IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option
draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ippm WG)
Last updated 2015-06-11
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                 N. Elkins
                                                         Inside Products
                                                             R. Hamilton
                                              Chemical Abstracts Service
                                                            M. Ackermann
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                         BCBS Michigan
Expires: December 11, 2015                                  June 9, 2015

    IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option
                   draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00

Table of Contents

   1  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1 Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2 End User Quality of Service (QoS)  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3 Need for a Packet Sequence Number  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.4 Rationale for proposed solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.5 PDM Works in Collaboration with Other Headers  . . . . . . .  6
   2 Measurement Information Derived from PDM . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1 Round-Trip Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2 Server Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics Destination Option Layout . .  7
     3.1 Destination Options Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics Destination Option  . . .  7
     3.3 Header Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.4 Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.5 Dynamic Configuration Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.6 5-tuple Aging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4 Considerations of Timing Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1 Encoding the Delta-Time Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2 Timer registers are different on different hardware  . . . . 12
     4.3 Timer Units on Other Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.4 Time Base  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.5 Timer-value scaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.6 Limitations with this encoding method  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.7 Lack of precision induced by timer value truncation  . . . . 16
   5 PDM Flow - Simple Client Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.1 Step 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.2 Step 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.3 Step 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.4 Step 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.5 Step 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   6 Other Flows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.1 PDM Flow - One Way Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

Elkins                 Expires December 11, 2015                [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT        ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-00          June 9, 2015

     6.2 PDM Flow - Multiple Send Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     6.3 PDM Flow - Multiple Send with Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   7 Potential Overhead Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   8 Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   9 IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   10 References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     10.1 Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     10.2 Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   11 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Abstract

   To assess performance problems,  measurements based on optional
   sequence numbers and timing may be embedded in each packet.  Such
   measurements may be interpreted in real-time or after the fact. An
   implementation of the existing IPv6 Destination Options extension
   header, the Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
   Options extension header as well as the field limits, calculations,
   and usage of the PDM in measurement are included in this document.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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
Show full document text