draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Intended status: Informational December 10, 2015 Intended status: Informational December 24, 2015
Expires: June 12, 2016 Expires: June 26, 2016
Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and everything in-between, or Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and everything in-between, or
Hybrid) Hybrid)
draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04 draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05
Abstract Abstract
This memo provides clear definitions for Active and Passive This memo provides clear definitions for Active and Passive
performance assessment. The construction of Metrics and Methods can performance assessment. The construction of Metrics and Methods can
be described as Active or Passive. Some methods may use a subset of be described as Active or Passive. Some methods may use a subset of
both active and passive attributes, and we refer to these as Hybrid both active and passive attributes, and we refer to these as Hybrid
Methods. This memo also describes multiple dimensions to help Methods. This memo also describes multiple dimensions to help
evaluate new methods as they emerge. evaluate new methods as they emerge.
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 June 12, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 26, 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 9, line 36 skipping to change at page 9, line 36
completely Known completely Known
known known
We recognize that method categorization could be based on additional We recognize that method categorization could be based on additional
dimensions, but this would require a different graphical approach. dimensions, but this would require a different graphical approach.
For example, "effect of stream of interest on network conditions" For example, "effect of stream of interest on network conditions"
could easily be further qualified into: could easily be further qualified into:
1. effect on the performance of the stream of interest itself: for 1. effect on the performance of the stream of interest itself: for
example, choosing a packet marking or DSCP resulting in domain example, choosing a packet marking or Differentiated Services
treatment as a real-time stream (as opposed to default/best- Code Point (DSCP) resulting in domain treatment as a real-time
effort marking. stream (as opposed to default/best-effort marking).
2. effect on unmeasured streams that share the path and/or 2. effect on unmeasured streams that share the path and/or
bottlenecks: for example, an extremely sparse measured stream of bottlenecks: for example, an extremely sparse measured stream of
minimal size packets typically has little effect on other flows minimal size packets typically has little effect on other flows
(and itself), while a stream designed to characterize path (and itself), while a stream designed to characterize path
capacity may affect all other flows passing through the capacity capacity may affect all other flows passing through the capacity
bottleneck (including itself). bottleneck (including itself).
3. effect on network conditions resulting in network adaptation: for 3. effect on network conditions resulting in network adaptation: for
example, a network monitoring load and congestion conditions example, a network monitoring load and congestion conditions
skipping to change at page 11, line 26 skipping to change at page 11, line 26
o The method intends to have a small effect on the measured stream o The method intends to have a small effect on the measured stream
and other streams in the network (smaller than PDM above). There and other streams in the network (smaller than PDM above). There
are conditions where this intent may not be realized. are conditions where this intent may not be realized.
o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is
processed to add the coloring in the header, and the stream could processed to add the coloring in the header, and the stream could
be measured and time-stamped during that process. be measured and time-stamped during that process.
We note that [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] proposes We note that [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] proposes
a method similar to [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], and ippm-list discussion a method similar to [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], as ippm-list discussion
indicates [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] may be revealed.
covered by the same IPR as [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m].
We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one
characteristic of both active and passive methods for a single stream characteristic of both active and passive methods for a single stream
of interest. of interest.
4.4. Brief Discussion of OAM Methods 4.4. Brief Discussion of OAM Methods
Many Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) methods exist Many Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) methods exist
beyond the IP-layer. For example, [Y.1731] defines several different beyond the IP-layer. For example, [Y.1731] defines several different
measurement methods which we would classify as follows: measurement methods which we would classify as follows:
skipping to change at page 12, line 11 skipping to change at page 12, line 11
methods both inject dedicated measurement frames, so the "stream methods both inject dedicated measurement frames, so the "stream
of interest is generated as the basis of measurement". We of interest is generated as the basis of measurement". We
conclude that SLM and DM methods are Active Methods. conclude that SLM and DM methods are Active Methods.
We also recognize the existence of alternate terminology used in OAM We also recognize the existence of alternate terminology used in OAM
at layers other than IP. Readers are encouraged to consult [RFC6374] at layers other than IP. Readers are encouraged to consult [RFC6374]
for MPLS Loss and Delay measurement terminology, for example. for MPLS Loss and Delay measurement terminology, for example.
5. Security considerations 5. Security considerations
When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those When considering security and privacy of those involved in
whose traffic is measured, there is sensitive information measurement or those whose traffic is measured, there is sensitive
communicated and observed at observation and measurement points information communicated and observed at observation and measurement
described above. We refer the reader to the privacy considerations points described above, and protocol issues to consider. We refer
described in the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance the reader to the security and privacy considerations described in
(LMAP) Framework [RFC7594], which covers active and passive the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework
measurement techniques and supporting material on measurement [RFC7594], which covers active and passive measurement techniques and
context. supporting material on measurement context.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This memo makes no requests for IANA consideration. This memo makes no requests for IANA consideration.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Mike Ackermann for asking the right question, and for Thanks to Mike Ackermann for asking the right question, and for
several suggestions on terminology. Brian Trammell provided key several suggestions on terminology. Brian Trammell provided key
terms and references for the passive category, and suggested ways to terms and references for the passive category, and suggested ways to
skipping to change at page 14, line 6 skipping to change at page 14, line 6
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[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., mackermann@bcbsm.com,
Hegde, "Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework: m., and V. Hegde, "IP Options and IPv6 Updates for IPPM's
Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets", draft- Active Metric Framework: Packets of Type-P and Standard-
morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-01 (work in progress), Formed Packets", draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-02
October 2015. (work in progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option] [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option]
Elkins, N. and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and Elkins, N. and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and
Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", draft-ietf- Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", draft-ietf-
ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 (work in progress), October 2015. ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m] [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m]
Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., and A. Bonda, Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., and A. Bonda,
"A packet based method for passive performance "A packet based method for passive performance
monitoring", draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04 (work in monitoring", draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04 (work in
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 22 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/