Advanced Unidirectional Route Assessment
draft-amf-ippm-route-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | José Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin , Al Morton , Joachim Fabini | ||
| Last updated | 2017-06-28 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-ippm-route, RFC 9198 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-amf-ippm-route-00
Network Working Group J. Alvarez-Hamelin
Internet-Draft Universidad de Buenos Aires
Updates: 2330 (if approved) A. Morton
Intended status: Standards Track AT&T Labs
Expires: December 30, 2017 J. Fabini
TU Wien
June 28, 2017
Advanced Unidirectional Route Assessment
draft-amf-ippm-route-00
Abstract
This memo introduces an advanced unidirectional route assessment
metric and associated measurement methodology, based on the IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC 2330. This memo updates RFC
2330 in the areas of path-related terminology and path description,
primarily to include the possibility of parallel subpaths.
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
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 December 30, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Route Metric Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Formal Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Metric Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Related Round-Trip Delay and Loss Definitions . . . . . . 6
3.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Reporting the Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Route Assessment Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Active Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Hybrid Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Background on Round-Trip Delay Measurement Goals . . . . . . 9
6. Tools to Measure Delays in the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. RTD Measurements Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a
framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has
stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental
metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition
[RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement
of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312].
The [RFC2330] framework motivated the development of "performance and
reliability metrics for paths through the Internet," and Section 5 of
[RFC2330] defines terms that support description of a path under
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
test. However, metrics for assessment of path components and related
performance aspects had not been attempted in IPPM when this memo was
written.
This memo takes-up the route measurement challenge and specifies a
new route metric, two practical frameworks for methods of measurement
(using either active or hybrid active-passive methods [RFC7799]), and
round-trip delay and link information discovery using the results of
measurements.
2. Scope
The purpose of this memo is to add new route metrics and methods of
measurement to the existing set of IPPM metrics.
The scope is to define route metrics that can identify the path taken
by a packet traversing the Internet between any two hosts. Also, to
specify a framework for active methods of measurement which use the
techniques described in [PT] at a minimum, and a framework for hybrid
active-passive methods of measurement, such as the Hybrid Type I
method [RFC7799] described in [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-data]
(currently intended only for single administrative domains).
Combinations of active methods and hybrid active-passive methods are
also in-scope.
Further, this memo provides additional analysis of the round-trip
delay measurements made possible by the methods, in an effort to
discover more details about the path, such as the link technology in
use.
This memo updates Section 5 of [RFC2330] in the areas of path-related
terminology and path description, primarily to include the
possibility of parallel subpaths.
There are several simple non-goals of this memo. There is no attempt
to assess the reverse path from any host on the path to the host
attempting the path measurement. The reverse path contribution to
delay will be that experienced by ICMP packets (in active methods),
and may be different from UDP or TCP packets. Also, the round trip
delay will include an unknown contribution of processing time at the
host that generates the ICMP response. Therefore, the active methods
are not supposed to yield accurate, reproducible estimations of the
round-trip delay that UDP or TCP packets will experience.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
3. Route Metric Definitions
Section 7 of [RFC2330] presented a simple example of a "route" metric
along with several other examples. The example is reproduced below
(where the reference is to Section 5 of [RFC2330]):
"route The path, as defined in Section 5, from A to B at a given
time."
This example provides a starting point to develop a more complete
definition of route. Areas needing clarification include:
Time: In practice, this will be a time interval, because active path
detection methods like [PT] rely on TTL limits for their operation
and cannot accomplish discovery of all hosts using a single
packet.
Parallel Paths: This a reality of Internet paths and a strength of
advanced route assessment methods, so the metric must acknowledge
this possibility.
Cloud Subpath: May contain hosts that do not decrement TTL or Hop
Count, but have two or more exchange links connecting
"discoverable" hosts or routers. Parallel subpaths contained
within clouds cannot be discovered. The assessment methods only
discover hosts or routers on the path that decrement TTL or Hop
Count.
The refined definition of Route metrics begins with the sections that
follow.
3.1. Formal Name
Type-P-Route-Ensemble-Method-Variant, abbreviated as Route Ensemble.
Note that Type-P varies and depends heavily on the chosen method and
variant.
3.2. Parameters
o Src, the IP address of a host
o Dst, the IP address of a host
o i, the TTL or Hop Count of a packet sent from the host at Src to
the host at Dst.
o MaxHops, the maximum value of i used, (i=1,2,3,...MaxHops).
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
o T0, a time (start of measurement interval)
o Tf, a time (end of measurement interval)
o T, the host time of a packet as measured at MP(Src), meaning
Measurement Point at the Source.
o Ta, the host time of a reply packet's *arrival* as measured at
MP(Src), assigned to packets that arrive within a "reasonable"
time (see parameter below).
o Tmax, a maximum waiting time for reply packets to return to the
source, set sufficiently long to disambiguate packets with long
delays from packets that are discarded (lost), thus the
distribution of delay is not truncated.
o F, the number of different flows simulated by the method and
variant.
o flow, the stream of packets with the same n-tuple of designated
header fields that (when held constant) results in identical
treatment in a multi-path decision (such as that taken in load
balancing).
3.3. Metric Definitions
Define the following measured components of the Route metrics:
M, the total number of packets sent between T0 and Tf.
N, the smallest value of i needed for a packet to be received at Dst
(sent between T0 and Tf).
Nmax, the largest value of i needed for a packet to be received at
Dst (sent between T0 and Tf). Nmax may be equal to N.
Next, define a *singleton* definition for a discoverable host, with
sufficient indexes to identify all hosts discovered in a measurement
interval.
h(i,j), the IP address and/or identity of one of j discoverable hosts
that are i hops away from the host with IP address = Src during the
measurement interval, T0 to Tf.
Now that host identities can be positioned according to their
distance from the host with address Src in hops, we introduce two
forms of Routes:
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
A Route Ensemble is the combination of all routes traversed by
different flows from the host at Src address to the host at Dst
address. The route traversed by each flow (with Src and Dst
addresses) is a member of the ensemble and called a Member Route.
Using h(i,j) and components and parameters, further define:
A Member Route is an ordered graph {h(1,j), ... h(Nj, j)} in the
context of a single flow, where h(i-1, j) and h(i, j) are by 1 hop
away from each other and Nj=Dst is the minimum TTL value needed by
the packet on Member Route j to reach Dst. Member Routes must be
unique. This uniqueness requires that any two Member routes j and k
that are part of the same Route Ensemble differ either in terms of
minimum hop count Nj and Nk to reach the destination Dst, or, in the
case of identical hop count Nj=Nk, they have at least one distinct
hop: h(i,j) != h(i, k) for at least one i (i=1..Nj).
The Route Ensemble from Src to Dst, during the measurement interval
T0 to Tf, is the aggregate of all m distinct Member Routes discovered
between the two hosts with Src and Dst addresses. More formally,
with the host having address Src omitted:
Route Ensemble = {
{h(1,1), h(2,1), h(3,1), ... h(N1,1)=Dst},
{h(1,2), h(2,2), h(3,2),..., h(N2,2)=Dst},
...
{h(1,m), h(2,m), h(3,m), ....h(Nm,m)=Dst}
}
where the following conditions apply: i <= N <= Nj <= Nmax (j=1..m)
Note that some h(i,j) may be empty (null) in the case that systems do
not reply (not discoverable).
h(i-1,j) and h(i,j) are the hosts on the same Member Route one hop
away from each other.
h(i,j) may be identical with h(k,l) for i!=k and j!=l ; which means
there may be portions shared among different Member Routes (parts of
various routes may overlap).
3.4. Related Round-Trip Delay and Loss Definitions
RTD(i,j,T) is defined as a singleton of the [RFC2681] Round-trip
Delay between the host with IP address = Src and h(i,j) at time T.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
RTL(i,j,T) is defined as a singleton of the [RFC6673] Round-trip Loss
between the host with IP address = Src and h(i,j) at time T.
3.5. Discussion
to be provided
3.6. Reporting the Metric
to be provided
4. Route Assessment Methodologies
4.1. Active Methodologies
We have chosen to describe the method based on that employed in
current open source tools, thereby providing a practical framework
for further advanced techniques to be included as method variants.
Paris-traceroute [PT] provides some measure of protection from path
variation generated by ECMP load balancing, and it ensures traceroute
packets will follow the same path in 98% of cases according to
[SCAMPER]. If it is necessary to find every path possible between
two hosts, Paris-traceroute provides "exhaustive" mode while scamper
provides "tracelb" (stands for traceroute load balance).
The Type-P of packets used could be ICMP (as ones in the original
traceroute), UDP and TCP. The later are used when a particular
characteristic is needed to verify, such as filtering or traffic
shaping on specific ports (i.e., services).
The advanced route assessment method used by Paris-traceroute keeps
these fields constant for every packet that it sends to maintain the
appearance of the same flow in routers. Since route assessment can
be conducted using TCP, UDP or ICMP packets, this method keeps the
ToS, the protocol, IP source and destination addresses, and the port
settings for TCP or UDP intact. For ICMP probes, the method requires
to keep the type, code, and ICMP checksum constant; which take the
same position in the header of an IP packet, e.g., bytes 20 to 23
when the header IP has no options.
The checksum is most challenging because the ICMP sequence number is
part of the checksum calculation. The advanced traceroute method
requires calculation of the IP identification field, yielding in a
constant ICMP checksum.
For TCP and UDP packets, the checksum must also be kept constant.
Therefore, the first four bytes of UDP data field are modified to
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
compensate for fields that change from packet to packet. This
variant of the advanced traceroute method is called Paris traceroute
[PT]. Note: other variants of advanced traceroute are planned be
described.
Finally, the return path is also important to check. Taking into
account that it is an ICMP time exceeded (during transit) packet, the
source and destination IP are constant for every reply. Then, we
should consider the fields in the first 32 bits of the protocol on
the top of IP: the type and code of ICMP packet, and its checksum.
Again, to maintain the ICMP checksum constant for the returning
packets, we need to consider the whole ICMP message. It contains the
IP header of the discarded packet plus the first 8 bytes of the IP
payload; that is some of the fields of TCP header, the UDP header
plus four data bytes, the ICMP header plus four bytes. Therefore,
for UDP case the data field is used to maintain the ICMP checksum
constant in the returning packet. For the ICMP case, the identifier
and sequence fields of the sent ICMP probe are manipulated to be
constant. The TCP case presents no problem because its first eight
bytes will be the same for every packet probe.
Formally, to maintain the same flow in the measurements to a certain
hop, the Type-P-Route-Ensemble-Method-Variant packets should be[PT]:
o TCP case: Fields Src, Dst, port-Src, port_Dst, and ToS should be
the same.
o UDP case: Fields Src, Dst, port-Src, port-Dst, and ToS should be
the same, the UDP-checksum should change to maintain constant the
IP checksum of the ICMP time exceeded reply. Then, the data
length should be fixed, and the data field is used to fixing it
(consider that ICMP checksum uses its data field, which contains
the original IP header plus 8 bytes of UDP, where TTL, IP
identification, IP checksum, and UDP checksum changes).
o ICMP case: The Data field should compesate variations on TTL, IP
identification, and IP checksum for every packet.
Then, the way to identify different hops and attempts of the same
flow is:
o TCP case: The IP identification field.
o UDP case: The IP identification field.
o ICMP case: The IP idtentification field, and ICMP Sequence number.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
4.2. Hybrid Methodologies
The Hybrid Type I methods provide an alternative method for Route
Member assessment. As mentioned in the Scope section,
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-data] provides a possible set of data
fields that would support route identification.
In general, nodes in the measured domain would be equipped with
specific abilities:
1. The ingress node adds one or more fields to the measurement
packets, and identifies to other nodes in the domain that a route
assessment will be conducted using one or more specific packets.
The packets typically originate from a host outside the domain,
and constitute normal traffic on the domain.
2. Each node visited by the specific packet within in the domain
identifies itself in a data field of the packet (the field has
been added for this purpose).
3. When a measurement packet reaches the edge node of the domain,
the edge node adds its identity to the list, removes all the
identities from the packet, forwards the packet onward, and
communicates the ordered list of node identities to the intended
receiver.
5. Background on Round-Trip Delay Measurement Goals
The aim of this method is to use packet probes to unveil the paths
between any two end-hosts of the network. Moreover, information
derived from RTD measurements might be meaningful to identify:
1. Intercontinental submarine links
2. Satellite communications
3. Congestion
4. Interdomain paths
This categorization is widely accepted in the literature and among
operators alike, and it can be trusted with empirical data and
several sources as ground of truth (e.g., [RTTSub] [bdrmap][IDCong]).
The first two categories correspond to the physical distance
dependency on Round Trip Delay (RTD) while the last one binds RTD
with queueing delay on routers. Due to the significant contribution
of propagation delay in long distance hops, RTD will be at least
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
100ms on transatlantic hops, depending on the geolocation of the
vantage points. Moreover, RTD is typically greater than 480ms when
two hops are connected using geostationary satellite technology
(i.e., their orbit is at 36000km). Detecting congestion with latency
implies deeper mathematical understanding since network traffic load
is not stationary. Nonetheless, as the first approach, a link seems
to be congested if after sending several traceroute probes, it is
possible to detect congestion observing different statistics
parameters (e.g., see [IDCong]).
6. Tools to Measure Delays in the Internet
Internet routing is complex because it depends on the policies of
thousands Autonomous Systems (AS). While most of the routers perform
load balancing on flows using Equal Cost Multiple Path (ECMP), a few
still divide the workload through packet-based techniques. The
former scenario is defined according to [RFC2991] while the latter
generates a round-robin scheme to deliver every new outgoing packet.
ECMP keeps flow state in the router to ensure every packet of a flow
is delivered by the same path, and this avoids increasing the packet
delay variation and possibly producing overwhelming packet reordering
in TCP flows.
Taking into account that Internet protocol was designed under the
"end-to-end" principle, the IP payload and its header do not provide
any information about the routes or path necessary to reach some
destination. For this reason, the well-known tool traceroute was
developed to gather the IP addresses of each hop along a path using
the ICMP protocol [RFC0792]. Besides, traceroute adds the measured
RTD from each hop. However, the growing complexity of the Internet
makes it more challenging to develop accurate traceroute
implementation. For instance, the early traceroute tools would be
inaccurate in the current network, mainly because they were not
designed to retain flow state. However, evolved traceroute tools,
such as Paris-traceroute [PT] [MLB] and Scamper [SCAMPER], expect to
encounter ECMP and achieve more accurate results when they do.
Paris-traceroute-like tools operate in the following way: every
packet should follow the same path because the sensitive fields of
the header are controlled to appear as the same flow. This means
that source and destination IP addresses, source and destination port
numbers are the same in every packet. Additionally, Differentiated
Services Code Point (DSCP), checksum and ICMP code should remain
constant since they may affect the path selection.
Today's traceroute tools can send either UDP, TCP or ICMP packet
probes. Since ICMP header does not include transport layer
information, there are no fields for source and destination port
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
numbers. For this reason, these tools keep constant ICMP type, code,
and checksum fields to generate a kind of flow. However, the
checksum may vary in every packet, therefore when probes use ICMP
packets, ICMP Identifier and Sequence Number are manipulated to
maintain constant checksum in every packet. On the other hand, when
UDP probes are generated, the expected variation in the checksum of
each packet is again compensated by manipulating the payload.
Paris-traceroute allows its users to measure RTD in every hop of the
path for a particular flow. Furthermore, either Paris-traceroute or
Scamper is capable of unveiling the many available paths between a
source and destination (which are visible to this method). This task
is accomplished by repeating complete traceroute measurements with
different flow parameters for each measurement. The Framework for IP
Performance Metrics (IPPM) ([RFC2330] updated by[RFC7312]) has the
flexibility to require that the round-trip delay measurement
[RFC2681] uses packets with the constraints to assure that all
packets in a single measurement appear as the same flow. This
flexibility covers ICMP, UDP, and TCP. The accompanying methodology
of [RFC2681] needs to be expanded to report the sequential hop
identifiers along with RTD measurements, but no new metric definition
is needed.
7. RTD Measurements Statistics
Several articles have shown that network traffic presents a self-
similar nature [SSNT] [MLRM] which is accountable for filling the
queues of the routers. Moreover, router queues are designed to
handle traffic bursts, which is one of the most remarkable features
of self-similarity. Naturally, while queue length increases, the
delay to traverse the queue increases as well and leads to an
increase on RTD. Due to traffic bursts generate short-term overflow
on buffers (spiky patterns), every RTD only depicts the queueing
status on the instant when that packet probe was in transit. For
this reason, several RTD measurements during a time window could
begin to describe the random behavior of latency. Loss must also be
accounted for in the methodology.
To understand the ongoing process, examining the quartiles provides a
non-parametric way of analysis. Quartiles are defined by five
values: minimum RTD (m), RTD value of the 25% of the Empirical
Cumulative Distribution Function (ECDF) (Q1), the median value (Q2),
the RTD value of the 75% of the ECDF (Q3) and the maximum RTD (M).
Congestion can be inferred when RTD measurements are spread apart,
and consequently, the InterQuartile Range (IQR), the distance between
Q3 and Q1, increases its value.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
This procedure requires to compute quartile values "on the fly" using
the algorithm presented in [P2].
This procedure allow us to update the quartiles value whenever a new
measurement arrives, which is radically different from classic
methods of computing quartiles because they need to use the whole
dataset to compute the values. This way of calculus provides savings
in memory and computing time.
To sum up, the proposed measurement procedure consists in performing
traceroutes several times to obtain samples of the RTD in every hop
from a path, during a time window (W) and compute the quantiles for
every hop. This could be done for a single path flow or for every
detected path flow.
Even though a particular hop may be understood as the amount of hops
away from the source, a more detailed classification could be used.
For example, a possible classification may be identify ICMP Time
Exceeded packets coming from the same routers to those who have the
same hop distance, IP address of the router which is replying and TTL
value of the received ICMP packet.
Thus, the proposed methodology is based on this algorithm:
================================================================
1 input: W (window time of the measurement)
2 i_t (time between two measurements)
3 E (True: exhaustive, False: a single path)
4 Dst (destination IP address)
5 output: Qs (quartiles for every hop and alt in the path(s) to Dst)
----------------------------------------------------------------
6 T <? start_timer(W)
7 while T is not finished do:
8 | start_timer(i_t)
9 | RTD(hop,alt) = advanced-traceroute(Dst,E)
10 | for each hop and alt in RTD do:
11 | | Qs[Dst,hop,alt] <? ComputeQs(RTD(hop,alt))
12 | done
13 | wait until i_t timer is expired
14 done
15 return (Qs)
================================================================
In line 9 the advance-traceroute could be either Paris-traceroute or
Scamper, which will use "exhaustive" mode or "tracelb" option if E is
set True, respectively. The procedure returns a list of tuples
(m,Q1,Q2,Q3,M) for each intermediate hop in the path towards the Dst.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
Additionally, it could also return path variations using "alt"
variable.
8. Conclusions
Combining the method proposed in Section 4 and statistics in
Section 7, we can measure the performance of paths interconnecting
two endpoints in Internet, and attempt the categorization of link
types and congestion presence based on RTD.
9. Security Considerations
The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
live paths are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and [RFC5357].
When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those
whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to
potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques
which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user
traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer
the reader to the privacy considerations described in the Large Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework [RFC7594],
which covers active and passive techniques.
10. IANA Considerations
This memo makes no requests of IANA.
11. Acknowledgements
The authors thank ....
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.
[RFC2991] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2991, November 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2991>.
[RFC4494] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., and J. Lee, "The AES-CMAC-96
Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 4494,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4494, June 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4494>.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5644>.
[RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for
Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April
2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5835>.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
[RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
"IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>.
[RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.
[RFC6673] Morton, A., "Round-Trip Packet Loss Metrics", RFC 6673,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6673, August 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6673>.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
12.2. Informative References
[bdrmap] Luckie, M., Dhamdhere, A., Huffaker, B., Clark, D., and
KC. Claffy, "bdrmap: Inference of Borders Between IP
Networks", In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Internet
Measurement Conference, pp. 381-396. ACM, 2016.
[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
P., <>, R., and d. daniel.bernier@bell.ca, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-05 (work
in progress), May 2017.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
[IDCong] Luckie, M., Dhamdhere, A., Clark, D., and B. Huffaker,
"Challenges in inferring internet interdomain congestion",
In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Internet
Measurement Conference, pp. 15-22. ACM, 2014.
[MLB] Augustin, B., Friedman, T., and R. Teixeira, "Measuring
load-balanced paths in the Internet", Proceedings of the
7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, pp.
149-160. ACM, 2007., 2007.
[MLRM] Fontugne, R., Mazel, J., and K. Fukuda, "An empirical
mixture model for large-scale RTT measurements", 2015
IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), pp.
2470-2478. IEEE, 2015., 2015.
[P2] Jain, R. and I. Chlamtac, "rereerThe P 2 algorithm for
dynamic calculation of quantiles and histograms without
storing observations", Communications of the ACM 28.10
(1985): 1076-1085, 2015.
[PT] Augustin, B., Cuvellier, X., Orgogozo, B., Viger, F.,
Friedman, T., Latapy, M., Magnien, C., and R. Teixeira,
"Avoiding traceroute anomalies with Paris traceroute",
Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet
measurement, pp. 153-158. ACM, 2006., 2006.
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
[RTTSub] Bischof, Z., Rula, J., and F. Bustamante, "In and out of
Cuba: Characterizing Cuba's connectivity", In Proceedings
of the 2015 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement
Conference, pp. 487-493. ACM, 2015.
[SCAMPER] Matthew Luckie, M., "Scamper: a scalable and extensible
packet prober for active measurement of the internet",
Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on
Internet measurement, pp. 239-245. ACM, 2010., 2010.
[SSNT] Park, K. and W. Willinger, "Self-Similar Network Traffic
and Performance Evaluation (1st ed.)", John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2000.
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Route Metrics & Methods June 2017
Authors' Addresses
Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Av. Paseo Colon 850
Buenos Aires C1063ACV
Argentine
Phone: +54 11 5285-0716
Email: ihameli@cnet.fi.uba.ar
URI: http://cnet.fi.uba.ar/ignacio.alvarez-hamelin/
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acmorton@att.com
URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/
Joachim Fabini
TU Wien
Gusshausstrasse 25/E389
Vienna 1040
Austria
Phone: +43 1 58801 38813
Fax: +43 1 58801 38898
Email: Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at
URI: http://www.tc.tuwien.ac.at/about-us/staff/joachim-fabini/
Alvarez-Hamelin, et al. Expires December 30, 2017 [Page 17]