
support of application design using IPPM metrics. support of application design using IPPM metrics.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
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 September 24, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 33 skipping to change at page 2, line 33
1.1. Definition: Reactive Path Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Definition: Reactive Path Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. New or Revised Stream Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. New or Revised Stream Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Test Packet Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Test Packet Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. Multiple Test Packet Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.1. Multiple Test Packet Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. Test Packet Payload Content Optimization . . . . . . 7 3.1.2. Test Packet Payload Content Optimization . . . . . . 7
3.2. Packet History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Packet History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Access Technology Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Access Technology Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Time-Slotted Randomness Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Time-Slotted Randomness Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Quality of Metrics and Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Quality of Metrics and Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Repeatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Repeatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Actionable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. Actionable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Conservative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. Conservative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Spatial and Temporal Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5. Spatial and Temporal Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Poisson Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.6. Poisson Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a
framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has
stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental
metrics, while only being updated once in a specific area [RFC5835]. metrics, while only being updated once in a specific area [RFC5835].
skipping to change at page 3, line 32 skipping to change at page 3, line 32
[RFC2330] must be extended to capture the reactive nature of these [RFC2330] must be extended to capture the reactive nature of these
networks. Although the proposed extensions can support methodologies networks. Although the proposed extensions can support methodologies
to fulfill the continuity requirement stated in section 6.2 of to fulfill the continuity requirement stated in section 6.2 of
[RFC2330], there is no guarantee. Practical measurements confirm [RFC2330], there is no guarantee. Practical measurements confirm
that some link types exhibit distinct responses to repeated that some link types exhibit distinct responses to repeated
measurements with identical stimulus, i.e., identical traffic measurements with identical stimulus, i.e., identical traffic
patterns. If feasible, appropriate fine-tuning of measurement patterns. If feasible, appropriate fine-tuning of measurement
traffic patterns can improve measurement continuity and repeatability traffic patterns can improve measurement continuity and repeatability
for these link types as shown in [IBD]. for these link types as shown in [IBD].
This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework
[RFC2330] with advanced considerations for measurement methodology
and testing.
We stress that this update of [RFC2330] does not invalidate or We stress that this update of [RFC2330] does not invalidate or
require changes to the analytic metric definitions prepared in the require changes to the analytic metric definitions prepared in the
IPPM working group to date. Rather, it adds considerations for IPPM working group to date. Rather, it adds considerations for
active measurement methodologies and expands the importance of active measurement methodologies and expands the importance of
existing conventions and notions in [RFC2330], such as "packets of existing conventions and notions in [RFC2330], such as "packets of
Type-P". Type-P".
Among the evolutionary networking changes is a phenomenon we call Among the evolutionary networking changes is a phenomenon we call
"reactive behavior", defined below. "reactive behavior", defined below.
skipping to change at page 13, line 42 skipping to change at page 14, line 4
This memo makes no requests of IANA. This memo makes no requests of IANA.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Rudiger Geib, Matt Mathis and Konstantinos The authors thank Rudiger Geib, Matt Mathis and Konstantinos
Pentikousis for their helpful comments on this memo, and Ann Cerveny Pentikousis for their helpful comments on this memo, and Ann Cerveny
for her editorial review and comments that helped to improve for her editorial review and comments that helped to improve
readability overall. readability overall.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[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, [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
1998. 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
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002. November 2002.
[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.
[RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.
[RFC5835] Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for Metric [RFC5835] Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for Metric
Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010. Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010.
[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of [RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011. Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.
[RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP [RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing", Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",
BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012. BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.
skipping to change at page 15, line 25 skipping to change at page 15, line 17
Considerations on Delay in 3G HSPA Networks", Lecture Considerations on Delay in 3G HSPA Networks", Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Volume 5550, 2009, pp Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Volume 5550, 2009, pp
301-312 , May 2009. 301-312 , May 2009.
[IRR] Fabini, J., Wallentin, L., and P. Reichl, "The Importance [IRR] Fabini, J., Wallentin, L., and P. Reichl, "The Importance
of Being Really Random: Methodological Aspects of IP-Layer of Being Really Random: Methodological Aspects of IP-Layer
2G and 3G Network Delay Assessment", ICC'09 Proceedings of 2G and 3G Network Delay Assessment", ICC'09 Proceedings of
the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Communications, the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Communications,
doi: 10.1109/ICC.2009.5199514, June 2009. doi: 10.1109/ICC.2009.5199514, June 2009.
[Mat98] Mathis, M., "Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity", IP
Performance Metrics Working Group report in Proceeding of
the Forty Third Internet Engineering Task Force, Orlando,
FL. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/slides/
ippm-mathis-98dec.pdf, December 1998.
[RFC3148] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining [RFC3148] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining
Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148, July Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148, July
2001. 2001.
[RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test [RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test
Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the
Standards Track", RFC 6808, December 2012. Standards Track", RFC 6808, December 2012.
[RFC6985] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet [RFC6985] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet
Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985, July 2013. Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985, July 2013.
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
20 lines changed or deleted 19 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/