Multipoint Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid performance monitoring
draft-fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-03
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2018-06-04
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
IPPM Working Group G. Fioccola, Ed.
Internet-Draft M. Cociglio
Intended status: Experimental Telecom Italia
Expires: December 6, 2018 A. Sapio
R. Sisto
Politecnico di Torino
June 4, 2018
Multipoint Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid performance
monitoring
draft-fioccola-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-03
Abstract
The Alternate Marking method, as presented in RFC 8321 [RFC8321], can
be applied only to point-to-point flows because it assumes that all
the packets of the flow measured on one node are measured again by a
single second node. This document aims to generalize and expand this
methodology to measure any kind of unicast flows, whose packets can
follow several different paths in the network, in wider terms a
multipoint-to-multipoint network. For this reason the technique here
described is called Multipoint Alternate Marking. Some definitions
here introduced extend the scope of RFC 5644 [RFC5644] in the context
of alternate marking schema.
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 https://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 6, 2018.
Fioccola, et al. Expires December 6, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multipoint AM June 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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. Correlation with RFC5644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Flow classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Multipoint Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Monitoring Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Multipoint Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Network Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Algorithm for Cluster partition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Multipoint Delay and Delay Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Delay measurements on multipoint paths basis . . . . . . 12
7.1.1. Single Marking measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Delay measurements on single packets basis . . . . . . . 13
7.2.1. Single and Double Marking measurement . . . . . . . . 13
7.2.2. Hashing selection method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. An SDN enabled Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Examples of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The alternate marking method, as presented until now, is applicable
to a point-to-point path; so the extension proposed in this document
Show full document text