Internet DRAFT - draft-morton-ippm-composition
draft-morton-ippm-composition
Network Working Group A.Morton,Editor
Internet Draft AT&T Labs
Document: <draft-morton-ippm-composition-01.txt> E.Stephan
FranceTelecom
Category: Individual
Spatial Composition of Metrics
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of BCP 78.
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This memo utilizes IPPM metrics that are applicable to both complete
paths and sub-paths, and defines relationships to compose a complete
path metric from the sub-path metrics with some accuracy w.r.t. the
actual metrics. This is called Spatial Composition in RFC 2330. The
current version of the memo gives some background and proposes
wording for a Scope and Application section to define this new work.
The description of several example metrics and statistics follow.
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 1
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
Contents
Status of this Memo................................................1
Copyright Notice...................................................1
Abstract...........................................................1
Authors/Contributors...............................................3
1. Conventions used in this document...............................3
2. Introduction....................................................3
2.1 Motivation....................................................4
3. Proposed Scope and Application..................................5
3.1 Scope of Work.................................................5
3.2 Application...................................................6
3.3 Terminology...................................................6
4. One-way Delay Composition Metrics and Statistics................7
4.1 Name: Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream......7
4.1.1 Metric Parameters:...........................................7
4.1.2 Definition:..................................................7
4.1.3 Discussion and other details.................................7
4.1.4 Mean Statistic...............................................7
4.1.5 Composition Relationship: Sum of Mean Delays.................8
4.1.6 Statement of Conjecture......................................8
4.1.7 Justification for the composite relationship.................8
4.1.8 Sources of Error.............................................8
4.1.9 Specific cases where the conjecture might fail...............9
4.1.10 Application of Measurement Methodology......................9
5. Loss Metrics/Statistics.........................................9
5.1 Name: Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson/Periodic-Stream.......9
5.1.1 Metric Parameters:..........................................10
5.1.2 Metric Units:...............................................10
5.1.3 Discussion and other details................................10
5.1.4 Statistic: Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability 10
5.1.5 Composition Relationship: Combination of Empirical
Probabilities.....................................................11
5.1.6 Statement of Conjecture.....................................11
5.1.7 Justification for the composite relationship................11
5.1.8 Sources of Error............................................11
5.1.9 Specific cases where the conjecture might fail..............12
5.1.10 Application of Measurement Methodology.....................12
6. Delay Variation Metrics/Statistics.............................12
7. Other Metrics/Statistics: One-way combined Metric..............12
7.1 Metric Name...................................................13
7.1.1 Metric Parameters:..........................................13
7.1.2 Definition:.................................................13
7.1.3 Discussion and other details................................13
7.1.4 Type-P-One-way-Combo-subpathes-stream.......................13
7.1.5 Type-P-One-way-composition..................................14
7.1.6 Type-P-One-way-composition-stream...........................14
7.1.7 Statement of Conjecture.....................................15
7.1.8 Justification for the composite relationship................15
7.1.9 Sources of Error............................................15
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 2
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
7.1.10 Specific cases where the conjecture might fail.............15
7.1.11 Application of Measurement Methodology.....................15
8. Security Considerations........................................15
8.1 Denial of Service Attacks.....................................15
8.2 User data confidentiality.....................................16
8.3 Interference with the metric..................................16
9. IANA Considerations............................................16
10. Normative References..........................................16
11. Informative References........................................17
12. Open issues...................................................18
13. Acknowledgments...............................................18
14. Author's Addresses............................................18
Full Copyright Statement..........................................18
Intellectual Property.............................................19
Acknowledgement...................................................19
Authors/Contributors
Thus far, the following people have contributed useful ideas,
suggestions, or the text of sections that have been incorporated
into this memo:
- Phil Chimento <vze275m9@verizon.net>
- Reza Fardid <RFardid@Covad.COM>
- Roman Krzanowski <roman.krzanowski@verizon.com>
- Maurizio Molina <maurizio.molina@dante.org.uk>
- Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
- Emile Stephan <emile.stephan@francetelecom.com>
- Lei Liang <L.Liang@surrey.ac.uk>
1. Conventions used in this document
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 RFC 2119 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.
In this memo, the characters "<=" should be read as "less than or
equal to" and ">=" as "greater than or equal to".
2. Introduction
The IPPM framework RFC 2330 [RFC2330] describes two forms of metric
composition, spatial and temporal. Spatial composition encompasses
the definitions of performance metrics that are applicable to the
complete path, and to various sub-paths. Also, the text suggests
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 3
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
that the concepts of the analytical framework (or A-frame) would
help to define useful relationships between the complete path
metrics and the sub-path metrics. The effectiveness of such metrics
is dependent on their usefulness in analysis and applicability with
practical measurement methods.
The relationships may involve conjecture, and [RFC2330] lists four
points that the metric definitions should include:
+ the specific conjecture applied to the metric,
+ a justification of the practical utility of the composition in
terms of making accurate measurements of the metric on the path,
+ a justification of the usefulness of the composition in terms of
making analysis of the path using A-frame concepts more
effective, and
+ an analysis of how the conjecture could be incorrect.
RFC 2330 also gives an example where a conjecture that the delay of
a path is very nearly the sum of the delays of the exchanges and
clouds of the corresponding path digest. This example is
particularly relevant to those who wish to assess the performance of
an Inter-domain path without direct measurement, and the performance
estimate of the complete path is related to the measured results for
various sub-paths instead.
Approximate relationships between the sub-path and complete path
metrics are useful, with knowledge of the circumstances where the
relationships are/are not applicable. For example, we would not
expect that delay singletons from each sub-path would sum to produce
an accurate estimate of a delay singleton for the complete path
(unless all the delays were essentially constant - very unlikely).
However, other delay statistics (based on a reasonable sample size)
may have a sufficiently large set of circumstances where they are
applicable.
2.1 Motivation
One-way metrics defined in other IPPM RFCs all assume that the
measurement can be practically carried out between the source and
the destination of the interest. Sometimes there are reasons that
the measurement can not be executed from the source to the
destination. For instance, the measurement path may cross several
independent domains that have conflicting policies, measurement
tools and methods, and measurement timeslot assignment. and the
simple One-way measurement can not be carried out. The solution then
may be the composition of several sub-path measurements. That means
each domain performs the One-way measurement on a sub path between
two nodes that are involved in the complete path following it own
policy, using its own measurement tools and methods, and within its
own measurement timeslot. One can combine all the sub-path One-way
mmetric results to estimate the complete path One-way measurement
metric with some accuracy.
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 4
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
>>>>>>>>>>>>Open issue:
What is the relationship between the decomposition and composition
metrics? Should we put both kinds in one draft to make up a
framework? The motivation of decomposition is as follows:
The One-way measurement can provide result to show what the network
performance between two end hosts is and whether it meets operator
expectations or not. It cannot provide further information to
engineers where and how to improve the performance between the
source and the destination. For instance, if the network performance
is not acceptable in terms of the One-way measurement, in which part
of the network the engineers should put their efforts. This question
can to be answered by decompose the One-way measurement to sub-path
measurement to investigate the performance of different part of the
network.
Editor’s Questions for clarification:
What additional information would be provided to the decomposition
process, beyond the measurement of the complete path?
Is the decomposition described above intended to estimate a metric
for some/all disjoint sub-paths involved in the complete path?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3. Proposed Scope and Application
3.1 Scope of Work
For the primary IPPM metrics (currently Loss, Delay, and Delay
Variation), this memo gives a set of complete path metrics that can
be composed from the same or similar sub-path metrics. This means
that the complete path metric may be composed from:
+ the same metric for each sub-path;
+ multiple metrics for each sub-path (possibly one that is the same
as the complete path metric);
+ a single sub-path metrics that is different from the complete
path metric;
+ different measurement techniques like active and passive
(recognizing that PSAMP WG will define capabilities to sample
packets to support measurement).
Each metric will clearly state:
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 5
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
- the definition (and statistic, where appropriate);
- the composition relationship;
- the specific conjecture on which the relationship is based;
- a justification of practical utility or usefulness for analysis
using the A-frame concepts;
- one or more examples of how the conjecture could be incorrect and
lead to inaccuracy;
- the information to be reported;
3.2 Application
For each metric, the applicable circumstances are defined, in terms
of whether the composition:
Requires the same test packets to traverse all sub-paths, or may use
similar packets sent and collected separately in each sub-path.
Requires homogeneity of measurement methodologies, or can allow a
degree of flexibility (e.g., active or passive methods produce the
"same" metric). Also, the applicable sending streams will be
specified, such as Poisson, Periodic, or both.
Needs information or access that will only be available within an
operator's domain, or is applicable to Inter-domain composition.
Requires synchronized measurement time intervals in all sub-paths,
or largely overlapping, or no timing requirements.
Requires assumption of sub-path independence w.r.t. the metric being
defined/composed, or other assumptions.
Has known sources of inaccuracy/error, and identifies the sources.
3.3 Terminology
This section will define the terminology applicable to both complete
path and sub-path metrics.
Measurement Points:
<there must be a suitable definition for this in IPPM’s literature>
Equivalent measure:
The equivalent measure is the end-to-end metric that a composite
metric is estimating.
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 6
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
Equivalent path:
The Equivalent path is the list of sub path that is equivalent to
the path of the end-to-end measure the composition measure is
estimating.
4. One-way Delay Composition Metrics and Statistics
4.1 Name: Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream
4.1.1 Metric Parameters:
+ Src, the IP address of a host
+ Dst, the IP address of a host
+ T, a time (start of test interval)
+ Tf, a time (end of test interval)
+ lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds (for Poisson Streams)
+ incT, the nominal duration of inter-packet interval, first bit to
first bit (for Periodic Streams)
+ T0, a time that MUST be selected at random from the interval
[T, T+dT] to start generating packets and taking measurements
(for Periodic Streams)
+ TstampSrc, the wire time of the packet as measured at MP(Src)
+ TstampDst, the wire time of the packet as measured at MP(Dst),
assigned to packets that arrive within a "reasonable" time.
4.1.2 Definition:
Using the parameters above, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-
Delay singleton as per RFC 2679 [RFC2679]. For each packet [i] that
has a finite One-way Delay (in other words, excluding packets which
have undefined, or infinite one-way delay):
Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Poisson/Periodic-Stream[i] =
FiniteDelay[i] = TstampDst - TstampSrc
4.1.3 Discussion and other details...
4.1.4 Mean Statistic
+ L, the total number of packets received at Dst (sent between T0
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 7
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
and Tf)
The
Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean =
MeanDelay = (1/L)Sum(from i=1 to L, FiniteDelay[i])
where all packets i= 1 through L have finite singleton delays.
4.1.5 Composition Relationship: Sum of Mean Delays
The Type-P-Finite—Composite-One-way-Delay-Mean, or MeanDelay for the
complete Source to Destination path can be calculated from sum of
the Mean Delays of all its S constituent sub-paths.
+ S, the number of sub-paths involved in the complete Src-Dst path
Then the
Type-P-Finite-Composite-One-way-Delay-Mean =
CompMeanDelay = (1/S)Sum(from i=1 to S, MeanDelay[i])
4.1.6 Statement of Conjecture
The mean of a sufficiently large stream of packets measured on each
sub-path during the interval [T, Tf] will be representative of the
true mean of the delay distribution (and the distributions
themselves are sufficiently independent), such that the means may be
added to produce an estimate of the complete path mean delay.
4.1.7 Justification for the composite relationship
It is sometimes impractical to conduct active measurements between
every Src-Dst pair. For example, it may not be possible to collect
the desired sample size in each test interval when access link speed
is limited, because of the potential for measurement traffic to
degrade the user traffic performance. The conditions on a low-speed
access link may be understood well-enough to permit use of a small
sample size/rate, while a larger sample size/rate may be used on
other sub-paths.
Also, since measurement operations have a real monetary cost, there
is value in re-using measurements where they are applicable, rather
than launching new measurements for every possible source-
destination pair.
4.1.8 Sources of Error
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 8
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
The measurement packets, each having source and destination
addresses intended for collection at edges of the sub-path, may take
a different specific path through the network equipment and parallel
exchanges than packets with the source and destination addresses of
the complete path. Therefore, the sub-path measurements may differ
from the performance experienced by packets on the complete path.
Multiple measurements employing sufficient sub-path address pairs
might produce bounds on the extent of this error.
others...
4.1.9 Specific cases where the conjecture might fail
If any of the sub-path distributions are bimodal, then the measured
means may not be stable, and in this case the mean will not be a
particularly useful statistic when describing the delay distribution
of the complete path.
The mean may not be sufficiently robust statistic to produce a
reliable estimate, or to be useful even if it can be measured.
others...
4.1.10 Application of Measurement Methodology
The methodology:
SHOULD use similar packets sent and collected separately in each
sub-path.
Allows a degree of flexibility (e.g., active or passive methods can
produce the "same" metric, but timing and correlation of passive
measurements is much more challenging).
Poisson and/or Periodic streams are RECOMMENDED.
Applicable to both Inter-domain and Intra-domain composition.
SHOULD have synchronized measurement time intervals in all sub-
paths, but largely overlapping intervals MAY suffice.
REQUIRES assumption of sub-path independence w.r.t. the metric being
defined/composed.
5. Loss Metrics/Statistics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Editor’s note: there is considerable redundancy between the material
in sections 5.1 and 4.1, need to determine how best to reduce it.
5.1 Name: Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson/Periodic-Stream
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 9
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
5.1.1 Metric Parameters:
+ Src, the IP address of a host
+ Dst, the IP address of a host
+ T, a time (start of test interval)
+ Tf, a time (end of test interval)
+ lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds (for Poisson Streams)
+ incT, the nominal duration of inter-packet interval, first bit to
first bit (for Periodic Streams)
+ T0, a time that MUST be selected at random from the interval
[T, T+dT] to start generating packets and taking measurements
(for Periodic Streams)
+ TstampSrc, the wire time of the packet as measured at MP(Src)
+ TstampDst, the wire time of the packet as measured at MP(Dst),
assigned to packets that arrive within a "reasonable" time.
+ Tmax, a maximum waiting time for packets at the destination
5.1.2 Metric Units:
Using the parameters above, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-
Packet-Loss singleton and stream as per RFC 2680 [RFC2680]. We
obtain a sequence of pairs with elements as follows:
+ TstampSrc, as above
+ L, either zero or one, where L=1 indicates loss and L=0 indicates
arrival at the destination within TstampSrc + Tmax.
5.1.3 Discussion and other details...
5.1.4 Statistic: Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability
Given the following stream parameter
+ N, the total number of packets sent between T0 and Tf
We can define the Empirical Probability of Loss Statistic (Ep),
consistent with Average Loss in [RFC2680], as follows:
Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability =
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 10
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
Ep = (1/N)Sum(from i=1 to N, L[i])
where all packets i= 1 through N have a value for L.
5.1.5 Composition Relationship: Combination of Empirical Probabilities
The Type Type-P-One-way-Composite-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability,
or CompEp for the complete Source to Destination path can be
calculated by combining Ep of all its constituent sub-paths (Ep1,
Ep2, Ep3, ... Epn) as
Type-P-One-way-Composite-Packet-Loss-Empirical-Probability =
CompEp = 1 – {(1 - Ep1) x (1 – Ep2) x (1 – Ep3) x ... x (1 – Epn)}
5.1.6 Statement of Conjecture
The empirical probability of loss calculated on a sufficiently large
stream of packets measured on each sub-path during the interval [T,
Tf] will be representative of the true loss probability (and the
probabilities themselves are sufficiently independent), such that
the sub-path probabilities may be combined to produce an estimate of
the complete path loss probability.
5.1.7 Justification for the composite relationship
It is sometimes impractical to conduct active measurements between
every Src-Dst pair. For example, it may not be possible to collect
the desired sample size in each test interval when access link speed
is limited, because of the potential for measurement traffic to
degrade the user traffic performance. The conditions on a low-speed
access link may be understood well-enough to permit use of a small
sample size/rate, while a larger sample size/rate may be used on
other sub-paths.
Also, since measurement operations have a real monetary cost, there
is value in re-using measurements where they are applicable, rather
than launching new measurements for every possible source-
destination pair.
5.1.8 Sources of Error
The measurement packets, each having source and destination
addresses intended for collection at edges of the sub-path, may take
a different specific path through the network equipment and parallel
exchanges than packets with the source and destination addresses of
the complete path. Therefore, the sub-path measurements may differ
from the performance experienced by packets on the complete path.
Multiple measurements employing sufficient sub-path address pairs
might produce bounds on the extent of this error.
others...
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 11
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
5.1.9 Specific cases where the conjecture might fail
A concern for loss measurements combined in this way is that root
causes may be correlated to some degree.
For example, if the links of different networks follow the same
physical route, then a single event like a tunnel fire could cause
an outage or congestion on remaining paths in multiple networks.
Here it is important to ensure that measurements before the event
and after the event are not combined to estimate the composite
performance.
Or, when traffic volumes rise due to the rapid spread of an email-
born worm, loss due to queue overflow in one network may help
another network to carry its traffic without loss.
others...
5.1.10 Application of Measurement Methodology
The methodology:
SHOULD use similar packets sent and collected separately in each
sub-path.
Allows a degree of flexibility (e.g., active or passive methods can
produce the "same" metric, but timing and correlation of passive
measurements is much more challenging).
Poisson and/or Periodic streams are RECOMMENDED.
Applicable to both Inter-domain and Intra-domain composition.
SHOULD have synchronized measurement time intervals in all sub-
paths, but largely overlapping intervals MAY suffice.
REQUIRES assumption of sub-path independence w.r.t. the metric being
defined/composed.
6. Delay Variation Metrics/Statistics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Editor’s note: We have studied various approaches and have at least
one proposal for this section. We plan to add the text in the next
version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
7. Other Metrics/Statistics: One-way combined Metric
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 12
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
This definition may be the common part for the definition of "Loss
Metrics/Statistics" and for the definition of "One-way Delay
Composition Metrics and Statistics".
7.1 Metric Name
Type-P-One-way-Combo-mean
7.1.1 Metric Parameters:
Editorial notes (ES): parameters list to be completed
<P1,T1,dt1>...<Pn,Tn,dtn>:
It is a stream of One-way delay corresponding either to an end
to end measure of a sub-path, or to the spatial measure of the
sub-path:
- Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream as per [RFC2679];
- Type-P-One-way-Delay-Periodic-Stream a per [RFC3432];
- Type-P-One-way-Composition-Stream as defined below;
- Type-P-subpath-One-way-Delay-Stream as per [I-D.stephan-ippm-
multimetrics].
7.1.2 Definition:
Using the value <P1,T1,dt1>...<Pn,Tn,dtn> of one of the One-way
delay Stream listed above, we define Type-P-One-way-Combo as the
couple (D,L) where D is the mean of the delay of the packets that
have a finite One-way, and where L is the average of lost of packets
(which have undefined, or infinite one-way delay).
D corresponds to the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean defined above.
L corresponds to the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Empirical-
Probability defined above.
7.1.3 Discussion and other details...
7.1.4 Type-P-One-way-Combo-subpathes-stream
Parameters:
+ dT1,..., dTn a list of delay.
+ <Src, H1, H2,..., Hn, Dst>, the equivalent path.
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 13
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
Definition:
Using Type-P-One-way-Combo-mean of each sub-path in the equivalent
path we define a Type-P-One-way-subpathes-stream as the list of
couples (D,L) of the sub-path list;
Results: {<D0,L0>, <D1,L1>, <D2,L2>, … <Dn,Ln>}
7.1.5 Type-P-One-way-composition
The composition over a path gives D and L which give an estimation
of the end-to-end delay and end-to-end packet lost over this path.
Parameters:
+ <Src, H1, H2,..., Hn, Dst>, the equivalent path.
+ {<D0,L0>, <D1,L1>, <D2,L2>, … <Dn,Ln>}, the composition stream
of the sub-pathes of a path.
Definition:
Using Type-P-One-way-subpathes-stream we define Type-P-One-way-
composition as the couple <D,L> where D is the mean of the delays Di
and where L is the average of lost of Li.
Results: <D,L>, where D is a delay and L is the lost
7.1.6 Type-P-One-way-composition-stream
The sample of Type-P-One-way-composition is defined to permit the
usage of the results of Type-P-One-way-composition measure in
computation of Type-P-One-way-Combo-mean composition.
Parameters:
+ T1,..., Tn, a list of time;
+ <D,L>, the delay and the lost computed by composition.
Definition:
Using Type-P-One-way-composition we define Type-P-One-way-
composition-stream as the stream of couples <D,L> over time.
Results: <T1,D1,L1>...<Tn,Dn,Ln>
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 14
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
7.1.7 Statement of Conjecture
7.1.8 Justification for the composite relationship
Combo metric is very easy to measure and to compose.
It gives the delay and the lost, so most of the need.
Combo metric may be performed on com metric too.
7.1.9 Sources of Error
Packets may cross different sub path than the equivalent end-to-end
measure because Type-P differ.
Packets may experiment different behavior than the equivalent end-
to-end measure because of access classification based on packet
addresses.
7.1.10 Specific cases where the conjecture might fail
When
+ Sum of subpath differ from the equivalent path.
+ Type-P differ.
+ Size differ.
7.1.11 Application of Measurement Methodology
The methodology:
Is applicable to Intra and interdomain;
SHOULD report the context of the measure;
8. Security Considerations
8.1 Denial of Service Attacks
This metric requires a stream of packets sent from one host (source)
to another host (destination) through intervening networks. This
method could be abused for denial of service attacks directed at
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 15
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
destination and/or the intervening network(s).
Administrators of source, destination, and the intervening
network(s) should establish bilateral or multi-lateral agreements
regarding the timing, size, and frequency of collection of sample
metrics. Use of this method in excess of the terms agreed between
the participants may be cause for immediate rejection or discard of
packets or other escalation procedures defined between the affected
parties.
8.2 User data confidentiality
Active use of this method generates packets for a sample, rather
than taking samples based on user data, and does not threaten user
data confidentiality. Passive measurement must restrict attention to
the headers of interest. Since user payloads may be temporarily
stored for length analysis, suitable precautions MUST be taken to
keep this information safe and confidential. In most cases, a
hashing function will produce a value suitable for payload
comparisons.
8.3 Interference with the metric
It may be possible to identify that a certain packet or stream of
packets is part of a sample. With that knowledge at the destination
and/or the intervening networks, it is possible to change the
processing of the packets (e.g. increasing or decreasing delay) that
may distort the measured performance. It may also be possible to
generate additional packets that appear to be part of the sample
metric. These additional packets are likely to perturb the results
of the sample measurement.
To discourage the kind of interference mentioned above, packet
interference checks, such as cryptographic hash, may be used.
9. IANA Considerations
Metrics defined in this memo will be registered in the IANA IPPM
METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry
[RFC4148].
10. Normative References
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc791.txt
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 16
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and Mathis, M.,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
1998.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2330.txt
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A one-way
delay metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2679.txt
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A one-way
packet loss metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2680.txt
[RFC3148] Mathis, M. and Allman, M., "A Framework for Defining
Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148, July
2001.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3148.txt
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and Morton, A., "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002.
[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
11. Informative References
[I.356] ITU-T Recommendation I.356, "B-ISDN ATM layer cell
transfer performance", March 2000.
[Pax98] V.Paxson, "Measurements and Analysis of End-to-End
Internet Dynamics," Ph.D. dissertation, U.C. Berkeley,
1997, ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/vp-thesis/dis.ps.gz.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C., and Chimento, P., "IP Packet Delay
Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC
3393, November 2002.
[Y.1540] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, "Internet protocol data
communication service - IP packet transfer and
availability performance parameters", December 2002.
[I-D.stephan-ippm-multimetrics]
Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) for spatial
and multicast", draft-stephan-ippm-multimetrics-01 (work
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 17
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
in progress), July 2005.
12. Open issues
Point1:
13. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge many helpful discussions with
. . . (lots of people, eventually).
14. Author's Addresses
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
Room D3 - 3C06
200 Laurel Ave. South
Middletown, NJ 07748 USA
Phone +1 732 420 1571
EMail: <acmorton@att.com>
Need addresses for:
- Phil Chimento <vze275m9@verizon.net>
- Reza Fardid <RFardid@Covad.COM>
- Roman Krzanowski <roman.krzanowski@verizon.com>
- Maurizio Molina <maurizio.molina@dante.org.uk>
- Emile Stephan <emile.stephan@francetelecom.com>
Stephan Emile
France Telecom Division R&D
2 avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion, F-22307
Fax: +33 2 96 05 18 52
Email: emile.stephan@francetelecom.com
- Lei Liang <L.Liang@surrey.ac.uk>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 18
Spatial Composition of Metrics October 2005
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Morton, et al. Individual exp. April 2006 Page 19
