Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid performance monitoring
draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-06

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ippm WG)
Last updated 2017-07-25
Replaces draft-tempia-ippm-p3m
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Document shepherd Carlos Pignataro
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2017-08-03)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Network Working Group                                   G. Fioccola, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                           A. Capello, Ed.
Intended status: Experimental                                M. Cociglio
Expires: January 26, 2018                                 L. Castaldelli
                                                          Telecom Italia
                                                            M. Chen, Ed.
                                                           L. Zheng, Ed.
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                          G. Mirsky, Ed.
                                                                     ZTE
                                                         T. Mizrahi, Ed.
                                                                 Marvell
                                                           July 25, 2017

 Alternate Marking method for passive and hybrid performance monitoring
                      draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-06

Abstract

   This document describes a method to perform packet loss, delay and
   jitter measurements on live traffic.  This method is based on
   Alternate Marking (Coloring) technique.  A report on the operational
   experiment done at Telecom Italia is explained in order to give an
   example and show the method applicability.  This technique can be
   applied in various situations as detailed in this document and could
   be considered passive or hybrid depending on the application.

Requirements Language

   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.

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

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Alternate Marking Method               July 2017

   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 January 26, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overview of the method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Detailed description of the method  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Packet loss measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Timing aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  One-way delay measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.3.1.  Single marking methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.3.2.  Double marking methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.4.  Delay variation measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  Data Correlation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.3.  Packet Re-ordering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  Implementation and deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.1.  Report on the operational experiment at Telecom Italia  .  17
       5.1.1.  Coloring the packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       5.1.2.  Counting the packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
Show full document text