Internet DRAFT - draft-hardaker-iab-mnqeu-report
draft-hardaker-iab-mnqeu-report
Network Working Group W. Hardaker
Internet-Draft USC/ISI
Intended status: Informational 9 November 2021
Expires: 13 May 2022
IAB workshop report: Measuring Network Quality for End-Users
draft-hardaker-iab-mnqeu-report-01
Abstract
The Measuring Network Quality for End-Users workshop was held
virtually by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) in September,
2021. This workshop summarizes the workshop, the topics discussed
and some preliminary conclusions drawn at the end of the workshop.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 May 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Problem space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Workshop Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Position Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Cross-layer considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. General statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Specific statements about detailed protocols/
techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Problem statements and concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. No-consensus reached statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Follow on work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Participants List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Github Version of this document . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) holds occasional workshops
designed to consider long-term issues and strategies for the
Internet, and to suggest future directions for the Internet
architecture. This long-term planning function of the IAB is
complementary to the ongoing engineering efforts performed by working
groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
The Measuring Network Quality for End-Users workshop was held
virtually by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) in September,
2021. This workshop summarizes the workshop, the topics discussed
and some preliminary conclusions drawn at the end of the workshop.
1.1. Problem space
The Internet in 2021 is quite different from what it was 10 years
ago. Today, it is a crucial part of everyone's daily life. People
use the Internet for their social life, for their daily jobs, for
routine shopping, and for keeping up with major events. An
increasing number of people can access a Gigabit connection, which
would be hard to imagine a decade ago. And, thanks to improvements
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
in security, people trust the Internet for both planning their
finances and for everyday payments.
At the same time, some aspects of end-user experience have not
improved as much. Many users have typical connection latency that
remains at decade-old levels. Despite significant reliability
improvements in data center environments, end users often see
interruptions in service. Despite algorithmic advances in the field
of control theory, one can often find that the queuing delay in the
last-mile equipment exceeds the accumulted transit delay. Transport
improvements, such as QUIC, Multipath TCP, and TCP Fast Open are
still not fully supported in some networks. Likewise, various
advances in the security and privacy of user data are not widely
supported, such as encrypted DNS to the local resolver.
Some of the major factors behind this lack of progress is the popular
perception that throughput is the often sole measure of the quality
of Internet connectivity. With such narrow focus, the workshop aimed
to discuss various questions:
* What is the latency under typical working conditions?
* How reliable is the connectivity across longer time periods?
* Does the network allow the use of a broad range of protocols?
* What services can be run by clients of the network?
* What kind of IPv4, NAT or IPv6 connectivity is offered, and are
there firewalls?
* What security mechanisms are available for local services, such as
DNS?
* To what degree are the privacy, confidentiality, integrity and
authenticity of user communications guarded?
* Improving these aspects of network quality will likely depend on
measurement and exposing metrics to all involved parties,
including to end users in a meaningful way. Such measurements and
exposure of the right metrics will allow service providers and
network operators to focus on the aspects that impacts the users'
experience most and at the same time empowers users to choose the
Internet service that will give them the best experience.
* What are the fundamental properties of a network that contribute
to good user experience?
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
* What metrics quantify these properties, and how to collect such
metrics in a practical way?
* What are the best practices for interpreting those metrics, and
incorporating those in a decision making process?
* What are the best ways to communicate these properties to service
providers and network operators?
* How can these metrics be displayed to users in a meaningful way?
2. Workshop Agenda
The Measuring Network Quality for End-Users for divided into the
following main topic areas:
* Introduction overviews and a keynote by Vint Cerf
* Consideration of metrics
* Cross-layer considerations
* Synthesis
* Group conclusions
3. Position Papers
* Stuart Cheshire. "The Internet is a Shared Network"
* Jana Iyengar. "The Internet Exists In Its Use"
* Yaakov (J) Stein. "The Futility of QoS"
* Keynote by Vint Cerf
* Pedro Casas. "10 Years of Internet-QoE Measurements. Video,
Cloud, Conferencing, Web and Apps. What do we need from the
Network Side?"
* Lucas Pardue, Sreeni Tellakula. "Lower layer performance not
indicative of upper layer success"
* Ahmed Aldabbagh. "Regulatory perspective on measuring network
quality for end users"
* Michael Welzl. "A Case for Long-Term Statistics"
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
* Joachim Fabini. "Objective and subjective network quality"
* Matt Mathis. "Preliminary Longitudinal Study of Internet
Responsiveness"
* Brandon Schlinker. "Internet's performance from Facebook's edge"
* Jonathan Foulkes. "Metrics helpful in assessing Internet Quality"
* Vijay Sivaraman, Sharat Madanapalli, Himal Kumar. "Measuring
Network Experience Meaningfully, Accurately, and Scalably"
* Dave Reed, Levi Perigo. "Measuring ISP Performance in Broadband
America: a Study of Latency Under Load"
* Kyle MacMillian, Nick Feamster. "Beyond Speed Test: Measuring
Latency Under Load Across Different Speed Tiers"
* Gregory Mirsky, Xiao Min, Gyan Mishra, Liuyan Han. "Error
Performance Measurement in Packet-Switched Networks"
* Gino Dion. "Focusing on latency, not throughput, to provide
better internet experience and network quality"
* Praveen Balasubramanian. "Transport Layer Statistics for Network
Quality"
* Jari Arkko, Mirja Kuehlewind. "Observability is needed to improve
network quality"
* Robin Marx, Joris Herbots. "Merge Those Metrics: Towards Holistic
(Protocol) Logging"
* Rajat Ghai. "Measuring & Improving QoE on the Xfinity Wi-Fi
Network"
* Koen De Schepper, Olivier Tilmans, Gino Dion. "Challenges and
opportunities of hardware support for Low Queuing Latency without
Packet Loss"
* Olivier Bonaventure, Francois Michel. "Packet delivery time as a
tie-breaker for assessing Wi-Fi access points"
* Ken Kerpez, Jinous Shafiei, John Cioffi, Pete Chow, Djamel
Bousaber. "State of Wi-Fi Reporting"
* Mikhail Liubogoshchev. "Cross-layer Cooperation for Better
Network Service"
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
* Sandor Laki, Szilveszter Nadas, Balazs Varga, Luis M. Contreras.
"Incentive-Based Traffic Management and QoS Measurements"
* Satadal Segupta, Hyojoon Kim, Jennifer Rexford. "Fine-Grained RTT
Monitoring Inside the Network"
* Al Morton. "Dream-Pipe or Pipe-Dream: What Do Users Want (and how
can we assure it)?"
* Kalevi Kilkki, Benajamin Finley. "In Search of Lost QoS"
* Neil Davies, Peter Thompson. "Measuring Network Impact on
Application Outcomes using Quality Attenuation"
* Mingrui Zhang, Vidhi Goel, Lisong Xu. "User-Perceived Latency to
measure CCAs"
* Discussion
* Break
* Christoph Paasch, Randall Meyer, Stuart Cheshire, Omer Shapira.
"Responsiveness under Working Conditions"
* Bob Briscoe, Greg White, Vidhi Goel and Koen De Schepper. "A
single common metric to characterize varying packet delay"
* Christoph Paasch, Kristen McIntyre, Randall Meyer, Stuart
Cheshire, Omer Shapira. "An end-user approach to the Internet
Score"
4. Discussions
The three day workshop was broken into four separate sections,
including introductory material and conclusions, that each played a
role in framing the discussions.
4.1. Introduction
The Introduction section allowed participants to introduce and
discuss the problem space, existing mechanisms for QoS and QoE
measurements. Also discussed was the interaction between multiple
users within the Network, as well as the interaction between multiple
layers of the OSI stack. Some existing measurement works were
presented. Vint Cerf provided a key note support describing the
history and importance of the topic.
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
4.2. Metrics
The Metrics section of the workshop concentrated on both defining new
and existing measures and how they might apply to different sections
of the Internet. The need for improvements to latency and its
measurements was heavily discussed, especially for certain classes of
users such as live, collaborative content and gaming.
4.3. Cross-layer considerations
In the Cross-layer section participants present material and
discussed how accurately measuring exactly where problems occur is
difficult when many components of a network connection can affect the
measurement. Discussion centered especially on the differences
between physically wired and wireless connections and the
difficulties of accurately determining problem spots when multiple
different network types are responsible the quality.
4.4. Synthesis
Finally, in the Synthesis section presentations and discussions
concentrated on the next steps likely needed to make forward
progress. Of particular concern is how to bring forward measurements
that can make sense to end users trying to make subscription
decisions.
5. Conclusions
During the final hour of the workshop we gathered statements that
group thought were summary statements from the 3 day event. We later
discarded any that were in contention (listed further below for
completeness). For this document, the editor took the original list
and divided it into rough categories, applied some suggested edits
discussed on the mailing list and further edited for clarity and to
provide context.
5.1. General statements
1. Bandwidth is necessary but not alone sufficient
2. In many cases, Internet users don't need more bandwidth, but
rather need "better bandwidth" - i.e., they need other
improvements to their connectivity.
3. We need both active and passive measurements - passive
measurements can provide historical debugging.
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
4. We need passive measurements to be continuous and archivable and
queriable - include reliability/connectivity measurements.
5. A really meaningful metric for users is whether their application
will work properly or fail because of a lack of a network with
sufficient characteristics.
6. An useful metric for goodness must actually incentive goodness -
good metrics should actionable to help drive industries toward
improvement.
7. A lower latency internet, however achieved would benefit all end
users.
5.2. Specific statements about detailed protocols/techniques
1. Round trips Per Minute (RPM) is a useful, consumable metric
2. We need a usable tool that fills the current gap between network
reachability, latency and speed tests.
3. End-users that want to be involved in QoS decisions should be
able to voice their needs and desires.
4. Applications are needed that can perform and report good quality
measurements in order to identify insufficient points in network
access.
5. Research done by regulators indicate that users/consumers prefer
a simple metric per application, which frequently resolves to
whether the application will work properly not.
6. New measurements and QoS or QoE techniques should not rely only
or depend on reading TCP headers
7. It is clear from developers of interactive applications and from
network operators that lower latency is a strong factor in user
QoE. However, metrics are lacking to support this statement
directly.
5.3. Problem statements and concerns
1. Latency mean and medians are distractions from better
measurements
2. It is frustrating to only measure network services without
simultaneously improving those services
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
3. Stakeholder incentives aren't aligned for easy wins in this
space. Incentives are needed to motivate improvements in public
network access. Measurements may be one step toward driving
competitive market incentive.
4. For future-proof networking, measuring ecological impact of
measuring material and energy usage is important.
5. We do not have incontrovertible evidence that any one metric
(e.g. latency or speed) is more important than others to persuade
device vendors to concentrate on any one optimization.
5.4. No-consensus reached statements
Additional statements were recorded that did not have consensus of
the group at the time, but we list here for completeness about the
fact they were discussed:
1. We do not have incontrovertible evidence that buffer bloat is a
prevalent problem
2. The measurement needs to support reporting localization in order
to find problems. Specifically:
* Detecting a problem is not sufficient if you can't find the
location
* Need more than just english - different localization concerns
3. Stakeholder incentives aren't aligned for easy wins in this space
6. Follow on work
There was discussion during the workshop about where future work
should be performed. The group agreed that some work could be done
more immediately within existing IETF working groups, while other
longer-term research may be needed in IRTF groups.
7. Security considerations
A few security relevant topics were discussed at the workshop,
including but not limited to:
* What prioritization techniques can work without invading the
privacy of the communicating parties.
* How oversubscribed networks can essentially be viewed as a DDoS
attack.
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
Existence", RFC 5155, DOI 10.17487/RFC5155, March 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC1111] Postel, J., "Request for comments on Request for Comments:
Instructions to RFC authors", RFC 1111,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1111, August 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1111>.
Appendix A. Participants List
The following is a list of participants attended the workshop over a
remote connection:
* Ahmed Aldabbagh
* Al Morton
* Alexander Clemm
* Alvaro Retana
* Anna Brunstrom
* Balazs Varga
* Bjoern Ivar Teigen
* Bob Briscoe
* Brandon Schlinker
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
* Bren Tully Walsh
* Christoph Paasch
* Cindy Morgan
* Cullen Jennings
* Dan Siemon
* Dave Taht
* David Reed
* David Schinazi
* Djamel Bousaber
* Eve Schooler
* Evgeny Khorov
* Francois Michel
* Gavin Young
* Geoff Huston
* Gino Dion
* Gorry Fairhurst
* Greg Mirsky
* Greg White
* Jana Iyengar
* Jared Mauch
* Jari Arkko
* Jason Livingood
* Jiankang Yao
* Jim Gettys
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
* Jinous Shafiei
* Joachim Fabini
* John Cioffi
* Jonathan Foulkes
* Joon Kim
* Joris Herbots
* Kalevi Kilkki
* Karthik Sundaresan
* Kathleen Nichols
* Keith Winstein
* Ken Kerpez
* Kenjiro Cho
* Koen De Schepper
* Kristen McIntyre
* Kyle MacMillan
* Lai Yi Ohlsen
* Lars Eggert
* Levi Perigo
* Lisong Xu
* Lucas Pardue
* Luis M. Contreras
* Mat Ford
* Matt Mathis
* Michael Welzl
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
* Mikhail Liubogoshchev
* Mingrui Zhang
* Neil Davies
* Nick Feamster
* Nicolas (Tessares)
* Olivier Bonaventure
* Omer Shapira
* Pedro Casas
* Peter Thompson
* Praveen Balasubramanian
* Rajat Ghai
* Randall Meyer
* Rich Brown
* Rick Taylor
* Roberto
* Robin Marx
* Russ White
* Sam Crawford
* Satadal Sengupta
* Shapelez
* Sharat Madanapalli
* Steve Christianson
* Stuart Cheshire
* Szilveszter Nadas
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
* Toerless Eckert
* Toke Hoeiland-Joergensen
* Tommy Pauly
* Vesna Manojlovic
* Vidhi Goel
* Vijay Sivaraman
* Vint Cerf
* Wes Hardaker
* Zhenbin Li
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
approved for publication were:
Jari Arkko
Deborah Brungard
Ben Campbell
Lars Eggert
Wes Hardaker
Cullen Jennings
Mirja Kühlewind
Zhenbin Li
Jared Mauch
Tommy Pauly
Colin Perkins
David Schinazi
Russ White
Jiankang Yao
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the workshop participants, the
members of the IAB, and the program committee for creating and
participating in many interesting discussions.
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft title November 2021
Appendix B. Github Version of this document
While this document is under development, it can be viewed, tracked,
fill here:
https://github.com/intarchboard/network-quality-workshop-report
Author's Address
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
Email: ietf@hardakers.net
Hardaker Expires 13 May 2022 [Page 15]
