draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-03.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04.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: January 25, 2016 M. Zekauskas Expires: February 13, 2016 M. Zekauskas
Internet2 Internet2
A. Morton, Ed. A. Morton, Ed.
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
July 24, 2015 August 12, 2015
A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM
draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-03 draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04
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 January 25, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 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 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
2.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.8.1. Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.8.1. Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.8.2. Loss Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.8.2. Loss Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.8.3. Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.8.3. Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.8.4. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.8.4. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss . . . . . . . 10 3. A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss . . . . . . . 11
3.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Changes from RFC 2680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Changes from RFC 2680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
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].
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 7, line 21
lost. {Comment: one is tempted to count the packet as received since lost. {Comment: one is tempted to count the packet as received since
corruption and packet loss are related but distinct phenomena. If corruption and packet loss are related but distinct phenomena. If
the IP header is corrupted, however, one cannot be sure about the the IP header is corrupted, however, one cannot be sure about the
source or destination IP addresses and is thus on shaky grounds about source or destination IP addresses and is thus on shaky grounds about
knowing that the corrupted received packet corresponds to a given knowing that the corrupted received packet corresponds to a given
sent test packet. Similarly, if other parts of the packet needed by sent test packet. Similarly, if other parts of the packet needed by
the methodology to know that the corrupted received packet the methodology to know that the corrupted received packet
corresponds to a given sent test packet, then such a packet would corresponds to a given sent test packet, then such a packet would
have to be counted as lost. Counting these packets as lost but have to be counted as lost. Counting these packets as lost but
packet with corruption in other parts of the packet as not lost would packet with corruption in other parts of the packet as not lost would
be inconsistent.} be inconsistent.} Section 15 of [RFC2330] defines the "standard-
formed" packet which is applicable to all metrics. Note: At this
time, the definition of standard-formed packets only applies to IPv4,
but also see [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep].
+ If the packet is duplicated along the path (or paths) so that + If the packet is duplicated along the path (or paths) so that
multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the
packet is counted as received. packet is counted as received.
+ If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly + If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly
does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost. does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost.
2.6. Methodologies: 2.6. Methodologies:
skipping to change at page 10, line 7 skipping to change at page 10, line 7
results. We now present four items to consider: Type-P of the test results. We now present four items to consider: Type-P of the test
packets, the loss threshold, instrument calibration, and the path packets, the loss threshold, instrument calibration, and the path
traversed by the test packets. This list is not exhaustive; any traversed by the test packets. This list is not exhaustive; any
additional information that could be useful in interpreting additional information that could be useful in interpreting
applications of the metrics should also be reported (see [RFC6703] applications of the metrics should also be reported (see [RFC6703]
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 [RFC2330], the value of the metric As noted in the Framework document, section 13 of [RFC2330], the
may depend on the type of IP packets used to make the measurement, or value of the metric may depend on the type of IP packets used to make
"Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the the measurement, or "Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay
protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or
treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780]) or RSVP) changes. The exact arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780], ECN
[RFC3168], or RSVP) changes. Additional packet distinctions included
in future extensions of the Type-P definition will apply. The exact
Type-P used to make the measurements MUST be accurately reported. 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
skipping to change at page 16, line 7 skipping to change at page 16, line 7
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
Elkins, and Barry Constantine for sharing their measurement Elkins, and Barry Constantine for sharing their measurement
experience as part of their careful reviews. experience as part of their careful reviews. Brian Carpenter and
Scott Bradner provided useful feedback at IETF Last Call.
7. Changes from RFC 2680 7. Changes from RFC 2680
Note: This section's placement currently preserves minimal Note: This section's placement currently preserves minimal
differencer between this memo and RFC 2680. The RFC Editor should differences between this memo and RFC 2680. The RFC Editor should
place this section in an appropriate place. place this section in an appropriate place.
The text above constitutes RFC 2680 bis proposed for advancement on The text above constitutes RFC 2680 bis proposed for advancement on
the IETF Standards Track. the IETF Standards Track.
[RFC7290] provides the test plan and results supporting [RFC2680] [RFC7290] provides the test plan and results supporting [RFC2680]
advancement along the standards track, according to the process in advancement along the standards track, according to the process in
[RFC6576]. The conclusions of [RFC7290] list four minor [RFC6576]. The conclusions of [RFC7290] list four minor
modifications for inclusion: modifications for inclusion:
1. Section 6.2.3 of [RFC7290] asserts that the assumption of post- 1. Section 6.2.3 of [RFC7290] asserts that the assumption of post-
processing to enforce a constant waiting time threshold is processing to enforce a constant waiting time threshold is
compliant, and that the text of the RFC should be revised compliant, and that the text of the RFC should be revised
slightly to include this point (see the last list item of section slightly to include this point. The applicability of post-
2.6, above). processing was added in the last list item of section 2.6, above.
2. Section 6.5 of [RFC7290] indicates that Type-P-One-way-Packet- 2. Section 6.5 of [RFC7290] indicates that Type-P-One-way-Packet-
Loss-Average statistic is more commonly called Packet Loss Ratio, Loss-Average statistic is more commonly called Packet Loss Ratio,
so it is re-named in RFC2680bis (this small discrepancy does not so it is re-named in RFC2680bis (this small discrepancy does not
affect candidacy for advancement) (see section 4.1, above). affect candidacy for advancement) The re-naming was implemented
in section 4.1, above.
3. The IETF has reached consensus on guidance for reporting metrics 3. The IETF has reached consensus on guidance for reporting metrics
in [RFC6703], and this memo should be referenced in RFC2680bis to in [RFC6703], and this memo should be referenced in RFC2680bis to
incorporate recent experience where appropriate (see the last incorporate recent experience where appropriate. This reference
list item of section 2.6, section 2.8, and section 4 above). was added in the last list item of section 2.6, in section 2.8,
and in section 4 above.
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 it appears these minor for document update" for [RFC2680], and these minor revisions
revisions should be incorporated in RFC2680bis (see section 1 and were incorporated in section 1 and section 2.7.
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.
skipping to change at page 18, line 38 skipping to change at page 18, line 41
[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, Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999, DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000, BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>.
[RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, [RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,
"IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement
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.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep]
Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V.
Hegde, "Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework:
Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets", draft-
morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00 (work in progress),
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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 41 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/