Internet DRAFT - draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m
draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m
Network Working Group A. Capello
Internet-Draft M. Cociglio
Intended status: Experimental L. Castaldelli
Expires: August 17, 2014 Telecom Italia
A. Tempia Bonda
February 13, 2014
A packet based method for passive performance monitoring
draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04.txt
Abstract
This document describes a passive method to perform packet loss,
delay and jitter measurements on live traffic. Implementation and
deployment details are also explained in order to clarify how the
tools and features currently available on existing routing platforms
can be used to implement the method. This method has been invented
and engineered in Telecom Italia and it's currently being used in
Telecom Italia's network.
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 August 17, 2014.
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
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Overview of the method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Detailed description of the method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Packet loss measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. One-way delay measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Average delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Delay variation measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Implementation and deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Coloring the packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Counting the packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. Collecting data and calculating packet loss . . . . . . . 15
5. Compliance with RFC6390 guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
Nowadays, most of the traffic in Service Providers' networks carries
multimedia content. Video contents are highly sensitive to packet
loss [RFC2680], while interactive contents are sensitive to delay
[RFC2679], and jitter [RFC3393].
In front of this scenario, Service Providers need methodologies and
tools to monitor and measure network performances with an adequate
accuracy, in order to constantly control the quality of experience
perceived by their customers. On the other hand, performance
monitoring provides useful information for improving network
management (e.g. isolation of network problems, troubleshooting,
etc.).
A lot of work related to OAM, that includes also performance
monitoring techniques, has been done by Standards Developing
Organizations: [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview] provides a good
overview of existing OAM mechanisms defined in IETF, ITU-T and IEEE.
Considering IETF, a lot of work has been done on fault detection and
connectivity verification, while a minor effort has been dedicated so
far to performance monitoring. The IPPM WG has defined standard
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
metrics to measure network performance; however, the methods
developed in the WG mainly refer to active measurement techniques.
More recently, the MPLS WG has defined mechanisms for measuring
packet loss, one-way and two-way delay, and delay variation in MPLS
networks[RFC6374], but their applicability to passive measurements
has some limitations, especially for pure connection-less networks.
The lack of adequate tools to measure packet loss with the desired
accuracy drove an effort in Telecom Italia to design a new method for
the performance monitoring of live traffic, possibly easy to
implement and deploy. The effort led to the method described in this
document: basically, it is a passive performance monitoring
technique, potentially applicable to any kind of packet based
traffic, including Ethernet, IP, and MPLS, both unicast and
multicast. The method addresses primarily packet loss measurement,
but it can be easily extended to one-way delay and delay variation
measurements as well. It doesn't require any protocol extension or
interaction with existing protocols, thus avoiding any
interoperability issue. Even if the method doesn't raise any
specific need for standardization, it could be further improved by
means of some extension to existing protocols, but this aspect is
left for further study and it is out of the scope of this document.
The method has been explicitly designed for passive measurements but
it can also be used with active probes. Passive measurements are
usually more easily understood by customers and provide a much better
accuracy, especially for packet loss measurements.
The method described in this document has been invented and
engineered in Telecom Italia and it's currently being used in Telecom
Italia's network.
This document is organized as follows:
o Section 2 gives an overview of the method, including a comparison
with alternate measurement strategies;
o Section 3 describes the method in detail
o Section 4 discusses implementation and deployment considerations,
with special regard to the choices adopted in Telecom Italia's own
implementation;
o Section 5 includes some considerations about security aspects;
o Section 6 finally summarizes some concluding remarks.
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
2. Overview of the method
In order to perform packet loss measurements on a live traffic flow,
different approaches exist. The most intuitive one consists in
numbering the packets, so that each router that receives the flow can
immediately detect a packet missing. This approach, though very
simple in theory, is not simple to achieve: it requires the insertion
of a sequence number into each packet and the devices must be able to
extract the number and check it in real time. Such a task can be
difficult to implement on live traffic: if UDP is used as the
transport protocol, the sequence number is not available; on the
other hand, if a higher layer sequence number (e.g. in the RTP
header) is used, extracting that information from each packet and
process it in real time could overload the device.
An alternate approach is to count the number of packets sent on one
end, the number of packets received on the other end, and to compare
the two values. This operation is much simpler to implement, but
requires that the devices performing the measurement are in sync: in
order to compare two counters it is required that they refer exactly
to the same set of packets. Since a flow is continuous and cannot be
stopped when a counter has to be read, it could be difficult to
determine exactly when to read the counter. A possible solution to
overcome this problem is to virtually split the flow in consecutive
blocks by inserting periodically a delimiter so that each counter
refers exactly to the same block of packets. The delimiter could be
for example a special packet inserted artificially into the flow.
However, delimiting the flow using specific packets has some
limitations. First, it requires generating additional packets within
the flow and requires the equipment to be able to process those
packets. In addition, the method is vulnerable to out of order
reception of delimiting packets and, to a lesser extent, to their
loss.
The method proposed in this document follows the second approach, but
it doesn't use additional packets to virtually split the flow in
blocks. Instead, it "colors" the packets so that the packets
belonging to the same block will have the same color, whilst
consecutive blocks will have different colors. Each change of color
represents a sort of auto-synchronization signal that guarantees the
consistency of measurements taken by different devices along the
path.
Figure 1 represents a very simple network and shows how the method
can be used to measure packet loss on different network segments: by
enabling the measurement on several interfaces along the path, it is
possible to perform link monitoring, node monitoring or end-to-end
monitoring. The method is flexible enough to measure packet loss on
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
any segment of the network and can be used to isolate the faulty
element.
Traffic flow
========================================================>
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
---<> R1 <>-----<> R2 <>-----<> R3 <>-----<> R4 <>---
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. <------> <-------> .
. Node Packet Loss Link Packet Loss .
. .
<--------------------------------------------------->
End-to-End Packet loss
Figure 1: Available measurements
3. Detailed description of the method
This section describes in detail how the method. A special emphasis
is given to the measurement of packet loss, that represents the core
application of the method, but applicability to delay and jitter
measurements is also considered.
3.1. Packet loss measurement
The basic idea is to virtually split traffic flows into consecutive
blocks: each block represents a measurable entity unambiguously
recognizable by all network devices along the path. By counting the
number of packets in each block and comparing the values measured by
different network devices along the path, it is possible to measure
packet loss occurred in any single block between any two points.
As discussed in the previous section, a simple way to create the
blocks is to "color" the traffic (two colors are sufficient) so that
packets belonging to different consecutive blocks will have different
colors. Whenever the color changes, the previous block terminates
and the new one begins. Hence, all the packets belonging to the same
block will have the same color and packets of different consecutive
blocks will have different colors. The number of packets in each
block depends on the criterion used to create the blocks: if the
color is switched after a fixed number of packets, then each block
will contain the same number of packets (except for any losses); but
if the color is switched according to a fixed timer, then the number
of packets may be different in each block depending on the packet
rate.
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
The following figure shows how a flow looks like when it is split in
traffic blocks with colored packets.
A: packet with A coloring
B: packet with B coloring
| | | | |
| | Traffic flow | |
------------------------------------------------------------------->
BBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAA
------------------------------------------------------------------->
... | Block 5 | Block 4 | Block 3 | Block 2 | Block 1
| | | | |
Figure 2: Traffic coloring
Figure 3 shows how the method can be used to measure link packet loss
between two adjacent nodes.
Referring to the figure, let's assume we want to monitor the packet
loss on the link between two routers: router R1 and router R2.
According to the method, the traffic is colored alternatively with
two different colors, A and B. Whenever the color changes, the
transition generates a sort of square-wave signal, as depicted in the
following figure.
Color A ----------+ +-----------+ +----------
| | | |
Color B +-----------+ +-----------+
Block n ... Block 3 Block 2 Block 1
<---------> <---------> <---------> <---------> <--------->
Traffic flow
===========================================================>
Color ... AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAA...
===========================================================>
Figure 3: Application of the method to compute link packet loss
Traffic coloring could be done by R1 itself or by an upward router.
R1 needs two counters, C(A)R1 and C(B)R1, on its egress interface:
C(A)R1 counts the packets with color A and C(B)R1 counts those with
color B. As long as traffic is colored A, only counter C(A)R1 will be
incremented, while C(B)R1 is not incremented; vice versa, when the
traffic is colored as B, only C(B)R1 is incremented. C(A)R1 and
C(B)R1 can be used as reference values to determine the packet loss
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
from R1 to any other measurement point down the path. Router R2,
similarly, will need two counters on its ingress interface, C(A)R2
and C(B)R2, to count the packets received on that interface and
colored with color A and B respectively. When an A block ends, it is
possible to compare C(A)R1 and C(A)R2 and calculate the packet loss
within the block; similarly, when the successive B block terminates,
it is possible to compare C(B)R1 with C(B)R2, and so on for every
successive block.
Likewise, by using two counters on R2 egress interface it is possible
to count the packets sent out of R2 interface and use them as
reference values to calculate the packet loss from R2 to any
measurement point down R2.
Using a fixed timer for color switching offers a better control over
the method: the (time) length of the blocks can be chosen large
enough to simplify the collection and the comparison of measures
taken by different network devices. It's preferable to read the
value of the counters not immediately after the color switch: some
packets could arrive out of order and increment the counter
associated to the previous block (color), so it is worth waiting for
some seconds. The drawback is that the longer the duration of the
block, the less frequent the measurement can be taken.
The following table shows how the counters can be used to calculate
the packet loss between R1 and R2. The first column lists the
sequence of traffic blocks while the other columns contain the
counters of A-colored packets and B-colored packets for R1 and R2.
In this example, we assume that the values of the counters are reset
to zero whenever a block ends and its associated counter has been
read: with this assumption, the table shows only relative values,
that is the exact number of packets of each color within each block.
If the values of the counters were not reset, the table would contain
cumulative values, but the relative values could be determined simply
by difference from the value of the previous block of the same color.
The color is switched on the basis of a fixed timer (not shown in the
table), so the number of packets in each block is different.
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+
| Block | C(A)R1 | C(B)R1 | C(A)R2 | C(B)R2 | Loss |
+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+
| 1 | 375 | 0 | 375 | 0 | 0 |
| | | | | | |
| 2 | 0 | 388 | 0 | 388 | 0 |
| | | | | | |
| 3 | 382 | 0 | 381 | 0 | 1 |
| | | | | | |
| 4 | 0 | 377 | 0 | 374 | 3 |
| | | | | | |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| | | | | | |
| n | 0 | 387 | 0 | 387 | 0 |
| | | | | | |
| n+1 | 379 | 0 | 377 | 0 | 2 |
+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+
Table 1: Evaluation of counters for packet loss measurements
During an A block (blocks 1, 3 and n+1), all the packets are
A-colored, therefore the C(A) counters are incremented to the number
seen on the interface, while C(B) counters are zero. Vice versa,
during a B block (blocks 2, 4 and n), all the packets are B-colored:
C(A) counters are zero, while C(B) counters are incremented.
When a block ends (because of color switching) the relative counters
stop incrementing and it is possible to read them, compare the values
measured on router R1 and R2 and calculate the packet loss within
that block.
For example, looking at the table above, during the first block
(A-colored), C(A)R1 and C(A)R2 have the same value (375), which
corresponds to the exact number of packets of the first block (no
loss). Also during the second block (B-colored) R1 and R2 counters
have the same value (388), which corresponds to the number of packets
of the second block (no loss). During blocks three and four, R1 and
R2 counters are different, meaning that some packets have been lost:
in the example, one single packet (382-381) was lost during block
three and three packets (377-374) were lost during block four.
The method applied to R1 and R2 can be extended to any other router
and applied to more complex networks, as far as the measurement is
enabled on the path followed by the traffic flow(s) being observed.
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
3.2. One-way delay measurement
The same principle used to measure packet loss can be applied also to
one-way delay measurement: the alternation of colors can be used as a
time reference to calculate the delay. Whenever the color changes
(that means that a new block has started) a network device can store
the timestamp of the first packet of the new block; that timestamp
can be compared with the timestamp of the same packet on a second
router to compute packet delay. Considering Figure 4, R1 stores a
timestamp TS(A1)R1 when it sends the first packet of block 1
(A-colored), a timestamp TS(B2)R1 when it sends the first packet of
block 2 (B-colored) and so on for every other block. R2 performs the
same operation on the receiving side, recording TS(A1)R2, TS(B2)R2
and so on. Since the timestamps refer to specific packets (the first
packet of each block) we are sure that timestamps compared to compute
delay refer to the same packets. By comparing TS(A1)R1 with TS(A1)R2
(and similarly TS(B2)R1 with TS(B2)R2 and so on) it is possible to
measure the delay between R1 and R2. In order to have more
measurements, it is possible to take and store more timestamps,
referring to other packets within each block.
In order to coherently compare timestamps collected on different
routers, the network nodes must be in sync. Furthermore, a
measurement is valid only if no packet loss occurs and if packet
misordering can be avoided, otherwise the first packet of a block on
R1 could be different from the first packet of the same block on R2
(f.i. if that packet is lost between R1 and R2 or it arrives after
the next one).
The following table shows how timestamps can be used to calculate the
delay between R1 and R2. The first column lists the sequence of
blocks while other columns contain the timestamp referring to the
first packet of each block on R1 and R2. The delay is computed as a
difference between timestamps. For the sake of simplicity, all the
values are expressed in milliseconds.
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| Block | TS(A)R1 | TS(B)R1 | TS(A)R2 | TS(B)R2 | Delay R1-R2 |
+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
| 1 | 12.483 | - | 15.591 | - | 3.108 |
| | | | | | |
| 2 | - | 6.263 | - | 9.288 | 3.025 |
| | | | | | |
| 3 | 27.556 | - | 30.512 | - | 2.956 |
| | | | | | |
| | - | 18.113 | - | 21.269 | 3.156 |
| | | | | | |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| | | | | | |
| n | 77.463 | - | 80.501 | - | 3.038 |
| | | | | | |
| n+1 | - | 24.333 | - | 27.433 | 3.100 |
+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
Table 2: Evaluation of timestamps for delay measurements
The first row shows timestamps taken on R1 and R2 respectively and
referring to the first packet of block 1 (which is A-colored). Delay
can be computed as a difference between the timestamp on R2 and the
timestamp on R1. Similarly, the second row shows timestamps (in
milliseconds) taken on R1 and R2 and referring to the first packet of
block 2 (which is B-colored). Comparing timestamps taken on
different nodes in the network and referring to the same packets
(identified using the alternation of colors) it is possible to
measure delay on different network segments.
For the sake of simplicity, in the above example a single measurement
is provided within a block, taking into account only the first packet
of each block. The number of measurements can be easily increased by
considering multiple packets in the block: for instance, a timestamp
could be taken every N packets, thus generating multiple delay
measurements. Taking this to the limit, in principle the delay could
be measured for each packet, by taking and comparing the
corresponding timestamps (possible but impractical from an
implementation point of view).
3.2.1. Average delay
As mentioned before, the method previously exposed for measuring the
delay is sensitive to out of order reception of packets. In order to
overcome this problem, a different approach has been considered: it
is based on the concept of average delay. The average delay is
calculated by considering the average arrival time of the packets
within a single block. The network device locally stores a timestamp
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
for each packet received within a single block: summing all the
timestamps and dividing by the total number of packets received, the
average arrival time for that block of packets can be calculated. By
subtracting the average arrival times of two adjacent devices it is
possible to calculate the average delay between those nodes. This
method is robust to out of order packets and also to packet loss
(only a small error is introduced). Moreover, it greatly reduces the
number of timestamps (only one per block for each network device)
that have to be collected by the management system. On the other
hand, it only gives one measure for the duration of the block (f.i. 5
minutes), and it doesn't give the minimum and maximum delay values.
This limitation could be overcome by reducing the duration of the
block (f.i. from 5 minutes to a few seconds) by means of an highly
optimized implementation of the method.
By summing the average delays of the two directions of a path, it is
also possible to measure the two-way delay (round-trip delay).
3.3. Delay variation measurement
Similarly to one-way delay measurement, the method can also be used
to measure the inter-arrival jitter. The alternation of colors can
be used as a time reference to measure delay variations. Considering
the example depicted in Figure 4, R1 stores a timestamp TS(A)R1
whenever it sends the first packet of a block and R2 stores a
timestamp TS(B)R2 whenever it receives the first packet of a block.
The inter-arrival jitter can be easily derived from one-way delay
measurement, by evaluating the delay variation of consecutive
samples.
The concept of average delay can also be applied to delay variation,
by evaluating the variation of consecutive measures of the average
delay.
4. Implementation and deployment
The methodology described in the previous sections has been
implemented in Telecom Italia by leveraging functions and tools
available on IP routers and it's currently being used to monitor
packet loss in some portions of Telecom Italia's network. The
application of the method to delay measurement is currently being
evaluated in Telecom Italia's labs.
The fundamental steps for the implementation of the method can be
summarized in the following items:
o coloring the packets;
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
o counting the packets;
o collecting data and calculating the packet loss.
Before going deeper into the implementation details, it's worth
mentioning two different strategies that can be used when
implementing the method:
o flow-based: the flow-based strategy is used when only a limited
number of traffic flows need to be monitored. This could be the
case, for example, of IPTV channels or other specific applications
traffic with high QoS requirements. According to this strategy,
only a subset of the flows is colored. Counters for packet loss
measurements can be instantiated for each single flow, or for the
set as a whole, depending on the desired granularity. A relevant
problem with this approach is the necessity to know in advance the
path followed by flows that are subject to measurement. Path
rerouting and traffic load-balancing increase the issue
complexity, especially for unicast traffic. The problem is easier
to solve for multicast traffic where load balancing is seldom
used, especially for IPTV traffic where static joins are
frequently used to force traffic forwarding and replication.
o link-based: measurements are performed on all the traffic on a
link by link basis. The link could be a physical link or a
logical link (for instance an Ethernet VLAN or a MPLS PW).
Counters could be instantiated for the traffic as a whole or for
each traffic class (in case it is desired to monitor each class
separately), but in the second case a couple of counters is needed
for each class.
The current implementation in Telecom Italia uses the first strategy.
As mentioned, the flow-based measurement requires the identification
of the flow to be monitored and the discovery of the path followed by
the selected flow. It is possible to monitor a single flow or
multiple flows grouped together, but in this case measurement is
consistent only if all the flows in the group follow the same path.
Moreover, a Service Provider should be aware that, if a measurement
is performed by grouping many flows, it is not possible to determine
exactly which flow was affected by packets loss. In order to have
measures per single flow it is necessary to configure counters for
each specific flow. Once the flow(s) to be monitored have been
identified, it is necessary to configure the monitoring on the proper
nodes. Configuring the monitoring means configuring the policy to
intercept the traffic and configuring the counters to count the
packets. To have just an end-to-end monitoring, it is sufficient to
enable the monitoring on the first and the last hop routers of the
path: the mechanism is completely transparent to intermediate nodes
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
and independent from the path followed by traffic flows. On the
contrary, to monitor the flow on a hop-by-hop basis along its whole
path it is necessary to enable the monitoring on every node from the
source to the destination. In case the exact path followed by the
flow is not known a priori (i.e. the flow has multiple paths to reach
the destination) it is necessary to enable the monitoring system on
every path: counters on interfaces traversed by the flow will report
packet count, counters on other interfaces will be null.
4.1. Coloring the packets
The coloring operation is fundamental in order to create packet
blocks. This implies choosing where to activate the coloring and how
to color the packets.
In case of flow-based measurements, it is desirable, in general, to
have a single coloring node because it is easier to manage and
doesn't rise any risk of conflict (consider the case where two nodes
color the same flow). Thus it is necessary to color the flow as
close as possible to the source. In addition, coloring a flow close
to the source allows an end-to-end measure if a measurement point is
enabled on the last-hop router as well. The only requirement is that
the coloring must change periodically and every node along the path
must be able to identify unambiguously the colored packets. For
link-based measurements, all traffic needs to be colored when
transmitted on the link. If the traffic had already been colored,
then it has to be re-colored because the color must be consistent on
the link. This means that each hop along the path must (re-)color
the traffic; the color is not required to be consistent along
different links.
Traffic coloring can be implemented by setting a specific bit in the
packet header and changing the value of that bit periodically. With
current router implementations, only QoS-related fields and features
offer the required flexibility to explicitly set the value of some
bits in the packet header from the Command Line Interface (CLI). In
case a Service Provider only uses the three most significant bits of
the DSCP field (corresponding to IP Precedence) for QoS
classification and queuing, it is possible to use the two less
significant bits of the DSCP field (bit 0 and bit 1) to implement the
method without affecting QoS policies. One of the two bits (bit 0)
could be used to identify flows subject to traffic monitoring (set to
1 if the flow is under monitoring, otherwise it is set to 0), while
the second (bit 1) can be used for coloring the traffic (switching
between values 0 and 1, corresponding to color A and B) and creating
the blocks.
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
In practice, coloring the traffic using the DSCP field can be
implemented by configuring on the router output interface an access
list that intercepts the flow(s) to be monitored and applies to them
a policy that sets the DSCP field accordingly. Since traffic
coloring has to be switched between the two values over time, the
policy needs to be modified periodically: an automatic script ca be
used perform this task on the basis of a fixed timer. In Telecom
Italia's implementation this timer is set to 5 minutes: this value
showed to be a good compromise between measurement frequency and
stability of the measurement (i.e. possibility to collect all the
measures referring to the same block).
4.2. Counting the packets
Assuming that the coloring of the packets is performed only by the
source node, the nodes between source and destination (included) have
to count the colored packets that they receive and forward: this
operation can be enabled on every router along the path or only on a
subset, depending on which network segment is being monitored (a
single link, a particular metro area, the backbone, the whole path).
Since the color switches periodically between two values, two
counters (one for each value) are needed: one counter for packets
with color A and one counter for packets with color B. For each flow
(or group of flows) being monitored and for every interface where the
monitoring is active, a couple of counters is needed. For example,
in order to monitor separately 3 flows on a router with 4 interfaces
involved, 24 counters are needed (2 counters for each of the 3 flows
on each of the 4 interfaces). If traffic is colored using the DSCP
field, as in Telecom Italia's implementation, an access-list that
matches specific DSCP values can be used to count the packets of the
flow(s) being monitored.
In case of link-based measurements the behavior is similar except
that coloring and counting operations are performed on a link by link
basis at each endpoint of the link.
Another important aspect to take into consideration is when to read
the counters: in order to count the exact number of packets of a
block the routers must perform this operation when that block has
ended: in other words, the counter for color A must be read when the
current block has color B, in order to be sure that the value of the
counter is stable. This task can be accomplished in two ways. The
general approach suggests to read the counters periodically, many
times during a block duration, and to compare these successive
readings: when the counter stops incrementing means that the current
block has ended and its value can be elaborated safely.
Alternatively, if the coloring operation is performed on the basis of
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
a fixed timer, it is possible to configure the reading of the
counters according to that timer: for example, if each block is 5
minutes long, reading the counter for color A every 5 minute in the
middle of the subsequent block (with color B) is a safe choice. A
sufficient margin should be considered between the end of a block and
the reading of the counter, in order to take into account any out-of-
order packets. The choice of a 5 minutes timer for color switching
was also suggested by these considerations
4.3. Collecting data and calculating packet loss
The nodes enabled to perform performance monitoring collect the value
of the counters, but they are not able to directly use this
information to measure packet loss, because they only have their own
samples. For this reason, an external Network Management System
(NMS) is required to collect and elaborate data and to perform packet
loss calculation. The NMS compares the values of counters from
different nodes and can calculate if some packets were lost (even a
single packet) and also where packets were lost.
The value of the counters needs to be transmitted to the NMS as soon
as it has been read. This can be accomplished by using SNMP or FTP
and can be done in Push Mode or Polling Mode. In the first case,
each router periodically sends the information to the NMS, in the
latter case it is the NMS that periodically polls routers to collect
information. In any case, the NMS has to collect all the relevant
values from all the routers within one cycle of the timer (5
minutes).
5. Compliance with RFC6390 guidelines
RFC6390 [RFC6390]defines a framework and a process for developing
Performance Metrics for protocols above and below the IP layer (such
as IP-based applications that operate over reliable or datagram
transport protocols).
This document doesn't aim to propose a new Performance Metric but a
new method of measurement for a few Performance Metrics that have
already been standardized. Nevertheless, it's worth applying RFC6390
guidelines to the present document, in order to provide a more
complete and coherent description of the proposed method. We used a
subset of the Performance Metric Definition template defined by
RFC6390.
o Metric name and description: as already stated, this document
doesn't propose any new Performance Metric. On the contrary, it
describes a novel method for measuring packet loss[RFC2680]. The
same concept, with small differences, can also be used to measure
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
delay[RFC2679], and jitter[RFC3393]. The document mainly
describes the applicability to packet loss measurement.
o Method of Measurement or Calculation: according to the method
described in the previous sections, the number of packets lost is
calculated by subtracting the value of the counter on the source
node from the value of the counter on the destination node. Both
counters must refer to the same color. The calculation is
performed when the value of the counters is in a steady state.
o Units of Measurement: the method calculates and reports the exact
number of packets sent by the source node and not received by the
destination node.
o Measurement Points: the measurement can be performed between
adjacent nodes, on a per-link basis, or along a multi-hop path,
provided that the traffic under measurement follows that path. In
case of a multi-hop path, the measurements can be performed both
end-to-end and hop-by-hop.
o Measurement Timing: the method have a constraint on the frequency
of measurements. In order to perform a measure, the counter must
be in a steady state: this happens when the traffic is being
colored with the alternate color; in the current implementation
the time interval is set to 5 minutes.
o Implementation: the current implementation of the method uses two
encodings of the DSCP field to color the packets; this enables the
use of policy configurations on the router to color the packets
and accordingly configure the counter for each color. The path
followed by traffic being measured should be known in advance in
order to configure the counters along the path and be able to
compare the correct values.
o Use and Applications: the method can be used to measure packet
loss with high precision (i.e. 10exp(-7)) on live traffic;
moreover, by combining end-to-end and per-link measurements, the
method is useful to pinpoint the single link that is experiencing
loss events.
o Reporting Model: the value of the counters has to be sent to a
centralized management system that perform the calculations; such
samples must contain a reference to the time interval they refer
to, so that the management system can perform the correct
correlation; the samples have to be sent while the corresponding
counter is in a steady state (within a time interval), otherwise
the value of the sample should be stored locally.
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
o Dependencies: the values of the counters have to be correlated to
the time interval they refer to; moreover, as far the current
implementation is based on DSCP values, there are significant
dependencies on the usage of the DSCP field: it must be possible
to rely on unused DSCP values without affecting QoS-related
configuration and behavior; moreover, the intermediate nodes must
not change the value of the DSCP field not to alter the
measurement.
o Organization of Results: the method of measurement produces
singletons
o Parameters: currently, the main parameter of the method is the
time interval used to alternate the colors and read the counters.
6. Security Considerations
This document specifies a method to perform measurements in the
context of a Service Provider's network and has not been developed to
conduct Internet measurements, so it does not directly affect
Internet security nor applications which run on the Internet.
However, implementation of this method must be mindful of security
and privacy concerns.
There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by
the measurements and potential harm to the measurements. For what
concerns the first point, the measurements described in this document
are passive, so there are no packets injected into the network
causing potential harm to the network itself and to data traffic.
Nevertheless, the method implies modifications on the fly to the IP
header of data packets: this must be performed in a way that doesn't
alter the quality of service experienced by packets subject to
measurements and that preserve stability and performance of routers
doing the measurements. The measurements themselves could be harmed
by routers altering the coloring of the packets, or by an attacker
injecting artificial traffic. Authentication techniques, such as
digital signatures, may be used where appropriate to guard against
injected traffic attacks.
The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited because the
method only relies on information contained in the IP header without
any release of user data.
7. Conclusions
The advantages of the method described in this document are:
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
o easy implementation: it can be implemented using features already
available on major routing platforms;
o low computational effort: the additional load on processing is
negligible;
o accurate packet loss measurement: single packet loss granularity
is achieved with a passive measurement;
o potential applicability to any kind of packet/frame -based
traffic: Ethernet, IP, MPLS, etc., both unicast and multicast;
o robustness: the method can tolerate out of order packets and it's
not based on "special" packets whose loss could have a negative
impact;
o no interoperability issues: the features required to implement the
method are available on all current routing platforms.
The method doesn't raise any specific need for standardization, but
it could be further improved by means of some extension to existing
protocols. Specifically, the use of DiffServ bits for coloring the
packets could not be a viable solution in some cases: a standard
method to color the packets for this specific application could be
beneficial.
8. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA actions required.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Domenico Laforgia, Daniele Accetta
and Mario Bianchetti for their contribution to the definition and the
implementation of the method.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
November 2002.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview]
Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-
overview-13 (work in progress), January 2014.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
October 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Alessandro Capello
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
Email: alessandro.capello@telecomitalia.it
Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
Luca Castaldelli
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
Email: luca.castaldelli@telecomitalia.it
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Method for passive performance monitoring February 2014
Alberto Tempia Bonda
Email: alberto.tempia@gmail.com
Capello, et al. Expires August 17, 2014 [Page 20]
