Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis
draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis
Network Working Group G. Almes
Internet-Draft Texas A&M
Obsoletes: 2679 (if approved) S. Kalidindi
Intended status: Standards Track Ixia
Expires: February 21, 2016 M. Zekauskas
Internet2
A. Morton, Ed.
AT&T Labs
August 20, 2015
A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM
draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-05
Abstract
This memo (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of
packets across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and
discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is
assumed to be familiar with that document. This memo makes RFC 2679
obsolete.
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 http://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 February 21, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
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.
Table of Contents
1. Changes from RFC 2679 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. General Issues Regarding Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. A Singleton Definition for One-way Delay . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7.1. Errors or uncertainties related to Clocks . . . . . . 11
3.7.2. Errors or uncertainties related to Wire-time vs Host-
time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7.3. Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.8.1. Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.8.2. Loss Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.8.3. Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.8.4. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. A Definition for Samples of One-way Delay . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Delay . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Changes from RFC 2679
Note: This section's placement currently preserves minimal
differences between this memo and RFC 2679. The RFC Editor should
place this section in an appropriate place, and remove this note.
The following text constitutes RFC 2769 bis proposed for advancement
on the IETF Standards Track. This section tracks the changes from
[RFC2679].
[RFC6808] provides the test plan and results supporting [RFC2679]
advancement along the standards track, according to the process in
[RFC6576]. The conclusions of [RFC6808] list four minor
modifications:
1. Section 6.2.3 of [RFC6808] asserts that the assumption of post-
processing to enforce a constant waiting time threshold is
compliant, and that the text of the RFC should be revised
slightly to include this point. The applicability of post-
processing was added in the last list item of section 3.6, below.
2. Section 6.5 of [RFC6808] indicates that Type-P-One-way-Delay-
Inverse-Percentile statistic has been ignored in both
implementations, so it is a candidate for removal or deprecation
in RFC2679bis (this small discrepancy does not affect candidacy
for advancement). This statistic was deprecated in section 5.4,
below.
3. The IETF has reached consensus on guidance for reporting metrics
in [RFC6703], and this memo should be referenced in RFC2679bis to
incorporate recent experience where appropriate. This reference
was added in the last list item of section 3.6, section 3.8, and
in section 5 below.
4. There is currently one erratum with status "Held for document
update" for [RFC2679], and this minor revision and additional
text was incorporated in RFC2679bis in section 5.1, below.
A number of updates to the [RFC2679] text have been implemented in
the text below, to reference key IPPM RFCs that were approved after
[RFC2679], and to address comments on the IPPM mailing list
describing current conditions and experience.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
1. Near the end of section 2.1, update of a network example using
ATM and clarification of TCP's affect on queue occupation and
importance of one-way delay measurement.
2. Explicit inclusion of the maximum waiting time input parameter
in section 3.2 and 4.2, reflecting recognition of this parameter
in more recent RFCs and ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540.
3. Addition of reference to RFC6703 in the discussion of packet
life time and application timeouts in section 3.5.
4. Addition of reference to the default requirement (that packets
be standard-formed) from RFC2330 as a new list item in section
3.5.
5. GPS-based NTP experience replaces "to be tested" in section 3.5.
6. Replaced "precedence" with updated terminology (DS Field) in 3.6
and 3.8.1 (with reference).
7. Added parenthetical guidance on minimizing interval between
timestamp placement to send time in section 3.6.
8. Section 3.7.2 notes that some current systems perform host time
stamping on the network interface hardware.
9. "instrument" replaced by the defined term "host" in sections
3.7.3 and 3.8.3.
10. Added reference to RFC 3432 Periodic sampling alongside Poisson
sampling in section 4, and also noting that a truncated Poisson
distribution may be needed with modern networks as described in
the IPPM Framework update, RFC7312.
11. Add reference to RFC 4737 Reordering metric in the related
discussion of section 4.6, Methodologies.
12. Formatting of Example in section 5.1 modified to match the
original (issue with conversion to XML in bis version).
13. Clarifying the conclusions on two related points on harm to
measurements (recognition of measurement traffic for unexpected
priority treatment and attacker traffic which emulates
measurement) in section 6, Security Considerations.
14. Expanded and updated the material on Privacy, and added cautions
on use of measurements for reconnaissance in section 6, Security
Considerations.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
Section 5.4.4 of [RFC6390] suggests a common template for performance
metrics partially derived from previous IPPM and BMWG RFCs, but also
contains some new items. All of the [RFC6390] Normative points are
covered, but not quite in the same section names or orientation.
Several of the Informative points are covered. Maintaining the
familiar outline of IPPM literature has both value and minimizes
unnecessary differences between this revised RFC and current/future
IPPM RFCs.
The publication of RFC 6921 suggested an area where this memo might
need updating. Packet transfer on Faster-Than-Light (FTL) networks
could result in negative delays and packet reordering, however both
are covered as possibilities in the current text and no revisions are
deemed necessary (we also note that this is an April 1st RFC).
2. Introduction
This memo defines a metric for one-way delay of packets across
Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the
IPPM Framework document, [RFC2330]; the reader is assumed to be
familiar with that document, and its recent update [RFC7312].
This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a companion
document for Packet Loss ("A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM")
[RFC2680].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Although [RFC2119] was written with protocols in mind, the key words
are used in this document for similar reasons. They are used to
ensure the results of measurements from two different implementations
are comparable, and to note instances when an implementation could
perturb the network.
The structure of the memo is as follows:
+ A 'singleton' analytic metric, called Type-P-One-way-Delay, will be
introduced to measure a single observation of one-way delay.
+ Using this singleton metric, a 'sample', called Type-P-One-way-
Delay-Poisson-Stream, will be introduced to measure a sequence of
singleton delays sent at times taken from a Poisson process.
+ Using this sample, several 'statistics' of the sample will be
defined and discussed. This progression from singleton to sample to
statistics, with clear separation among them, is important.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
Whenever a technical term from the IPPM Framework document is first
used in this memo, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk. For
example, "term*" indicates that "term" is defined in the Framework.
2.1. Motivation
One-way delay of a Type-P* packet from a source host* to a
destination host is useful for several reasons:
+ Some applications do not perform well (or at all) if end-to-end
delay between hosts is large relative to some threshold value.
+ Erratic variation in delay makes it difficult (or impossible) to
support many real-time applications.
+ The larger the value of delay, the more difficult it is for
transport-layer protocols to sustain high bandwidths.
+ The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the
delay due only to propagation and transmission delay.
+ The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the
delay that will likely be experienced when the path* traversed is
lightly loaded.
+ Values of this metric above the minimum provide an indication of
the congestion present in the path.
The measurement of one-way delay instead of round-trip delay is
motivated by the following factors:
+ In today's Internet, the path from a source to a destination may be
different than the path from the destination back to the source
("asymmetric paths"), such that different sequences of routers are
used for the forward and reverse paths. Therefore round-trip
measurements actually measure the performance of two distinct paths
together. Measuring each path independently highlights the
performance difference between the two paths which may traverse
different Internet service providers, and even radically different
types of networks (for example, research versus commodity networks,
or networks with asymmetric link capacities, or wireless vs. wireline
access).
+ Even when the two paths are symmetric, they may have radically
different performance characteristics due to asymmetric queueing.
+ Performance of an application may depend mostly on the performance
in one direction. For example, a TCP-based communication will
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
experience reduced throughput if congestion occurs in one direction
of its communication. Trouble shooting may be simplified if the
congested direction of TCP transmission can be identified.
+ In quality-of-service (QoS) enabled networks, provisioning in one
direction may be radically different than provisioning in the reverse
direction, and thus the QoS guarantees differ. Measuring the paths
independently allows the verification of both guarantees.
It is outside the scope of this document to say precisely how delay
metrics would be applied to specific problems.
2.2. General Issues Regarding Time
{Comment: the terminology below differs from that defined by ITU-T
documents (e.g., G.810, "Definitions and terminology for
synchronization networks" and I.356, "B-ISDN ATM layer cell transfer
performance"), but is consistent with the IPPM Framework document.
In general, these differences derive from the different backgrounds;
the ITU-T documents historically have a telephony origin, while the
authors of this document (and the Framework) have a computer systems
background. Although the terms defined below have no direct
equivalent in the ITU-T definitions, after our definitions we will
provide a rough mapping. However, note one potential confusion: our
definition of "clock" is the computer operating systems definition
denoting a time-of-day clock, while the ITU-T definition of clock
denotes a frequency reference.}
Whenever a time (i.e., a moment in history) is mentioned here, it is
understood to be measured in seconds (and fractions) relative to UTC.
As described more fully in the Framework document, there are four
distinct, but related notions of clock uncertainty:
synchronization*
measures the extent to which two clocks agree on what time it is.
For example, the clock on one host might be 5.4 msec ahead of the
clock on a second host. {Comment: A rough ITU-T equivalent is "time
error".}
accuracy*
measures the extent to which a given clock agrees with UTC. For
example, the clock on a host might be 27.1 msec behind UTC. {Comment:
A rough ITU-T equivalent is "time error from UTC".}
resolution*
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
measures the precision of a given clock. For example, the clock on
an old Unix host might tick only once every 10 msec, and thus have a
resolution of only 10 msec. {Comment: A very rough ITU-T equivalent
is "sampling period".}
skew*
measures the change of accuracy, or of synchronization, with time.
For example, the clock on a given host might gain 1.3 msec per hour
and thus be 27.1 msec behind UTC at one time and only 25.8 msec an
hour later. In this case, we say that the clock of the given host
has a skew of 1.3 msec per hour relative to UTC, which threatens
accuracy. We might also speak of the skew of one clock relative to
another clock, which threatens synchronization. {Comment: A rough
ITU-T equivalent is "time drift".}
3. A Singleton Definition for One-way Delay
3.1. Metric Name:
Type-P-One-way-Delay
3.2. Metric Parameters:
+ Src, the IP address of a host
+ Dst, the IP address of a host
+ T, a time
+ Tmax, a loss threshold waiting time
3.3. Metric Units:
The value of a Type-P-One-way-Delay is either a real number, or an
undefined (informally, infinite) number of seconds.
3.4. Definition:
For a real number dT, >>the *Type-P-One-way-Delay* from Src to Dst at
T is dT<< means that Src sent the first bit of a Type-P packet to Dst
at wire-time* T and that Dst received the last bit of that packet at
wire-time T+dT.
>>The *Type-P-One-way-Delay* from Src to Dst at T is undefined
(informally, infinite)<< means that Src sent the first bit of a
Type-P packet to Dst at wire-time T and that Dst did not receive that
packet (within the loss threshold waiting time, Tmax).
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
Suggestions for what to report along with metric values appear in
Section 3.8 after a discussion of the metric, methodologies for
measuring the metric, and error analysis.
3.5. Discussion:
Type-P-One-way-Delay is a relatively simple analytic metric, and one
that we believe will afford effective methods of measurement.
The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
+ Real delay values will be positive. Therefore, it does not make
sense to report a negative value as a real delay. However, an
individual zero or negative delay value might be useful as part of a
stream when trying to discover a distribution of a stream of delay
values.
+ Since delay values will often be as low as the 100 usec to 10 msec
range, it will be important for Src and Dst to synchronize very
closely. GPS systems afford one way to achieve synchronization to
within several 10s of usec. Ordinary application of NTP may allow
synchronization to within several msec, but this depends on the
stability and symmetry of delay properties among those NTP agents
used, and this delay is what we are trying to measure. A combination
of some GPS-based NTP servers and a conservatively designed and
deployed set of other NTP servers should yield good results. This
was tested in [RFC6808], where a GPS measurement system's results
compared well with a GPS-based NTP synchronized system for the same
intercontinental path.
+ A given methodology will have to include a way to determine whether
a delay value is infinite or whether it is merely very large (and the
packet is yet to arrive at Dst). As noted by Mahdavi and Paxson
[RFC2678], simple upper bounds (such as the 255 seconds theoretical
upper bound on the lifetimes of IP packets [RFC0791]) could be used;
but good engineering, including an understanding of packet lifetimes,
will be needed in practice. {Comment: Note that, for many
applications of these metrics, the harm in treating a large delay as
infinite might be zero or very small. A TCP data packet, for
example, that arrives only after several multiples of the RTT may as
well have been lost. See section 4.1.1 of [RFC6703] for examination
of unusual packet delays and application performance estimation.}
+ If the packet is duplicated along the path (or paths) so that
multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the
packet is counted as received, and the first copy to arrive
determines the packet's one-way delay.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
+ If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly
does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost.
+ The packet is standard-formed, the default criteria for all metric
definitions defined in Section 15 of [RFC2330], otherwise the packet
will be deemed lost. Note: At this time, the definition of standard-
formed packets only applies to IPv4, but also see
[I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep].
3.6. Methodologies:
As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend
on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size,
Differentiated Services (DS) Field [RFC2780]).
Generally, for a given Type-P, the methodology would proceed as
follows:
+ Arrange that Src and Dst are synchronized; that is, that they have
clocks that are very closely synchronized with each other and each
fairly close to the actual time.
+ At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test
packet of Type-P with these addresses. Any 'padding' portion of the
packet needed only to make the test packet a given size should be
filled with randomized bits to avoid a situation in which the
measured delay is lower than it would otherwise be, due to
compression techniques along the path. Also see section 3.1.2 of
[RFC7312].
+ At the Dst host, arrange to receive the packet.
+ At the Src host, place a timestamp in the prepared Type-P packet,
and send it towards Dst (ideally minimizing time before sending).
+ If the packet arrives within a reasonable period of time, take a
timestamp as soon as possible upon the receipt of the packet. By
subtracting the two timestamps, an estimate of one-way delay can be
computed. Error analysis of a given implementation of the method
must take into account the closeness of synchronization between Src
and Dst. If the delay between Src's timestamp and the actual sending
of the packet is known, then the estimate could be adjusted by
subtracting this amount; uncertainty in this value must be taken into
account in error analysis. Similarly, if the delay between the
actual receipt of the packet and Dst's timestamp is known, then the
estimate could be adjusted by subtracting this amount; uncertainty in
this value must be taken into account in error analysis. See the
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
next section, "Errors and Uncertainties", for a more detailed
discussion.
+ If the packet fails to arrive within a reasonable period of time,
Tmax, the one-way delay is taken to be undefined (informally,
infinite). Note that the threshold of 'reasonable' is a parameter of
the metric. These points are examined in detail in [RFC6703],
including analysis preferences to assign undefined delay to packets
that fail to arrive with the difficulties emerging from the informal
"infinite delay" assignment, and an estimation of an upper bound on
waiting time for packets in transit. Further, enforcing a specific
constant waiting time on stored singletons of one-way delay is
compliant with this specification and may allow the results to serve
more than one reporting audience.
Issues such as the packet format, the means by which Dst knows when
to expect the test packet, and the means by which Src and Dst are
synchronized are outside the scope of this document. {Comment: We
plan to document elsewhere our own work in describing such more
detailed implementation techniques and we encourage others to as
well.}
3.7. Errors and Uncertainties:
The description of any specific measurement method should include an
accounting and analysis of various sources of error or uncertainty.
The Framework document provides general guidance on this point, but
we note here the following specifics related to delay metrics:
+ Errors or uncertainties due to uncertainties in the clocks of the
Src and Dst hosts.
+ Errors or uncertainties due to the difference between 'wire time'
and 'host time'.
In addition, the loss threshold may affect the results. Each of
these are discussed in more detail below, along with a section
("Calibration") on accounting for these errors and uncertainties.
3.7.1. Errors or uncertainties related to Clocks
The uncertainty in a measurement of one-way delay is related, in
part, to uncertainties in the clocks of the Src and Dst hosts. In
the following, we refer to the clock used to measure when the packet
was sent from Src as the source clock, we refer to the clock used to
measure when the packet was received by Dst as the destination clock,
we refer to the observed time when the packet was sent by the source
clock as Tsource, and the observed time when the packet was received
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
by the destination clock as Tdest. Alluding to the notions of
synchronization, accuracy, resolution, and skew mentioned in the
Introduction, we note the following:
+ Any error in the synchronization between the source clock and the
destination clock will contribute to error in the delay measurement.
We say that the source clock and the destination clock have a
synchronization error of Tsynch if the source clock is Tsynch ahead
of the destination clock. Thus, if we know the value of Tsynch
exactly, we could correct for clock synchronization by adding Tsynch
to the uncorrected value of Tdest-Tsource.
+ The accuracy of a clock is important only in identifying the time
at which a given delay was measured. Accuracy, per se, has no
importance to the accuracy of the measurement of delay. When
computing delays, we are interested only in the differences between
clock values, not the values themselves.
+ The resolution of a clock adds to uncertainty about any time
measured with it. Thus, if the source clock has a resolution of 10
msec, then this adds 10 msec of uncertainty to any time value
measured with it. We will denote the resolution of the source clock
and the destination clock as Rsource and Rdest, respectively.
+ The skew of a clock is not so much an additional issue as it is a
realization of the fact that Tsynch is itself a function of time.
Thus, if we attempt to measure or to bound Tsynch, this needs to be
done periodically. Over some periods of time, this function can be
approximated as a linear function plus some higher order terms; in
these cases, one option is to use knowledge of the linear component
to correct the clock. Using this correction, the residual Tsynch is
made smaller, but remains a source of uncertainty that must be
accounted for. We use the function Esynch(t) to denote an upper
bound on the uncertainty in synchronization. Thus, |Tsynch(t)| <=
Esynch(t).
Taking these items together, we note that naive computation Tdest-
Tsource will be off by Tsynch(t) +/- (Rsource + Rdest). Using the
notion of Esynch(t), we note that these clock-related problems
introduce a total uncertainty of Esynch(t)+ Rsource + Rdest. This
estimate of total clock-related uncertainty should be included in the
error/uncertainty analysis of any measurement implementation.
3.7.2. Errors or uncertainties related to Wire-time vs Host-time
As we have defined one-way delay, we would like to measure the time
between when the test packet leaves the network interface of Src and
when it (completely) arrives at the network interface of Dst, and we
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
refer to these as "wire times." If the timings are themselves
performed by software on Src and Dst, however, then this software can
only directly measure the time between when Src grabs a timestamp
just prior to sending the test packet and when Dst grabs a timestamp
just after having received the test packet, and we refer to these two
points as "host times".
We note that some systems perform host time stamping on the network
interface hardware, in an attempt to minimize the difference from
wire times.
To the extent that the difference between wire time and host time is
accurately known, this knowledge can be used to correct for host time
measurements, and the corrected value more accurately estimates the
desired (wire time) metric.
To the extent, however, that the difference between wire time and
host time is uncertain, this uncertainty must be accounted for in an
analysis of a given measurement method. We denote by Hsource an
upper bound on the uncertainty in the difference between wire time
and host time on the Src host, and similarly define Hdest for the Dst
host. We then note that these problems introduce a total uncertainty
of Hsource+Hdest. This estimate of total wire-vs-host uncertainty
should be included in the error/uncertainty analysis of any
measurement implementation.
3.7.3. Calibration
Generally, the measured values can be decomposed as follows:
measured value = true value + systematic error + random error
If the systematic error (the constant bias in measured values) can be
determined, it can be compensated for in the reported results.
reported value = measured value - systematic error
therefore
reported value = true value + random error
The goal of calibration is to determine the systematic and random
error generated by the hosts themselves in as much detail as
possible. At a minimum, a bound ("e") should be found such that the
reported value is in the range (true value - e) to (true value + e)
at least 95 percent of the time. We call "e" the calibration error
for the measurements. It represents the degree to which the values
produced by the measurement host are repeatable; that is, how closely
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
an actual delay of 30 ms is reported as 30 ms. {Comment: 95 percent
was chosen because (1) some confidence level is desirable to be able
to remove outliers, which will be found in measuring any physical
property; (2) a particular confidence level should be specified so
that the results of independent implementations can be compared; and
(3) even with a prototype user-level implementation, 95% was loose
enough to exclude outliers.}
From the discussion in the previous two sections, the error in
measurements could be bounded by determining all the individual
uncertainties, and adding them together to form
Esynch(t) + Rsource + Rdest + Hsource + Hdest.
However, reasonable bounds on both the clock-related uncertainty
captured by the first three terms and the host-related uncertainty
captured by the last two terms should be possible by careful design
techniques and calibrating the hosts using a known, isolated, network
in a lab.
For example, the clock-related uncertainties are greatly reduced
through the use of a GPS time source. The sum of Esynch(t) + Rsource
+ Rdest is small, and is also bounded for the duration of the
measurement because of the global time source.
The host-related uncertainties, Hsource + Hdest, could be bounded by
connecting two hosts back-to-back with a high-speed serial link or
isolated LAN segment. In this case, repeated measurements are
measuring the same one-way delay.
If the test packets are small, such a network connection has a
minimal delay that may be approximated by zero. The measured delay
therefore contains only systematic and random error in the
measurement hosts. The "average value" of repeated measurements is
the systematic error, and the variation is the random error.
One way to compute the systematic error, and the random error to a
95% confidence is to repeat the experiment many times - at least
hundreds of tests. The systematic error would then be the median.
The random error could then be found by removing the systematic error
from the measured values. The 95% confidence interval would be the
range from the 2.5th percentile to the 97.5th percentile of these
deviations from the true value. The calibration error "e" could then
be taken to be the largest absolute value of these two numbers, plus
the clock-related uncertainty. {Comment: as described, this bound is
relatively loose since the uncertainties are added, and the absolute
value of the largest deviation is used. As long as the resulting
value is not a significant fraction of the measured values, it is a
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
reasonable bound. If the resulting value is a significant fraction
of the measured values, then more exact methods will be needed to
compute the calibration error.}
Note that random error is a function of measurement load. For
example, if many paths will be measured by one host, this might
increase interrupts, process scheduling, and disk I/O (for example,
recording the measurements), all of which may increase the random
error in measured singletons. Therefore, in addition to minimal load
measurements to find the systematic error, calibration measurements
should be performed with the same measurement load that the hosts
will see in the field.
We wish to reiterate that this statistical treatment refers to the
calibration of the host; it is used to "calibrate the meter stick"
and say how well the meter stick reflects reality.
In addition to calibrating the hosts for finite one-way delay, two
checks should be made to ensure that packets reported as losses were
really lost. First, the threshold for loss should be verified. In
particular, ensure the "reasonable" threshold is reasonable: that it
is very unlikely a packet will arrive after the threshold value, and
therefore the number of packets lost over an interval is not
sensitive to the error bound on measurements. Second, consider the
possibility that a packet arrives at the network interface, but is
lost due to congestion on that interface or to other resource
exhaustion (e.g. buffers) in the host.
3.8. Reporting the metric:
The calibration and context in which the metric is measured MUST be
carefully considered, and SHOULD always be reported along with metric
results. We now present four items to consider: the Type-P of test
packets, the threshold of infinite delay (if any), error calibration,
and the path traversed by the test packets. This list is not
exhaustive; any additional information that could be useful in
interpreting applications of the metrics should also be reported (see
[RFC6703] for extensive discussion of reporting considerations for
different audiences).
3.8.1. Type-P
As noted in the Framework document, section 13 of [RFC2330], the
value of the metric may depend on the type of IP packets used to make
the measurement, or "Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay
could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or
arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780], ECN
[RFC3168], or RSVP) changes. Additional packet distinctions
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
identified in future extensions of the Type-P definition will apply.
The exact Type-P used to make the measurements MUST be accurately
reported.
3.8.2. Loss Threshold
In addition, the threshold (or methodology to distinguish) between a
large finite delay and loss MUST be reported.
3.8.3. Calibration Results
+ If the systematic error can be determined, it SHOULD be removed
from the measured values.
+ You SHOULD also report the calibration error, e, such that the true
value is the reported value plus or minus e, with 95% confidence (see
the last section.)
+ If possible, the conditions under which a test packet with finite
delay is reported as lost due to resource exhaustion on the
measurement host SHOULD be reported.
3.8.4. Path
Finally, the path traversed by the packet SHOULD be reported, if
possible. In general it is impractical to know the precise path a
given packet takes through the network. The precise path may be
known for certain Type-P on short or stable paths. If Type-P
includes the record route (or loose-source route) option in the IP
header, and the path is short enough, and all routers* on the path
support record (or loose-source) route, then the path will be
precisely recorded. This is impractical because the route must be
short enough, many routers do not support (or are not configured for)
record route, and use of this feature would often artificially worsen
the performance observed by removing the packet from common-case
processing. However, partial information is still valuable context.
For example, if a host can choose between two links* (and hence two
separate routes from Src to Dst), then the initial link used is
valuable context. {Comment: For example, with Merit's NetNow setup, a
Src on one NAP can reach a Dst on another NAP by either of several
different backbone networks.}
4. A Definition for Samples of One-way Delay
Given the singleton metric Type-P-One-way-Delay, we now define one
particular sample of such singletons. The idea of the sample is to
select a particular binding of the parameters Src, Dst, and Type-P,
then define a sample of values of parameter T. The means for
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
defining the values of T is to select a beginning time T0, a final
time Tf, and an average rate lambda, then define a pseudo-random
Poisson process of rate lambda, whose values fall between T0 and Tf.
The time interval between successive values of T will then average 1/
lambda.
Note that Poisson sampling is only one way of defining a sample.
Poisson has the advantage of limiting bias, but other methods of
sampling will be appropriate for different situations. For example,
a truncated Poisson distribution may be needed to avoid reactive
network state changes during intervals of inactivity, see section 4.6
of [RFC7312]. Sometimes, the goal is sampling with a known bias, and
[RFC3432] describes a method for periodic sampling with random start
times.
4.1. Metric Name:
Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream
4.2. Metric Parameters:
+ Src, the IP address of a host
+ Dst, the IP address of a host
+ T0, a time
+ Tf, a time
+ Tmax, a loss threshold waiting time
+ lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds (or parameters for another
distribution)
4.3. Metric Units:
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
+ T, a time, and
+ dT, either a real number or an undefined number of seconds.
The values of T in the sequence are monotonic increasing. Note that
T would be a valid parameter to Type-P-One-way-Delay, and that dT
would be a valid value of Type-P-One-way-Delay.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
4.4. Definition:
Given T0, Tf, and lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and
ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0
and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times
in this process, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-Delay at this
time. The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the
resulting <time, delay> pairs. If there are no such pairs, the
sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty.
4.5. Discussion:
The reader should be familiar with the in-depth discussion of Poisson
sampling in the Framework document [RFC2330], which includes methods
to compute and verify the pseudo-random Poisson process.
We specifically do not constrain the value of lambda, except to note
the extremes. If the rate is too large, then the measurement traffic
will perturb the network, and itself cause congestion. If the rate
is too small, then you might not capture interesting network
behavior. {Comment: We expect to document our experiences with, and
suggestions for, lambda elsewhere, culminating in a "best current
practices" document.}
Since a pseudo-random number sequence is employed, the sequence of
times, and hence the value of the sample, is not fully specified.
Pseudo-random number generators of good quality will be needed to
achieve the desired qualities.
The sample is defined in terms of a Poisson process both to avoid the
effects of self-synchronization and also capture a sample that is
statistically as unbiased as possible. {Comment: there is, of course,
no claim that real Internet traffic arrives according to a Poisson
arrival process.} The Poisson process is used to schedule the delay
measurements. The test packets will generally not arrive at Dst
according to a Poisson distribution, since they are influenced by the
network.
All the singleton Type-P-One-way-Delay metrics in the sequence will
have the same values of Src, Dst, and Type-P.
Note also that, given one sample that runs from T0 to Tf, and given
new time values T0' and Tf' such that T0 <= T0' <= Tf' <= Tf, the
subsequence of the given sample whose time values fall between T0'
and Tf' are also a valid Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream sample.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
4.6. Methodologies:
The methodologies follow directly from:
+ the selection of specific times, using the specified Poisson
arrival process, and
+ the methodologies discussion already given for the singleton Type-
P-One-way-Delay metric.
Care must, of course, be given to correctly handle out-of-order
arrival of test packets; it is possible that the Src could send one
test packet at TS[i], then send a second one (later) at TS[i+1],
while the Dst could receive the second test packet at TR[i+1], and
then receive the first one (later) at TR[i]. Metrics for reordering
may be found in [RFC4737].
4.7. Errors and Uncertainties:
In addition to sources of errors and uncertainties associated with
methods employed to measure the singleton values that make up the
sample, care must be given to analyze the accuracy of the Poisson
process with respect to the wire-times of the sending of the test
packets. Problems with this process could be caused by several
things, including problems with the pseudo-random number techniques
used to generate the Poisson arrival process, or with jitter in the
value of Hsource (mentioned above as uncertainty in the singleton
delay metric). The Framework document shows how to use the Anderson-
Darling test to verify the accuracy of a Poisson process over small
time frames. {Comment: The goal is to ensure that test packets are
sent "close enough" to a Poisson schedule, and avoid periodic
behavior.}
4.8. Reporting the metric:
You MUST report the calibration and context for the underlying
singletons along with the stream. (See "Reporting the metric" for
Type-P-One-way-Delay.)
5. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Delay
Given the sample metric Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, we now
offer several statistics of that sample. These statistics are
offered mostly to illustrate what could be done. See [RFC6703] for
additional discussion of statistics that are relevant to different
audiences.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
5.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile
Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream and a percent X between
0% and 100%, the Xth percentile of all the dT values in the Stream.
In computing this percentile, undefined values are treated as
infinitely large. Note that this means that the percentile could
thus be undefined (informally, infinite). In addition, the Type-P-
One-way-Delay-Percentile is undefined if the sample is empty.
Example: suppose we take a sample and the results are:
Stream1 = <
<T1, 100 msec>
<T2, 110 msec>
<T3, undefined>
<T4, 90 msec>
<T5, 500 msec>
>
Then the 50th percentile would be 110 msec, since 90 msec and 100
msec are smaller and 500 msec and 'undefined' are larger. See
Section 11.3 of [RFC2330] for computing percentiles.
Note that if the possibility that a packet with finite delay is
reported as lost is significant, then a high percentile (90th or
95th) might be reported as infinite instead of finite.
5.2. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median
Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, the median of all the dT
values in the Stream. In computing the median, undefined values are
treated as infinitely large. As with Type-P-One-way-Delay-
Percentile, Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median is undefined if the sample is
empty.
As noted in the Framework document, the median differs from the 50th
percentile only when the sample contains an even number of values, in
which case the mean of the two central values is used.
Example: suppose we take a sample and the results are:
Stream2 = <
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
<T1, 100 msec>
<T2, 110 msec>
<T3, undefined>
<T4, 90 msec>
>
Then the median would be 105 msec, the mean of 100 msec and 110 msec,
the two central values.
5.3. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minimum
Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, the minimum of all the
dT values in the Stream. In computing this, undefined values are
treated as infinitely large. Note that this means that the minimum
could thus be undefined (informally, infinite) if all the dT values
are undefined. In addition, the Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minimum is
undefined if the sample is empty.
In the above example, the minimum would be 90 msec.
5.4. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile
Note: This statistic is deprecated in this version of the memo
because of lack of use.
Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream and a time duration
threshold, the fraction of all the dT values in the Stream less than
or equal to the threshold. The result could be as low as 0% (if all
the dT values exceed threshold) or as high as 100%. Type-P-One-way-
Delay-Inverse-Percentile is undefined if the sample is empty.
In the above example, the Inverse-Percentile of 103 msec would be
50%.
6. Security Considerations
Conducting Internet measurements raises both security and privacy
concerns. This memo does not specify an implementation of the
metrics, so it does not directly affect the security of the Internet
nor of applications which run on the Internet. However,
implementations of these metrics must be mindful of security and
privacy concerns.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by
the measurements, and potential harm to the measurements. The
measurements could cause harm because they are active, and inject
packets into the network. The measurement parameters MUST be
carefully selected so that the measurements inject trivial amounts of
additional traffic into the networks they measure. If they inject
"too much" traffic, they can skew the results of the measurement, and
in extreme cases cause congestion and denial of service.
The measurements themselves could be harmed by routers giving
measurement traffic a different priority than "normal" traffic, or by
an attacker injecting artificial measurement traffic. If routers can
recognize measurement traffic and treat it separately, the
measurements will not reflect actual user traffic. Therefore, the
measurement methodologies SHOULD include appropriate techniques to
reduce the probability measurement traffic can be distinguished from
"normal" traffic.
If an attacker injects packets emulating traffic that are accepted as
legitimate, the loss ratio or other measured values could be
corrupted. Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures,
may be used where appropriate to guard against injected traffic
attacks.
When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those
whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to
potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques
which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user
traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer
the reader to the privacy considerations described in the Large Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework], which covers active and passive
techniques.
Collecting measurements or using measurement results for
reconnaissance to assist in subsequent system attacks is quite
common. Access to measurement results, or control of the measurement
systems to perform reconnaissance should be guarded against. See
Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework] (security considerations of
the LMAP Framework) for system requirements that help to avoid
measurement system compromise.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo makes no requests of IANA.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
8. Acknowledgements
For [RFC2679], special thanks are due to Vern Paxson of Lawrence
Berkeley Labs for his helpful comments on issues of clock uncertainty
and statistics. Thanks also to Garry Couch, Will Leland, Andy
Scherrer, Sean Shapira, and Roland Wittig for several useful
suggestions.
For RFC 2679 bis, thanks to Joachim Fabini, Ruediger Geib, Nalini
Elkins, and Barry Constantine for sharing their measurement
experience as part of their careful reviews. Brian Carpenter and
Scott Bradner provided useful feedback at IETF Last Call.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
Connectivity", RFC 2678, DOI 10.17487/RFC2678, September
1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2678>.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>.
[RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,
"IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement
Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", draft-ietf-
lmap-framework-14 (work in progress), April 2015.
[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.
[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>.
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM August 2015
[RFC6703] Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting
IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View",
RFC 6703, DOI 10.17487/RFC6703, August 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6703>.
[RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test
Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the
Standards Track", RFC 6808, DOI 10.17487/RFC6808, December
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6808>.
Authors' Addresses
Guy Almes
Texas A&M
Email: almes@acm.org
Sunil Kalidindi
Ixia
Email: skalidindi@ixiacom.com
Matt Zekauskas
Internet2
Email: matt@internet2.edu
Al Morton (editor)
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Almes, et al. Expires February 21, 2016 [Page 25]
