Internet DRAFT - draft-inacio-lmap-enterprise-use-case
draft-inacio-lmap-enterprise-use-case
INTERNET-DRAFT Christopher Inacio
Intended Status: Informational Carnegie Mellon University
Expires: January 31, 2014 July 30, 2013
Large-Scale Broadband Measurement Enterprise Use-Case
draft-inacio-lmap-enterprise-use-case-00
Abstract
The Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) working
group is defining mechanisms to monitor network performance of large-
scale networks. The use case will describe how very large enterprise
networks are not very different from the networks considered by other
LMAP use cases and that most measurements are useful to both use
cases. In addition this use case will state the need for the ability
to have finer grained observation related to User Experience
potentially on a per application basis.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Christopher Inacio Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-inacio-lmap-enterprise-use-case-00 July 30, 2013
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 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Large Scale Enterprise Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Similarities and Differences to ISPs and broadband users . . 3
2.2 Additions for Enterprise Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 The Goal for Enhanced Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Christopher Inacio Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-inacio-lmap-enterprise-use-case-00 July 30, 2013
1 Introduction
The Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) working
group is charged with creating a uniform Information Model in order
to measure large-scale network performance. In addition to the
Information Model, the working group is charged with creating a
Control Protocol and a Report Protocol with their associated data
models.
The Information Model and associated Data Models necessary for
monitoring and regulating Internet Service Provider (ISP) networks
are closely shared with the monitoring of large scale enterprise
networks. In large scale enterprises, with multiple campuses
distributed throughout countries or throughout the world, monitoring
campus scale network activity and cross-campus network activity is
closely related to monitoring ISP activity.
The additional considerations for this large scale enterprise
monitoring are the needs to be able to be able to make measurements
aligned to enterprise applications and services beyond simple
bandwidth and latency measurements.
1.1 Terminology
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].
2. Large Scale Enterprise Use Case
2.1 Similarities and Differences to ISPs and broadband users
Many large scale enterprises centralized critical and/or expensive
resources at a few select locations. For example, login directory
services due to their critical role in the infrastructure and
security needs, email and calendaring systems, and certain accounting
and human resource functions. In large scale multinational
organizations, these daily use resources may exist on a different
continent then portions of the user base, with complex networks
existing at both the remote location and where the critical resource
is located.
Users of these large scale networks have similar needs from their
network providers (usually an internal sub-organization) that general
broadband users expect from their ISP. Depending on the
organization, the service level agreement (SLA) may be more or less
Christopher Inacio Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-inacio-lmap-enterprise-use-case-00 July 30, 2013
strict. The users within these organizations have the same need to
diagnose and verify the performance provided to them as broadband
users. Similarly, the sub-organization (referred to as IT
(information technology) for the rest of this document) has the same
need to test, measure, diagnose, and repair the network as a
broadband ISP.
The difference between the enterprise users and typical broadband
users is their requirement for special SLAs for certain critical
resources within their global corporate network. Certain operations
within the corporate network, when performing poorly at the global
level, may have a disproportionate impact on the users experience
when those SLAs are violated. The second issue is that often the IT
component within an enterprise is responsible for both application
performance and network performance.
2.2 Additions for Enterprise Measurement
Many large enterprises with geographically distributed resources
partition their network monitoring related to geographic sub-units of
the enterprise. The lack of uniform measurement and models means
that problems that occur across sites are often not solved without
significant user pressure.
The additional metrics necessary include the ability to distinguish
application specific traffic flows in a passive manner and report on
the performance end-to-end. Combining this data with typical network
performance data, nominally: bandwidth, latency, routing, etc. allows
a fine grained view of network activity and resource utilization.
2.3 The Goal for Enhanced Measurement
The goal of being able to measure the network in holistic ways that
can be related to application experience is to answer the age old
question: Is it the network or the application? By adding the
ability to optionally measure in ways associated to application
specific traffic, determining network impact to user experience will
be possible.
3 Requirements
* Passive monitoring of application related network measurements.
* Non-averaged recording of application network data.
* Ability to correlate application related network measurements to
non-application related network measurements.
Christopher Inacio Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-inacio-lmap-enterprise-use-case-00 July 30, 2013
* Ability to track, at possibly per-packet activity level,
performance measurements of specific flows, possibly sampled
* Ideally, a way for applications to announce themselves to the
network for passive measurement.
* Simple uniform methods (common ports, DPI) to inspect traffic to
associate the traffic with application usage
Christopher Inacio Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-inacio-lmap-enterprise-use-case-00 July 30, 2013
4 Security Considerations
Security considerations are appropriate and necessary within the
Control Protocol and the Report Protocol.
5 IANA Considerations
None.
6 References
6.1 Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC1776] Crocker, S., "The Address is the Message", RFC 1776, April
1 1995.
[TRUTHS] Callon, R., "The Twelve Networking Truths", RFC 1925,
April 1 1996.
6.2 Informative References
[EVILBIT] Bellovin, S., "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header",
RFC 3514, April 1 2003.
[RFC5513] Farrel, A., "IANA Considerations for Three Letter
Acronyms", RFC 5513, April 1 2009.
[RFC5514] Vyncke, E., "IPv6 over Social Networks", RFC 5514, April 1
2009.
Authors' Addresses
Christopher Inacio
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
EMail: inacio@andrew.cmu.edu
Christopher Inacio Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT draft-inacio-lmap-enterprise-use-case-00 July 30, 2013
Christopher Inacio Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 7]
