draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-04.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-05.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft G. Ramachandran Internet-Draft G. Ramachandran
Intended status: Informational G. Maguluri Intended status: Informational G. Maguluri
Expires: April 28, 2011 AT&T Labs Expires: January 8, 2012 AT&T Labs
October 25, 2010 July 7, 2011
Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View
draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-04 draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-05
Abstract Abstract
Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses
in mind. The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations in mind. The memo provides "long-term" reporting considerations
(e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on
analysis of the two key audience points-of-view. It describes how analysis of the two key audience points-of-view. It describes how
the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and
options when seeking info that serves their needs. options when seeking info that serves their needs.
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 April 28, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 34 skipping to change at page 3, line 34
5.1.4. Reordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1.4. Reordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Preferred Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2. Preferred Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Summary for Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Summary for Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Effect of POV on Raw Capacity Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Effect of POV on Raw Capacity Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Type-P Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1. Type-P Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. a priori Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2. a priori Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. IP-layer Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.3. IP-layer Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. IP-layer Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.4. IP-layer Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.5. IP-layer Available Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.5. IP-layer Available Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.6. Variability in Utilization and Avail. Capacity . . . . . . 18 6.6. Variability in Utilization and Avail. Capacity . . . . . . 18
7. Effect of POV on Restricted Capacity Metrics . . . . . . . . . 18 6.6.1. General Summary of Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Effect of POV on Restricted Capacity Metrics . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1. Type-P Parameter and Type-C Parameter . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.1. Type-P Parameter and Type-C Parameter . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. a priori Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.2. a priori Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.3. Measurement Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.3. Measurement Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.4. Bulk Transfer Capacity Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.4. Bulk Transfer Capacity Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.5. Variability in Bulk Transfer Capacity . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.5. Variability in Bulk Transfer Capacity . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Test Streams and Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8. Test Streams and Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.1. Test Stream Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8.1. Test Stream Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.2. Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8.2. Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When designing measurements of IP networks and presenting the When designing measurements of IP networks and presenting the
results, knowledge of the audience is a key consideration. To results, knowledge of the audience is a key consideration. To
present a useful and relevant portrait of network conditions, one present a useful and relevant portrait of network conditions, one
must answer the following question: must answer the following question:
"How will the results be used?" "How will the results be used?"
skipping to change at page 16, line 10 skipping to change at page 16, line 10
type-P categorization has critical relevance in all forms of capacity type-P categorization has critical relevance in all forms of capacity
measurement and reporting. The ability to categorize packets based measurement and reporting. The ability to categorize packets based
on header fields for assignment to different queues and scheduling on header fields for assignment to different queues and scheduling
mechanisms is now common place. When un-used resources are shared mechanisms is now common place. When un-used resources are shared
across queues, the conditions in all packet categories will affect across queues, the conditions in all packet categories will affect
capacity and related measurements. This is one source of variability capacity and related measurements. This is one source of variability
in the results that all audiences would prefer to see reported in a in the results that all audiences would prefer to see reported in a
useful and easily understood way. useful and easily understood way.
Type-P in OWAMP and TWAMP is essentially confined to the Diffserv Type-P in OWAMP and TWAMP is essentially confined to the Diffserv
Codepoint [ref]. DSCP is the most common qualifier for type-P. Codepoint [RFC4656]. DSCP is the most common qualifier for type-P.
Each audience will have a set of type-P qualifications and value Each audience will have a set of type-P qualifications and value
combinations that are of interest. Measurements and reports SHOULD combinations that are of interest. Measurements and reports SHOULD
have the flexibility to per-type and aggregate performance. have the flexibility to per-type and aggregate performance.
6.2. a priori Factors 6.2. a priori Factors
The audience for Network Characterization may have detailed The audience for Network Characterization may have detailed
information about each link that comprises a complete path (due to information about each link that comprises a complete path (due to
ownership, for example), or some of the links in the path but not ownership, for example), or some of the links in the path but not
skipping to change at page 18, line 28 skipping to change at page 18, line 28
measurements have come. measurements have come.
Two questions are raised here for further discussion: Two questions are raised here for further discussion:
What ways can Utilization be measured and summarized to describe the What ways can Utilization be measured and summarized to describe the
potential variability in a useful way? potential variability in a useful way?
How can the variability in Available Capacity estimates be reported, How can the variability in Available Capacity estimates be reported,
so that the confidence in the results is also conveyed? so that the confidence in the results is also conveyed?
Proposal for Discussion:
6.6.1. General Summary of Variability
With a set of singleton Utilization or Available Capacity estimates,
each representing a minimum time to ascertain the estimate, we
propose to describe the variation over the set of singletons as
though reporting summary statistics of a distribution. Four useful
summary statistics are:
o Minimum, Maximum, and the Range they define
o Mode
For an on-going series of singleton estimates, we propose a moving
average of n estimates to provide a single value estimate to more
easily distinguish substantial changes in performance over time. For
example, in a window of n singletons observed in time interval, t, a
percentage change of x% is declared to be a submstantial change and
reported as an exception.
7. Effect of POV on Restricted Capacity Metrics 7. Effect of POV on Restricted Capacity Metrics
This section describes the ways that restricted capacity metrics can This section describes the ways that restricted capacity metrics can
be tuned to reflect the preferences of the two audiences, or be tuned to reflect the preferences of the two audiences, or
different Points-of-View (POV). Raw capacity refers to the metrics different Points-of-View (POV). Raw capacity refers to the metrics
defined in [RFC3148] which include restrictions such as data defined in [RFC3148] which include restrictions such as data
uniqueness or flow-control response to congestion. uniqueness or flow-control response to congestion.
In primary metric considered is Bulk Transfer Capacity (BTC) for In primary metric considered is Bulk Transfer Capacity (BTC) for
complete paths. [RFC3148] defines complete paths. [RFC3148] defines
skipping to change at page 24, line 20 skipping to change at page 24, line 45
[Casner] "A Fine-Grained View of High Performance Networking, NANOG [Casner] "A Fine-Grained View of High Performance Networking, NANOG
22 Conf.; http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0105/agenda.html", May 22 Conf.; http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0105/agenda.html", May
20-22 2001. 20-22 2001.
[Cia03] "Standardized Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone, [Cia03] "Standardized Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone,
IEEE Communications Mag., pp 90-97.", June 2003. IEEE Communications Mag., pp 90-97.", June 2003.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-reporting] [I-D.ietf-ippm-reporting]
Shalunov, S. and M. Swany, "Reporting IP Performance Shalunov, S. and M. Swany, "Reporting IP Performance
Metrics to Users", draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-05 (work in Metrics to Users", draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-06 (work in
progress), July 2010. progress), March 2011.
[RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation [RFC5481] Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 2009. Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, March 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.
[Y.1540] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, "Internet protocol data [Y.1540] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, "Internet protocol data
communication service - IP packet transfer and communication service - IP packet transfer and
availability performance parameters", December 2002. availability performance parameters", December 2002.
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 39 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/