Packet Loss measurement Model
draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bharat M Gaonkar , Praveen Ananthasankaran , sudhin jacob , Giuseppe Fioccola | ||
| Last updated | 2016-08-04 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| 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-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-00
Network Working Group BM. Gaonkar
Internet-Draft P. Ananthasankaran
Intended status: Experimental S. Jacob
Expires: February 5, 2017 Juniper Networks
G. Fioccola
Telecom Italia
August 4, 2016
Packet Loss measurement Model
draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-00.txt
Abstract
This document defines the loss measurement matrix models for service
level packets on the network which can be implemented in different
kind of network scenerios.
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 February 5, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016
(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. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Loss Measurement Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Complete data measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Color based data measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. COS based Data measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. COS and color based Data measurement . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Active and Passive performance measurements . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
Today, Performance monitoring is a key technology to strengthen
service offers based on enhanced QoE and SLAs. The draft aims to
define performance monitoring loss measurement matrix models for
service level packets on the network.
The network would be provisioned with multiple services having
different SLAs based on the customers' requirement. This models aims
at computing Loss measurement for these services independently for
each defined SLA matrixes.
The class-of-service defined in the network drives the SLA factors
and the implementation to achieve these SLAs. This draft uses the
class-of-service model for any given network to define the packet
loss measurement for the different SLAs.
The proposed matrix models is suitable mainly for passive performance
measurements but can be considered for active and hybrid performance
measurements as well.
This solution models loss measurement in different kinds of network
scenarios. The different models explaind here will help to analyse
packet loss pattern, analyze the network congestion in a better way
and model the network in a better way.
Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016
Loss measurement is carried out between 2 end points. The underlying
technology could be an active loss measurement or a Passive loss
measurement.
Any loss measurement will require 2 counters
o Number of packets transmitted from one end point.
o Number of packets received at the other end point.
This draft explains the different ways to model the above data and
get meaningful result for the loss measurement compulation. The
underlying technology could be an MPLS Loss measurement, or based
loss measurement or an IP based loss measurement.
2. Terminologies
TBD
3. Loss Measurement Models
3.1. Complete data measurement
This model uses the complete data traffic between the 2 end-points to
compute loss measurement. This will result in computation of loss
measurement for the entire traffic in the network in one direction.
This is primerly used in cases of backbone traffic where traffic from
different services are aggregated and send into the core network.
3.2. Color based data measurement
This is same as the abve section of "complete data measurement" with
a minor difference.
In this model the packets are counted in any one of the following
ways
o Count all committed traffic between the 2 end-point for loss
measurement.
o Count all Excess traffic which is beyond the committed traffic for
the specific network.
When both of these are combined then it becomes the model for
complete traffic as mentioned in the above section.
In practice the Color of traffic can be using any mechanism based on
the network encapsulation. As long as the packets could be treated
Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016
differently based on the underlying encapsulation this mechanism
could be used.
This is used in core networks where the aggregated traffic has
differential priority and loss measurement can be computed on the
committed traffic which is guaranteed in the network when compared
with excess traffic which could be dropped based on network load and
provisioning.
3.3. COS based Data measurement
This model uses the data traffic in the network which is flowing in a
specific COS to measure the loss in the network. Based on the class
of traffic in the network the transmitted and received packets are
counted to calculate the loss measurement.
Cos is differentiated with Color as COS treats different classes with
a set of network streams whereas color differentiates a set of
packets within the same COS stream itself.
Primary use of this kind of loss measurement is to measure loss
measurement for a specific service which has strict SLAs. The
service could be a point-to-point layer2 service, an MPLS based
service.
3.4. COS and color based Data measurement
This model uses a combination of both Color based data measurement
and Cos based data measurement. Packets are counter for a specific
COS with a specific color.
4. Active and Passive performance measurements
This model reinforces the use of well known methodologies for passive
performance measurements. A very simple, flexible and
straightforward mechanism is presented in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark].
The basic idea is to virtually split traffic flows into consecutive
batches of packets: each block represents a measurable entity
unambiguously recognizable thanks to the alternate marking. This
approach, called Alternate Marking method, is efficient both for
passive performance monitoring and for active performance monitoring.
5. Acknowledgements
TBD
Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016
6. Appendix
TBD
7. References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L.,
Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate Marking method for passive performance
monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-01 (work in
progress), July 2016.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Bharat M Gaonkar
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Phone: 1-408-526-4000
Email: gbharat@juniper.net
Praveen Ananthasankaran
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: panantha@juniper.net
Sudhin Jacob
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: sjacob@juniper.net
Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016
Giuseppe Fioccola
Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it
Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 6]