Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive
IPPM Working Group A. Akhter
Internet-Draft B. Claise
Intended status: Best Current Practice Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: January 5, 2015 July 4, 2014
Passive Performance Metrics Sub-Registry
draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-01.txt
Abstract
This document specifies the Passive Performance Metrics sub-registry
of the Performance Metric Registry. This sub-registry contains
Passive Performance Metrics, especially those defined in RFCs
prepared in the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group of the
IETF, and possibly applicable to other IETF metrics.
This document specifies a way to organize registry entries into
columns that are well-defined, permitting consistent development of
entries over time (a column may be marked NA if it is not applicable
for that metric). The design is intended to foster development of
registry entries based on existing reference RFCs, whilst each column
serves as a check-list item to avoid omissions during the
registration process. Every entry in the registry, before IANA
action, requires Expert review as defined by concurrent IETF work in
progress "Registry for Performance Metrics" (draft-ietf-ippm-metric-
registry).
The document contains example entries for the Passive Performance
Metrics sub-registry: a registry entry for a passive metric based on
octetTotalCount as defined in RFC5102 and a protocol specific passive
metric based on RTP packets lost as defined in RFC3550. The examples
are for Informational purposes and do not create any entry in the
IANA registry.
Requirements Language
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].
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
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
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 January 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
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. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Background and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Passive Registry Categories and Columns . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Common Registry Indexes and Information . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1. Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.2. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.3. URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.4. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.5. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.6. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.7. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.8. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.9. Reference Specification(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3.1. Reference Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
6.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3.3. Measurement Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3.4. Output Type(s) and Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3.5. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Example Generalized Passive Octet Count Entry . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Registry Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.1. Element Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.3. URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.4. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.5. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.6. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.7. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1.8. Metric Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1.9. Reference Specification(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3.1. Reference Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3.3. Measurement Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3.4. Output Type(s) and Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.5. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format . . . . . . . . . 14
7.4. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Example 5min Passive Egress Octet Count Entry on WAN
Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Registry Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.1. Element Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.3. URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.4. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.5. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.6. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.7. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1.8. Metric Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.9. Reference Specification(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3.1. Reference Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3.3. Measurement Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.3.4. Output Type(s) and Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
8.3.5. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format . . . . . . . . . 17
8.4. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Example Passive RTP Lost Packet Count . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Example BLANK Registry Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.1. Registry Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.1. Element Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.3. URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.4. Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.5. Requester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.6. Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.7. Revision Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.8. Metric Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1.9. Reference Specification(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.2. Metric Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.2.1. Reference Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2.2. Fixed Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.3. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.3.1. Reference Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.3.3. Measurement Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.3.4. Output Type(s) and Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.3.5. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format . . . . . . . . 20
10.4. Comments and Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Open Issues
1. This draft must be aligned with draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active:
structure, content, examples, etc.
2. Do we need definitions for Active Metric and Passive Metric? To
be decided with the authors of ietf-ippm-metric-registry and
ietf-ippm-registry-active
Active (Performance) Metric: specific to Performance Metrics
metered by an Active Measurement Method.
Passive (Performance) Metric: specific to Performance Metrics
metered by an Passive Measurement Method.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
3. See the EDITOR's NOTE within this draft.
4. Should the "Measurement Timing" be part of the registry?
5. What is difference between "Reference Specification(s)" and
"Reference Definition"
6. draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry contain requester and reviewer
guidelines for performance metrics. Do we have guidelines
specifc to the extra passive performance metric fields in this
document?
2. Introduction
The IETF has been specifying and continues to specify Performance
Metrics. While IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) is the working group
(WG) primarily focusing on Performance Metrics definition at the
IETF, other working groups, have also specified Performance Metrics:
The "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report Framework"
[XRBLOCK] WG recently specified many Performance Metrics related
to "RTP Control Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)" [RFC3611],
which establishes a framework to allow new information to be
conveyed in RTCP, supplementing the original report blocks defined
in "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
[RFC3550].
The Benchmarking Methodology" [BMWG] WG proposed some Performance
Metrics as part of the benchmarking methodology.
The IP Flow Information eXport WG (IPFIX) [IPFIX] has existing and
proposed Information Elements related to performance metrics.
The Performance Metrics for Other Layers (PMOL) [PMOL], a
concluded working group, defined some Performance Metrics related
to Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) voice quality [RFC6035], as
well as guidelines for defining performance metrics [RFC6390]
It is expected that more and more Performance Metrics will be defined
in the future, not only IP based metrics, but also protocol-specific
ones and application-specific ones.
"Registry for Performance Metrics" [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry]
specifies a common registry for Performance Metrics. This document
specifies the creation of a sub-registry specific to Performance
Metrics metered by an Passive Measurement Method (passive metrics).
Note that a sister document, "Active Performance Metric Sub-Registry"
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
[I-D.ietf-ippm-registry-active], specifies a sub-registry for the
active metric (Performance Metrics metered by an Active Measurement.
The Passive Performance Measurements Sub-Registry contains passive
performance metrics that meet the criteria set by the IETF and review
of the Performance Metric Experts. It is expected that the majority
of the metrics will have been defined elsewhere within the IETF
working groups such as IPPM, BMWG, IPFIX, etc.
This sub-registry is part of the Performance Metric Registry
[I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] which specifies that all sub-
registries must contain at least the following common fields: the
identifier, the name, the URI, the status, the requester, the
revision, the revision date, the description, and the reference
specification(s). In addition to these common fields the passive
metrics sub-registry has additional fields that provide the necessary
background for interoperability and adoption.
3. Terminology
"Registry for Performance Metrics" [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry]
specifies the following terms: Performance Metric, Registered
Performance Metric, Performance Metrics Registry (also known as
Registry), Proprietary Registry, Performance Metrics Experts,
Performance Metrics Directorate, Parameter, Active Measurement
Method, Passive Measurement Method, and Hybrid Measurement Method.
Capitalized terms used in this document that are defined in the
Terminology section of [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] are to be
interpreted as defined there.
4. Background and Motivation
EDITOR's NOTE: from draft-manyfolks-ippm-metric-registry-00.
Proposal: we can simply refers to draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active-00
section 5, instead of duplicating text.
IPPM Passive Performance Metric registration is meant to allow wider
adoption of common metrics in an inter-operable way. There are
challenges with metric interoperability and adoption (to name a few)
due to flexible input parameters, confusion between many similar
metrics, and varying output formats.
One clear motivation for having such a registry is to allow a
controller to request a measurement agent to perform a measurement
using a specific metric (see [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]). Such a
request can be performed using any control protocol that refers to
the value assigned to the specific metric in the registry.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
Similarly, the measurement agent can report the results of the
measurement and by referring to the metric value it can unequivocally
identify the metric that the results correspond to.
There are several side benefits of having a registry with well-chosen
entries. First, the registry could serve as an inventory of useful
and used metrics that are normally supported by different
implementations of measurement agents. Second, the results of the
metrics would be comparable even if they are performed by different
implementations and in different networks, as the metric and method
is unambiguously defined.
5. Scope
[I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] defines the overall structure for a
Performance Metric Registry and provides guidance for defining a sub
registry.
This document defines the Passive Performance Metrics Sub-registry;
passive metrics are those where the measurements are based the
observation of on network traffic, generated either from the end
users or from network elements. Specifically, this traffic has not
been generated for the purpose of measurement.
A row in the registry corresponds to one Registered Performance
Metric, with entries in the various columns specifying the metric.
Section 6 defines the additional columns for a Registered Passive
Performance Metric.
As discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], each entry (row)
must be tightly defined; the definition must leave open only a few
parameters that do not change the fundamental nature of the
measurement (such as source and destination addresses), and so
promotes comparable results across independent implementations.
Also, each registered entry must be based on existing reference RFCs
(or other standards) for performance metrics, and must be
operationally useful and have significant industry interest. This is
ensured by expert review for every entry before IANA action.
6. Passive Registry Categories and Columns
This section defines the categories and columns of the registry.
Below, categories are described at the 6.x heading level, and columns
are at the 6.x.y heading level. There are three categories, divided
into common information (from [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry]),
metric definition and an open Comments section.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
6.1. Common Registry Indexes and Information
This category has multiple indexes to each registry entry. It is
defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry]:
6.1.1. Identifier
Defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry]. Definition text to be
copied once source is stable.
6.1.2. Name
Defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above.
6.1.3. URI
Defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above.
6.1.4. Status
Defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above.
6.1.5. Requester
Defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above.
6.1.6. Revision
Defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above.
6.1.7. Revision Date
Defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as above.
6.1.8. Description
Defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as the
above.
6.1.9. Reference Specification(s)
Defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry], same comment as the
above.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
6.2. Metric Definition
This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details
related to the passive performance metric definition, including the
RFC reference and values of input factors, called fixed parameters,
which are left open in the origin definition but have a particular
value defined by the performance metric.
6.2.1. Reference Definition
This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s)
defining the metric, as well as any supplemental information needed
to ensure an unambiguous definition for implementations.
6.2.2. Fixed Parameters
Fixed Parameters are input factors whose value must be specified in
the Registry. The measurement system uses these values.
Where referenced metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
as Fixed Parameters. For example, for RTP packet loss calculation
relies on the validation of a packet as RTP which is a multi-packet
validation controlled by MIN_SEQUENTIAL as defined by [RFC3550].
Varying MIN_SEQUENTIAL values can alter the loss report and this
value could be set as a fixed parameter.
A Parameter which is Fixed for one Registry entry may be designated
as a Run-time Parameter for another Registry entry.
6.3. Method of Measurement
This category includes columns for references to relevant sections of
the RFC(s) and any supplemental information needed to ensure an
unambiguous method for implementations.
6.3.1. Reference Implementation
This entry provides references to relevant sections of the RFC(s)
describing the method of measurement, as well as any supplemental
information needed to ensure unambiguous interpretation for
implementations referring to the RFC text.
Specifically, this section should include pointers to pseudocode or
actual code that could be used for an unambigious implementation.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
6.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria
The filter specifies the traffic constraints that the passive
measurement method used is valid (or invalid) for. This includes
valid packet sampling ranges, width of valid traffic matches (eg. all
traffic on interface, UDP packets packets in a flow (eg. same RTP
session).
It is possible that the measurement method may not have a specific
limitation. However, this specific registry entry with it's
combination of fixed parameters implies restrictions. These
restrictions would be listed in this field.
6.3.3. Measurement Timing
Measurement timing defines the behavior of the measurement method
with respect to timing.
Is the measurement continuous?
If the measurement is sampled, what is the format of sampling? (eg
random packet, random time, etc.)
How long is the measurement interval?
6.3.4. Output Type(s) and Data Format
For entries which involve a stream and many singleton measurements, a
statistic may be specified in this column to summarize the results to
a single value. If the complete set of measured singletons is
output, this will be specified here.
Some metrics embed one specific statistic in the reference metric
definition, while others allow several output types or statistics.
Each entry in the output type column contains the following
information:
o Value: The name of the output type
o Data Format: provided to simplify the communication with
collection systems and implementation of measurement devices.
o Reference: the specification where the output type is defined
The output type defines the type of result that the metric produces.
It can be the raw result(s) or it can be some form of statistic. The
specification of the output type must define the format of the
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
output. In some systems, format specifications will simplify both
measurement implementation and collection/storage tasks. Note that
if two different statistics are required from a single measurement
(for example, both "Xth percentile mean" and "Raw"), then a new
output type must be defined ("Xth percentile mean AND Raw").
6.3.5. Metric Units
The measured results must be expressed using some standard dimension
or units of measure. This column provides the units.
When a sample of singletons (see [RFC2330] for definitions of these
terms) is collected, this entry will specify the units for each
measured value.
6.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format
Run-Time Parameters are input factors that must be determined,
configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results
for the context to be complete. However, the values of these
parameters is not specified in the Registry, rather these parameters
are listed as an aid to the measurement system implementor or user
(they must be left as variables, and supplied on execution).
Where metrics supply a list of Parameters as part of their
descriptive template, a sub-set of the Parameters will be designated
as Run-Time Parameters.
The Data Format of each Run-time Parameter SHALL be specified in this
column, to simplify the control and implementation of measurement
devices.
Examples of Run-time Parameters include IP addresses, measurement
point designations, start times and end times for measurement, and
other information essential to the method of measurement.
6.4. Comments and Remarks
Besides providing additional details which do not appear in other
categories, this open Category (single column) allows for unforeseen
issues to be addressed by simply updating this Informational entry.
7. Example Generalized Passive Octet Count Entry
tbd
This section is Informational.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
This section gives an example registry entry for a generalized the
passive metric octetDeltaCount described in [RFC5102].
7.1. Registry Indexes
This category includes multiple indexes to the registry entries, the
element ID and metric name.
7.1.1. Element Identifier
An integer having enough digits to uniquely identify each entry in
the Registry.
TBD by IANA.
7.1.2. Metric Name
A metric naming convention is TBD.
One possibility based on the proposal in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry]:
Pas_IP-Octet-Delta-General
7.1.3. URI
urn:ietf:params:performance:metric-something
7.1.4. Status
Current
7.1.5. Requester
TBD
7.1.6. Revision
0
7.1.7. Revision Date
TBD
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
7.1.8. Metric Description
A delta count of the number of octets observed.
7.1.9. Reference Specification(s)
octetDeltaCount described in section 5.10.1 of [RFC5102]
7.2. Metric Definition
This category includes columns to prompt the entry of all necessary
details related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference
and values of input factors, called fixed parameters.
7.2.1. Reference Definition
octetDeltaCount described in section 5.10.1 of [RFC5102]
7.2.2. Fixed Parameters
As this is the generalised version of the IP delta count metric,
there are no fixed parameters.
7.3. Method of Measurement
7.3.1. Reference Implementation
For <metric>.
<section reference>
7.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria
This measurement only covers IP packets and the IP payload (including
the IP header) of these packets. Non-IP packets (BPDUs, ISIS) will
not be accounted. Layer 2 overhead (Ethernet headers, MPLS, QinQ,
etc.) will also not be represented in the measurement.
7.3.3. Measurement Timing
This is a continous measurement of the IP octets seen in the traffic
selection scope (run-time parameter).
The measurement interval is a run time parameter.
There is no sampling.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
7.3.4. Output Type(s) and Data Format
It is possible that multiple observation intervals are reported in a
single report. In such a case concatination of the interval reports
(deltaOctetCount, start-time, end-time) is allowed.
The delta octet count metric reports a observation start time and end
time.
o Value: observation-start-time and observation-end-time
o Data Format: 64-bit NTP Time-stamp Format
o Reference: section 6 of [RFC5905]
7.3.5. Metric Units
The measured results are expressed in octets with a data format of
unsigned64 as described in [RFC5102]
7.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format
Run-time Parameters are input factors that must be determined,
configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results
for the context to be complete.
o samplingTimeInterval, length of time a single report covers.
unsigned32 microseconds [RFC5477]
o observationInterface, ifindex of interface to monitor. -1
represents all interfaces. -2 representings WAN facing and -3
represnets LAN facing. unsigned32.
o observation direction, unsigned8 where 0 represents incoming
traffic on interface, 1 outgoing and 2 represents both incoming
and outgoing.
7.4. Comments and Remarks
Additional (Informational) details for this entry
8. Example 5min Passive Egress Octet Count Entry on WAN Interface
tbd
This section is Informational.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
This section gives an example registry entry for accounting of
outgoing WAN IP traffic the passive metric in terms of
octetDeltaCount, as described in [RFC5102].
8.1. Registry Indexes
This category includes multiple indexes to the registry entries, the
element ID and metric name.
8.1.1. Element Identifier
An integer having enough digits to uniquely identify each entry in
the Registry.
TBD by IANA.
8.1.2. Metric Name
A metric naming convention is TBD.
One possibility based on the proposal in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry]:
Pas_IP-Octet-Delta-WAN-egress
8.1.3. URI
urn:ietf:params:performance:metric-something
8.1.4. Status
Current
8.1.5. Requester
TBD
8.1.6. Revision
0
8.1.7. Revision Date
TBD
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
8.1.8. Metric Description
A delta count of the number of octets observed outgoing on WAN
interface.
8.1.9. Reference Specification(s)
octetDeltaCount described in section 5.10.1 of [RFC5102]
8.2. Metric Definition
This category includes columns to prompt the entry of all necessary
details related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference
and values of input factors, called fixed parameters.
8.2.1. Reference Definition
octetDeltaCount described in section 5.10.1 of [RFC5102]
8.2.2. Fixed Parameters
As this is a specific version of Pas_IP-Octet-Delta-General that
performs metering of all outgoing WAN traffic.
o samplingTimeInterval= 300000000, length of time a single report
covers. unsigned32 microseconds [RFC5477]
o observationInterface= -2, ifindex of interface to monitor. -1
represents all interfaces. -2 representings WAN facing and -3
represnets LAN facing. unsigned32.
o observation direction= 1, unsigned8 where 0 represents incoming
traffic on interface, 1 outgoing and 2 represents both incoming
and outgoing.
8.3. Method of Measurement
8.3.1. Reference Implementation
For <metric>.
<section reference>
8.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria
This measurement only covers IP packets observed in the WAN outgoing
direction. The bytes counted are the IP payload (including the IP
header) of these packets. Non-IP packets (BPDUs, ISIS) will not be
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
accounted. Layer 2 overhead (Ethernet headers, MPLS, QinQ, etc.)
will also not be represented in the measurement.
8.3.3. Measurement Timing
This is a continous measurement of the IP octets seen in the traffic
selection scope (run-time parameter), each of a 5 minute duration.
There is no sampling.
8.3.4. Output Type(s) and Data Format
It is possible that multiple observation intervals are reported in a
single report. In such a case concatination of the interval reports
(deltaOctetCount, start-time, end-time) is allowed.
The delta octet count metric reports a observation start time and end
time.
o Value: observation-start-time and observation-end-time
o Data Format: 64-bit NTP Time-stamp Format
o Reference: section 6 of [RFC5905]
8.3.5. Metric Units
The measured results are expressed in octets with a data format of
unsigned64 as described in [RFC5102]
8.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format
There are no run-time parameters for this registry entry.
8.4. Comments and Remarks
Additional (Informational) details for this entry
9. Example Passive RTP Lost Packet Count
tbd
10. Example BLANK Registry Entry
This section is Informational. (?)
This section gives an example registry entry for the <type of metric
and specification reference> .
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
10.1. Registry Indexes
This category includes multiple indexes to the registry entries, the
element ID and metric name.
10.1.1. Element Identifier
An integer having enough digits to uniquely identify each entry in
the Registry.
10.1.2. Metric Name
A metric naming convention is TBD.
10.1.3. URI
urn:ietf:params:performance:metric-something
10.1.4. Status
Current
10.1.5. Requester
TBD
10.1.6. Revision
0
10.1.7. Revision Date
TBD
10.1.8. Metric Description
A metric Description is TBD.
10.1.9. Reference Specification(s)
Section YY, RFCXXXX
10.2. Metric Definition
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
10.2.1. Reference Definition
< possible section reference>
10.2.2. Fixed Parameters
Fixed Parameters are input factors that must be determined and
embedded in the measurement system for use when needed. The values
of these parameters is specified in the Registry.
<list fixed parameters>
10.3. Method of Measurement
10.3.1. Reference Implementation
For <metric>.
<section reference>
10.3.2. Traffic Filter Criteria
<list filter criteria limitations and allowances >
10.3.3. Measurement Timing
< list timing requirements and limitations >
10.3.4. Output Type(s) and Data Format
The output types define the type of result that the metric produces.
o Value:
o Data Format: (There may be some precedent to follow here, but
otherwise use 64-bit NTP Time-stamp Format, see section 6 of
[RFC5905]).
o Reference: <section reference>
10.3.5. Metric Units
The measured results are expressed in <units>,
<section reference>.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
10.3.6. Run-time Parameters and Data Format
Run-time Parameters are input factors that must be determined,
configured into the measurement system, and reported with the results
for the context to be complete.
<list of run-time parameters>
<reference(s)>.
10.4. Comments and Remarks
Additional (Informational) details for this entry
11. Security Considerations
This registry has no known implications on Internet Security.
12. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create The Passive Performance Metric Sub-
registry within the Performance Metric Registry defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry]. The Sub-registry will contain the
following categories and (bullet) columns, (as defined in section 6
above):
Common Registry Indexes and Info
o Identifier
o Name
o URI
o Status
o Requester
o Revision
o Revision Date
o Description
o Reference Specification(s)
Metric Definition
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
o Reference Definition
o Fixed Parameters
Method of Measurement
o Reference Implementation
o Traffic Filter Criteria
o Measurement Timing
o Output Type(s) and Data format
o Metric Units
o Run-time Parameters
Comments and Remarks
13. Acknowledgements
The authors thank the prior work of Al Morton, Marcelo Bagnulo and
Phil Eardley in "draft-ietf-ippm-registry-active" which was used both
as a template for this document and source of text.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry]
Bagnulo, M., Claise, B., Eardley, P., and A. Morton,
"Registry for Performance Metrics", draft-ietf-ippm-
metric-registry-00 (work in progress), July 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
14.2. Informative References
[BMWG] IETF, , "Benchmarking Methodology (BMWG) Working Group,
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/charter/", .
[I-D.ietf-ippm-registry-active]
Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., and P. Eardley, "Active
Performance Metric Sub-Registry", draft-ietf-ippm-
registry-active-00 (work in progress), April 2014.
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for large-scale
measurement platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-lmap-
framework-07 (work in progress), June 2014.
[IPFIX] IETF, , "IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Working Group,
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ipfix/charter/", .
[PMOL] IETF, , "IP Performance Metrics for Other Layers (PMOL)
Working Group,
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pmol/charter/", .
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
1998.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3611] Friedman, T., Caceres, R., and A. Clark, "RTP Control
Protocol Extended Reports (RTCP XR)", RFC 3611, November
2003.
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
RFC 5102, January 2008.
[RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
RFC 5477, March 2009.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.
[RFC6035] Pendleton, A., Clark, A., Johnston, A., and H. Sinnreich,
"Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice
Quality Reporting", RFC 6035, November 2010.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
October 2011.
[XRBLOCK] IETF, , "Metric Blocks for use with RTCP's Extended Report
Framework (XRBLOCK),
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/xrblock/charter/", .
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Passive Sub-Registry July 2014
Authors' Addresses
Aamer Akhter
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Road
RTP, NC 27709
USA
Email: aakhter@cisco.com
Benoit Claise
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a b1
1831 Diegem
Belgium
Phone: +32 2 704 5622
Email: bclaise@cisco.com
Akhter & Claise Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 23]
