Active, Passive, and Hybrid Metrics and Methods
draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc7799bis-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Giuseppe Fioccola | ||
| Last updated | 2026-07-02 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources |
GitHub Repository
|
||
| 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-fioccola-ippm-rfc7799bis-01
IP Performance Measurement G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Obsoletes: 7799 (if approved) 2 July 2026
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: 3 January 2027
Active, Passive, and Hybrid Metrics and Methods
draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc7799bis-01
Abstract
This memo provides clear definitions for Active, Passive and Hybrid
performance assessment. The construction of Metrics and Methods can
be described as either "Active" or "Passive". Some methods use a
subset of both Active and Passive attributes, and they can be
referred to as "Hybrid". This memo also describes multiple
dimensions to help evaluate new methods as they emerge.
This memo obsoletes RFC 7799.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://giuseppefioccola.github.io/draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc7799bis/
draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc7799bis.html. Status information for this
document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
fioccola-ippm-rfc7799bis/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the IP Performance
Measurement Working Group mailing list (mailto:ippm@ietf.org), which
is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/.
Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/giuseppefioccola/draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc7799bis.
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/.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
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 3 January 2027.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Performance Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Observation Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Active Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Active Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Passive Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.7. Passive Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Graphical Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. OWAMP, TWAMP, and STAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Alternate-Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. PDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Discussion of OAM Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 7799 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The adjectives "Active" and "Passive" have been used for many years
to distinguish between two different classes of Internet performance
assessment. The first Passive and Active Measurement (PAM)
Conference was held in 2000, but the earliest proceedings available
online are from the second PAM conference in 2001 [PAM].
The notions of "Active", "Passive", and "Hybrid" are well-
established. In general:
* An Active Metric or Method depends on a dedicated measurement
packet stream and observations of the stream.
* A Passive Metric or Method depends "solely" on observation of one
or more existing packet streams. The streams only serve
measurement when they are observed for that purpose, and are
present whether or not measurements take place.
* A Hybrid Metric or Method uses a subset of both Active and Passive
attributes.
As new techniques for assessment emerge, it is helpful to have clear
definitions of these notions. This memo provides more-detailed
definitions, defines a new category for combinations of traditional
Active and Passive techniques, and discusses dimensions to evaluate
new techniques as they emerge.
This memo provides definitions for Active and Passive Metrics and
Methods based on long usage in the Internet measurement community,
and especially the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). This memo
also describes the combination of fundamental Active and Passive
categories that are called Hybrid Methods and Metrics.
The classification guidelines set in [RFC7799] are used as a
reference to position measurement methods and establish a structured
approach to capture measurement method characteristics. Typically, a
measurement method is first presented by indicating whether it
belongs to Active/Passive/Hybrid category defined in [RFC7799]. Many
documents informatively refers to [RFC7799], however the definitions
of [RFC7799] are also normatively used in some cases, like in
[RFC8911].
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
This memo obsoletes [RFC7799]. The description of Metrics and
Methods as "Active" or "Passive" and "Hybrid" is unchanged compared
to [RFC7799], while the discussion about the existing methods has
been updated. No new additional definition has been introduced in
this document compared to [RFC7799]. Main changes are listed in
Appendix A.
1.1. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Purpose and Scope
The scope of this memo is to define and describe Active and Passive
versions of metrics and methods that are consistent with the long-
time usage of these adjectives in the Internet measurement community
and especially the IETF. Since the science of measurement is
expanding, we provide a category for combinations of the traditional
extremes, treating Active and Passive as a continuum and designating
combinations of their attributes as Hybrid Methods.
Further, this memo's purpose includes describing multiple dimensions
to evaluate new methods as they emerge.
3. Terms and Definitions
This section defines the key terms of the memo. Some definitions use
the notion of "stream of interest", which is synonymous with
"population of interest" defined in clause 6.1.1 of ITU-T
Recommendation [Y.1540]. These definitions will be useful for any
work in progress.
3.1. Performance Metric
The standard definition of a quantity, produced in an assessment of
performance and/or reliability of the network, which has an intended
utility and is carefully specified to convey the exact meaning of a
measured value. (This definition is consistent with that of
Performance Metric in [RFC2330] and [RFC6390]).
3.2. Method of Measurement
The procedure or set of operations having the object of determining a
Measured Value or Measurement Result.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
3.3. Observation Point
See Section 2 of [RFC7011] for the definition of Observation Point (a
location in the network where packets can be observed), and related
definitions. The comparable term defined in IETF literature on
Active measurement is "Measurement Point" (see Section 4.1 of
[RFC5835]). Both of these terms have come into use describing
similar actions at the identified point in the network path.
3.4. Active Methods
Active Methods of Measurement have the following attributes:
* Active Methods generate packet streams. Commonly, the packet
stream of interest is generated as the basis of measurement.
Sometimes, the adjective "synthetic" is used to categorize Active
measurement streams [Y.1731]. An accompanying packet stream or
streams may be generated to increase overall traffic load, though
the loading stream(s) may not be measured.
* The packets in the stream of interest have fields or field values
(or are augmented or modified to include fields or field values)
that are dedicated to measurement. Since measurement usually
requires determining the corresponding packets at multiple
measurement points, a sequence number is the most common
information dedicated to measurement, and it is often combined
with a timestamp.
* The Source and Destination of the packet stream of interest are
usually known a priori.
* The characteristics of the packet stream of interest are known at
the Source (at least), and may be communicated to the Destination
as part of the method. Note that some packet characteristics will
normally change during packet forwarding. Other changes along the
path are possible, see [RFC8468].
When adding traffic to the network for measurement, Active Methods
influence the quantities measured to some degree, and those
performing tests should take steps to quantify the effect(s) and/or
minimize such effects.
3.5. Active Metric
An Active Metric incorporates one or more of the aspects of Active
Methods in the metric definition.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
For example, IETF metrics for IP performance (developed according to
the framework described in [RFC2330]) include the Source-packet
stream characteristics as metric-input parameters, and also specify
the packet characteristics (Type-P) and Source and Destination IP
addresses (with their implications on both stream treatment and
interfaces associated with measurement points).
3.6. Passive Methods
Passive Methods of Measurement are:
* based solely on observations of an undisturbed and unmodified
packet stream of interest (in other words, the method of
measurement MUST NOT add, change, or remove packets or fields or
change field values anywhere along the path).
* dependent on the existence of one or more packet streams to supply
the stream of interest.
* dependent on the presence of the packet stream of interest at one
or more designated Observation Points.
Some Passive Methods simply observe and collect information on all
packets that pass Observation Point(s), while others filter the
packets as a first step and only collect information on packets that
match the filter criteria, and thereby narrow the stream of interest.
It is common that Passive Methods are conducted at one or more
Observation Points. Passive Methods to assess Performance Metrics
often require multiple Observation Points, e.g., to assess the
latency of packet transfer across a network path between two
Observation Points. In this case, the observed packets must include
enough information to determine the corresponding packets at
different Observation Points.
Communication of the observations (in some form) to a collector is an
essential aspect of Passive Methods. In some configurations, the
traffic load generated when communicating (or exporting) the Passive
Method results to a collector may itself influence the measured
network's performance. However, the collection of results is not
unique to Passive Methods, and the load from management and
operations of measurement systems must always be considered for
potential effects on the measured values.
3.7. Passive Metric
Passive Metrics apply to observations of packet traffic (traffic
flows in [RFC7011]).
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
Passive performance metrics are assessed independently of the packets
or traffic flows, and solely through observation. Some refer to such
assessments as "out of band".
One example of Passive Performance Metrics for IP packet transfer can
be found in ITU-T Recommendation [Y.1540], where the metrics are
defined on the basis of reference events generated as packets pass
reference points. The metrics are agnostic to the distinction
between Active and Passive when the necessary packet correspondence
can be derived from the observed stream of interest as required.
3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics
Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination of
Active Methods and Passive Methods, to assess Active Metrics, Passive
Metrics, or new metrics derived from the a priori knowledge and
observations of the stream of interest. ITU-T Recommendation
[Y.1540] defines metrics that are also applicable to the hybrid
categories, since packet correspondence at different observation/
reference points could be derived from "fields or field values which
are dedicated to measurement", but otherwise the methods are Passive.
There are several types of Hybrid Methods, as categorized below.
With respect to a _single_ stream of interest, Hybrid Type I methods
fit in the continuum as follows, in terms of what happens at the
Source (or Observation Point nearby):
* Generation of the stream of interest => Active
* Augmentation or modification of the stream of interest, or
employment of methods that modify the treatment of the stream =>
Hybrid Type I
* Observation of a stream of interest => Passive
As an example, consider the case where the method generates traffic
load stream(s), and observes an existing stream of interest according
to the criteria for Passive Methods. Since loading streams are an
aspect of Active Methods, the stream of interest is not "solely
observed", and the measurements involve a single stream of interest
whose treatment has been modified by the presence of the load.
Therefore, this is a Hybrid Type I method.
Hybrid Type II is defined as follows: Methods that employ two or more
different streams of interest with some degree of mutual coordination
(e.g., one or more Active streams and one or more undisturbed and
unmodified packet streams) to collect both Active and Passive Metrics
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
and enable enhanced characterization from additional joint analysis.
Note that one or more Hybrid Type I streams could be substituted for
the Active streams or undisturbed streams in the mutually coordinated
set. It is the Type II Methods where unique Hybrid Metrics are
anticipated to emerge.
Methods based on a combination of a single (generated) Active stream
and Passive observations applied to the stream of interest at
intermediate Observation Points are also Hybrid Methods. However,
[RFC5644] already defines these as Spatial Metrics and Methods. It
is possible to replace the Active stream of [RFC5644] with a Hybrid
Type I stream and measure Spatial Metrics (but this was unanticipated
when [RFC5644] was developed).
The table below illustrates the categorization of methods (where
"Synthesis" refers to a combination of Active and Passive Method
attributes).
| Single Stream | Multiple Simultaneous
| of Interest | Streams of Interest
| | from Different Methods
====================================================================
Single Fundamental | Active or Passive |
Method | |
Synthesis of | Hybrid Type I |
Fundamental Methods | |
Multiple Methods | Spatial Metrics | Hybrid Type II
| (RFC5644) |
There may be circumstances where results measured with Hybrid Methods
can be considered equivalent to those measured with Passive Methods.
This notion references the possibility of a "class C" where packets
of different Type-P are treated equally in network implementation, as
described in Section 13 of [RFC2330] and using the terminology for
paths from Section 5 of [RFC2330]:
Hybrid Methods of measurement that augment or modify packets of a
"class C" in a host should produce results equivalent to Passive
Methods of Measurement when hosts accessing and links transporting
these packets along the path (other than those performing
augmentation/modification) treat packets from both categories of
methods (with and without the augmentation/modification) as the
same "class C". The Passive Methods of Measurement represent the
Ground Truth when comparing results between Passive and Hybrid
Methods, and this comparison should be conducted to confirm the
"class C" treatment.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
4. Graphical Representation
If we compare the Active and Passive Methods, there are at least two
dimensions on which methods can be evaluated. This evaluation space
may be useful when a method is a combination of the two alternative
methods.
The two dimensions (initially chosen) are:
Y-Axis: "Effect of the measured stream on network conditions".
The degree to which the stream of interest biases overall network
conditions experienced by that stream and other streams. This is
a key dimension for Active measurement error analysis. (Comment:
There is also the notion of time averages -- a measurement stream
may have significant effect while it is present, but the stream is
only generated 0.1% of the time. On the other hand, observations
alone have no effect on network performance. To keep these
dimensions simple, we consider the stream effect only when it is
present, but note that reactive networks defined in [RFC7312] may
exhibit bias for some time beyond the life of a stream.)
X-Axis: "a priori Stream Knowledge". The degree to which stream
characteristics are known a priori. There are methodological
advantages of knowing the source stream characteristics, and
having complete control of the stream characteristics. For
example, knowing the number of packets in a stream allows more-
efficient operation of the measurement receiver, and so is an
asset for Active Methods of Measurement. Passive Methods (with no
sample filter) have few clues available to anticipate what
protocol the first packet observed will use or how many packets
will comprise the flow; once the standard protocol of a flow is
known, the possibilities narrow (for some compliant flows).
Therefore, this is a key dimension for Passive measurement error
analysis.
There are a few examples we can plot on a two-dimensional space. We
can anchor the dimensions with reference point descriptions.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
Y-Axis:Effect of the measured stream on network conditions
^ Max
|* Active using max capacity stream
|
|
|
|
|* Active using stream with load of typical user
|
|
|
|* Active using extremely sparse, randomized stream
| Passive
| Min *
+----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
Stream X-Axis: a priori Stream Knowledge No Stream
Characteristics Characteristics
Completely Known
Known
We recognize that method categorization could be based on additional
dimensions, but this would require a different graphical approach.
For example, "effect of stream of interest on network conditions"
could easily be further qualified into:
1. effect on the performance of the stream of interest itself: for
example, choosing a packet marking or Differentiated Services
Code Point (DSCP) resulting in domain treatment as a real-time
stream (as opposed to default/best-effort marking).
2. effect on unmeasured streams that share the path and/or
bottlenecks: for example, an extremely sparse measured stream of
minimal size packets typically has little effect on other flows
(and itself), while a stream designed to characterize path
capacity may affect all other flows passing through the capacity
bottleneck (including itself).
3. effect on network conditions resulting in network adaptation: for
example, a network monitoring load and congestion conditions
might change routing, placing some flows on alternate paths to
mitigate the congestion.
We have combined 1 and 2 on the Y-axis, as examination of examples
indicates strong correlation of the effects in this pair, and network
adaptation is not addressed.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
It is apparent that different methods of IP network measurement can
produce different results, even when measuring the same path at the
same time. The two dimensions of the graph help us to understand how
the results might change with the method chosen. For example, an
Active Method to assess throughput adds some amount of traffic to the
network, which might result in lower throughput for all streams.
However, a Passive Method to assess throughput can also err on the
low side due to unknown limitations of the hosts providing traffic,
competition for host resources, limitations of the network interface,
or private sub-networks that are not an intentional part of the path,
etc. Hybrid Methods could easily suffer from both forms of error.
Another example of potential errors stems from the pitfalls of using
an Active stream with known a bias, such as a periodic stream defined
in [RFC3432]. The strength of modeling periodic streams (like Voice
over IP (VoIP)) is a potential weakness when extending the measured
results to other application whose streams are non-periodic. The
solutions are to model the application streams more exactly with an
Active Method or to accept the risks and potential errors with the
Passive Method discussed above.
5. Examples
This section presents some examples.
5.1. OWAMP, TWAMP, and STAMP
One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656], Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357], Simple Two-way Active
Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC8762] are standardized networking
protocols that enable the measurements of IP network performance,
such as packet loss, delay, and jitter. These protocols allow the
calculation of these metrics by actively sending test packets between
two endpoints.
Since "the stream of interest is generated as the basis of
measurement", OWAMP, TWAMP and STAMP can be classified as Active
Methods.
5.2. Alternate-Marking
[RFC9341] and [RFC9342] define a performance monitoring technique,
called Alternate-Marking, that consists of marking the packets in
order to divide the packet flow into batches, that are used to get
coherent counters and timestamps in every marking period to measure
the performance. It can be implemented by using reserved bits in the
protocol header, and the change in value of these marking bits at the
domain edges (and not along the path) is formally considered a
modification of the stream of interest.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
This method processes a user traffic stream and inserts "fields or
values which are dedicated to measurement". Thus:
* The method intends to have a minor effect on the measured stream
and other streams in the network. There are conditions where this
intent may not be realized and it depends on the network
deployment.
* The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is
processed to add the marking in the header, and the stream could
be measured and time-stamped during that process.
Alternate-Marking is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one
characteristic of both Active and Passive Methods for a single stream
of interest.
5.3. IOAM
In situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM), described
in [RFC9197], consists of collecting operational and telemetry
information in the packet while the packet traverses a path between
two points in the network. The term "in situ" refers to the fact
that the OAM data is added to the data packets rather than being sent
within packets specifically dedicated to OAM.
This method processes a user traffic stream and inserts "fields or
values which are dedicated to measurement". Similarly to Alternate-
Marking, IOAM also intends to have a minor effect in the network and
the measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is
processed. IOAM can thus be portrayed as Hybrid Type I.
5.4. PDM
In [RFC8250], an IPv6 Option Header for Performance and Diagnostic
Measurements (PDM) is described which, when added to the stream of
interest at strategic interfaces, supports performance measurements.
This method processes a user traffic stream and adds "fields which
are dedicated to measurement" (the measurement intent is made clear
in the title of this option). PDM also intends to have a minor
effect in the network and the measured stream has unknown
characteristics until it is processed. Note that if the packet MTU
is exceeded after adding the header, the intent to have a minor
effect will not be realized. PDM is classified as a Hybrid Type I
method, having at least one characteristic of both Active and Passive
Methods for a single stream of interest.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
6. Discussion of OAM Methods
[RFC10014] considers some common qualifiers and modifiers that are
prepended, within the context of packet networks, to the OAM
abbreviation and lays out guidelines for their use in IETF documents.
Many Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) methods exist
beyond the IP layer. For example, [Y.1731] defines several different
measurement methods that we would classify as follows:
* Loss Measurement (LM) occasionally injects frames with a count of
previous frames since the last LM message. Therefore, LM is
classified as Hybrid Type I, because this method processes a user
traffic stream and augments the stream of interest with frames
having "fields which are dedicated to measurement".
* Synthetic Loss Measurement (SLM) and Delay Measurement (DM)
methods both inject dedicated measurement frames, so the "stream
of interest is generated as the basis of measurement". Thus, SLM
and DM methods are classified as Active Methods.
There are other alternate terminology used in OAM at layers other
than IP. Readers may refer to [RFC6374] for MPLS Loss and Delay
measurement terminology, for example.
7. Operational Considerations
In general, any new metric or method implies the development of the
Operations and Management practices and requirements, as highlighted
in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis].
The Operational aspects are different depending if the method is
Active, Passive or Hybrid.
It is expected that each document that describes a measurement method
include a specific Operational Considerations section to address the
operational and manageability aspects.
8. Security Considerations
When considering the security and privacy of those involved in
measurement or those whose traffic is measured, there is sensitive
information communicated and observed at observation and measurement
points described above, and protocol issues to consider.
Each document that describes a measurement method must include a
specific Security Considerations section to explore the privacy and
security risks associated with the new metric or method.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
We refer the reader to the security and privacy considerations
described in the Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance
(LMAP) Framework [RFC7594], which covers Active and Passive
measurement techniques and supporting material on measurement
context.
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2330>.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3432>.
[RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5644>.
[RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for
Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5835>.
[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6390>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011>.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7312>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7594>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7799>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis]
Claise, B., Clarke, J., Farrel, A., Barguil, S.,
Pignataro, C., and R. Chen, "Guidelines for Considering
Operations and Management in IETF Specifications", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-05,
26 June 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-05>.
[PAM] RIPE, "PAM 2001", 2001,
<https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/pam-2001>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5357>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6374>.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
[RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8250>.
[RFC8468] Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V.
Hegde, "IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence: Updates for
the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework", RFC 8468,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8468, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8468>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8762>.
[RFC8911] Bagnulo, M., Claise, B., Eardley, P., Morton, A., and A.
Akhter, "Registry for Performance Metrics", RFC 8911,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8911, November 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8911>.
[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9197>.
[RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9341>.
[RFC9342] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and
T. Zhou, "Clustered Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9342,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9342, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9342>.
[RFC10014] Pignataro, C., Farrel, A., and T. Mizrahi, "Guidelines for
Characterizing the Term "OAM"", BCP 161, RFC 10014,
DOI 10.17487/RFC10014, June 2026,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10014>.
[Y.1540] ITU-T, "Internet protocol data communication service - IP
packet transfer and availability performance parameters",
March 2011,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1540-201103-I/en>.
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Active, Passive, and Hybrid July 2026
[Y.1731] ITU-T, "ITU-T, Operation, administration and management
(OAM) functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based
networks", August 2015,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8013-201508-I/en>.
Appendix A. Changes Since RFC 7799
The main changes since [RFC7799] are as follows:
* Changed the intended status from Informational to BCP
* Updated title to reflect the current status of all methods
* Update the discussion section
* Extend the examples to include recent methods
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair for the initial proposal to change the
status of [RFC7799] to BCP, and also for the valuable support and
detailed review of this document.
Thanks to Al Morton for working on [RFC7799].
Acknowledgements from RFC 7799: Thanks to Mike Ackermann for asking
the right question, and for several suggestions on terminology.
Brian Trammell provided key terms and references for the Passive
category, and suggested ways to expand the Hybrid description and
types. Phil Eardley suggested some hybrid scenarios for
categorization as part of his review. Tiziano Ionta reviewed the
document and suggested the classification for the "coloring"
Method of Measurement. Nalini Elkins identified several areas for
clarification following her review. Bill Jouris, Stenio
Fernandes, and Spencer Dawkins suggested several editorial
improvements. Tal Mizrahi, Joachim Fabini, Greg Mirsky, and Mike
Ackermann raised many key considerations in their Working Group
Last Call (WGLC) reviews, based on their broad measurement
experience.
[RFC7799] Author: Al Morton, AT&T Labs
Author's Address
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Fioccola Expires 3 January 2027 [Page 17]