Skip to main content

Alternate-Marking Method
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ippm WG)
Authors Giuseppe Fioccola , Mauro Cociglio , Greg Mirsky , Tal Mizrahi , Tianran Zhou
Last updated 2022-09-23 (Latest revision 2022-07-25)
Replaces draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats
Reviews
OPSDIR Last Call Review Incomplete, due 2022-06-21
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Tommy Pauly
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2022-05-27
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Martin Duke
Send notices to tpauly@apple.com
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state In Progress
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
Details
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-03
Network Working Group                                   G. Fioccola, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Obsoletes: 8321 (if approved)                                M. Cociglio
Intended status: Standards Track                          Telecom Italia
Expires: January 26, 2023                                      G. Mirsky
                                                                Ericsson
                                                              T. Mizrahi
                                                                 T. Zhou
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           July 25, 2022

                        Alternate-Marking Method
                     draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-03

Abstract

   This document describes the Alternate-Marking technique to perform
   packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live traffic.  This
   technology can be applied in various situations and for different
   protocols.  According to the classification defined in RFC 7799, it
   could be considered Passive or Hybrid depending on the application.
   This document obsoletes RFC 8321.

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 January 26, 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   (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
     1.1.  Summary of Changes from RFC 8321  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Overview of the Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Detailed Description of the Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Packet Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  One-Way Delay Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.1.  Single-Marking Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.2.  Double-Marking Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  Delay Variation Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  Alternate-Marking Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Marking the Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Counting and Timestamping Packets . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  Data Collection and Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Synchronization and Timing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Packet Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  Recommendations for Deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  Controlled Domain requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  Compliance with Guidelines from RFC 6390  . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   11. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   12. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Appendix A.  Changes Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

1.  Introduction

   Most Service Providers' networks carry traffic with contents that are
   highly sensitive to packet loss [RFC7680], delay [RFC7679], and
   jitter [RFC3393].

   Methodologies and tools are therefore needed to monitor and
   accurately measure network performance, in order to constantly
   control the quality of experience perceived by the end customers.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   Performance monitoring also provides useful information for improving
   network management (e.g., isolation of network problems,
   troubleshooting, etc.).

   RFC 7799 [RFC7799] defines Active, Passive and Hybrid Methods of
   Measurement.  In particular, Active Methods of Measurement depend on
   a dedicated measurement packet stream; Passive Methods of Measurement
   are based solely on observations of an undisturbed and unmodified
   packet stream of interest; Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement
   that use a combination of Active Methods and Passive Methods.

   This document proposes a performance monitoring technique, called
   Alternate-Marking Method, which is potentially applicable to any kind
   of packet-based traffic, including Ethernet, IP, and MPLS, both
   unicast and multicast.  The method addresses primarily packet loss
   measurement, but it can be easily extended to one-way or two-way
   delay and delay variation measurements as well.

   The Alternate-Marking methodology, described in this document, allows
   the synchronization of the measurements at different points by
   dividing the packet flow into batches.  So it is possible to get
   coherent counters and timestamps in every marking period and
   therefore measure the performance metrics for the monitored flow.

   The method has been explicitly designed for Passive or Hybrid
   measurements as stated in [RFC8321].  But, according to the
   definitions of RFC 7799 [RFC7799], the Alternate-Marking Method can
   be classified as Hybrid Type I.  Indeed, the Alternate-Marking 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.

   It is worth mentioning that this is a methodology document, so the
   mechanism that can be used to transmit the counters and the
   timestamps is out of scope here.  Additional details about the
   applicability of the Alternate-Marking methodology are described in
   [IEEE-Network-PNPM].

1.1.  Summary of Changes from RFC 8321

   This document defines the Alternate-Marking Method, addressing
   ambiguities and building on its experimental phase that was based on
   the original specification [RFC8321].

   The relevant changes are:

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   o  Added the recommendations about the methods to employ in case one
      or two flag bits are available for marking (Section 7).

   o  Changed the structure to improve the readability.

   o  Removed the wording about the initial experiments of the method
      and considerations that no longer apply.

   o  Extended the description of detailed aspects of the methodology,
      e.g. synchronization, timing, packet fragmentation, marked and
      unmarked traffic handling.

   It is important to note that all the changes are totally backward
   compatible with [RFC8321] and no new additional technique has been
   introduced in this document compared to [RFC8321].

1.2.  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.

2.  Overview of the Method

   In order to perform packet loss measurements on a production traffic
   flow, different approaches exist.  The most intuitive one consists in
   numbering the packets so that each router that receives the flow can
   immediately detect a packet that is missing.  This approach, though
   very simple in theory, is not simple to achieve: it requires the
   insertion of a sequence number into each packet, and the devices must
   be able to extract the number and check it in real time.  Such a task
   can be difficult to implement on live traffic: if UDP is used as the
   transport protocol, the sequence number is not available; on the
   other hand, if a higher-layer sequence number (e.g., in the RTP
   header) is used, extracting that information from each packet and
   processing it in real time could overload the device.

   An alternate approach is to count the number of packets sent on one
   end, count the number of packets received on the other end, and
   compare the two values.  This operation is much simpler to implement,
   but it requires the devices performing the measurement to be in sync:
   in order to compare two counters, it is required that they refer
   exactly to the same set of packets.  Since a flow is continuous and
   cannot be stopped when a counter has to be read, it can be difficult
   to determine exactly when to read the counter.  A possible solution
   to overcome this problem is to virtually split the flow in

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   consecutive blocks by periodically inserting a delimiter so that each
   counter refers exactly to the same block of packets.  The delimiter
   could be, for example, a special packet inserted artificially into
   the flow.  However, delimiting the flow using specific packets has
   some limitations.  First, it requires generating additional packets
   within the flow and requires the equipment to be able to process
   those packets.  In addition, the method is vulnerable to out-of-order
   reception of delimiting packets and, to a lesser extent, to their
   loss.

   The method proposed in this document follows the second approach, but
   it doesn't use additional packets to virtually split the flow in
   blocks.  Instead, it "marks" the packets so that the packets
   belonging to the same block will have the same notional "color",
   whilst consecutive blocks will have different colors.  Each change of
   color represents a sort of auto-synchronization signal that enhances
   the consistency of measurements taken by different devices along the
   path.

   Figure 1 represents a very simple network and shows how the method
   can be used to measure packet loss on different network segments: by
   enabling the measurement on several interfaces along the path, it is
   possible to perform link monitoring, node monitoring, or end-to-end
   monitoring.  The method is flexible enough to measure packet loss on
   any segment of the network and can be used to isolate the faulty
   element.

                               Traffic Flow
        ========================================================>
          +------+       +------+       +------+       +------+
      ---<>  R1  <>-----<>  R2  <>-----<>  R3  <>-----<>  R4  <>---
          +------+       +------+       +------+       +------+
          .              .      .              .       .      .
          .              .      .              .       .      .
          .              <------>              <------->      .
          .          Node Packet Loss      Link Packet Loss   .
          .                                                   .
          <--------------------------------------------------->
                           End-to-End Packet Loss

                     Figure 1: Available Measurements

3.  Detailed Description of the Method

   This section describes, in detail, how the method operates.  A
   special emphasis is given to the measurement of packet loss, which
   represents the core application of the method, but applicability to
   delay and jitter measurements is also considered.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

3.1.  Packet Loss Measurement

   The basic idea is to virtually split traffic flows into consecutive
   blocks: each block represents a measurable entity unambiguously
   recognizable by all network devices along the path.  By counting the
   number of packets in each block and comparing the values measured by
   different network devices along the path, it is possible to measure
   if packet loss occurred in any single block between any two points.

   As discussed in the previous section, a simple way to create the
   blocks is to "color" the traffic (two colors are sufficient), so that
   packets belonging to alternate consecutive blocks will have different
   colors.  Whenever the color changes, the previous block terminates
   and the new one begins.  Hence, all the packets belonging to the same
   block will have the same color and packets of different consecutive
   blocks will have different colors.  The number of packets in each
   block depends on the criterion used to create the blocks:

   o  if the color is switched after a fixed number of packets, then
      each block will contain the same number of packets (except for any
      losses); and

   o  if the color is switched according to a fixed timer, then the
      number of packets may be different in each block depending on the
      packet rate.

   The use of a fixed timer for the creation of blocks is REQUIRED when
   implementing this specification.  The switching after a fixed number
   of packets is an additional possibility, but its detailed
   specification is out of scope.  An example of application is in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements].

   The following figure shows how a flow appears when it is split into
   traffic blocks with colored packets.

   A: packet with A coloring
   B: packet with B coloring

            |           |           |           |           |
            |           |    Traffic Flow       |           |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------->
     BBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------->
       ...  |  Block 5  |  Block 4  |  Block 3  |  Block 2  |  Block 1
            |           |           |           |           |

                        Figure 2: Traffic Coloring

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   Figure 3 shows how the method can be used to measure link packet loss
   between two adjacent nodes.

   Referring to the figure, let's assume we want to monitor the packet
   loss on the link between two routers: router R1 and router R2.
   According to the method, the traffic is colored alternatively with
   two different colors: A and B.  Whenever the color changes, the
   transition generates a sort of square-wave signal, as depicted in the
   following figure.

   Color A   ----------+           +-----------+           +----------
                       |           |           |           |
   Color B             +-----------+           +-----------+
              Block n        ...      Block 3     Block 2     Block 1
            <---------> <---------> <---------> <---------> <--------->

                                Traffic Flow
            ===========================================================>
   Color   ...AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAA...
            ===========================================================>

                 Figure 3: Computation of Link Packet Loss

   Traffic coloring can be done by R1 itself if the traffic is not
   already colored.  R1 needs two counters, C(A)R1 and C(B)R1, on its
   egress interface: C(A)R1 counts the packets with color A and C(B)R1
   counts those with color B.  As long as traffic is colored as A, only
   counter C(A)R1 will be incremented, while C(B)R1 is not incremented;
   conversely, when the traffic is colored as B, only C(B)R1 is
   incremented.  C(A)R1 and C(B)R1 can be used as reference values to
   determine the packet loss from R1 to any other measurement point down
   the path.  Router R2, similarly, will need two counters on its
   ingress interface, C(A)R2 and C(B)R2, to count the packets received
   on that interface and colored with A and B, respectively.  When an A
   block ends, it is possible to compare C(A)R1 and C(A)R2 and calculate
   the packet loss within the block; similarly, when the successive B
   block terminates, it is possible to compare C(B)R1 with C(B)R2, and
   so on, for every successive block.

   Likewise, by using two counters on the R2 egress interface, it is
   possible to count the packets sent out of the R2 interface and use
   them as reference values to calculate the packet loss from R2 to any
   measurement point downstream from R2.

   The length of the blocks can be chosen large enough to simplify the
   collection and the comparison of measures taken by different network
   devices.  It's preferable to read the value of the counters not

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   immediately after the color switch: some packets could arrive out of
   order and increment the counter associated with the previous block
   (color), so it is worth waiting for some time.  A safe choice is to
   wait L/2 time units (where L is the duration for each block) after
   the color switch, to read the counter of the previous color
   (Section 5).  The drawback is that the longer the duration of the
   block, the less frequently the measurement can be taken.

   Two different strategies that can be used when implementing the
   method:

   o  flow-based: the flow-based strategy is used when well defined
      traffic flows need to be monitored.  According to this strategy,
      only the specified flow is colored.  Counters for packet loss
      measurements can be instantiated for each single flow, or for the
      set as a whole, depending on the desired granularity.  With this
      approach, there is the necessity to know in advance the path
      followed by flows that are subject to measurement.  Path rerouting
      and traffic load-balancing need to be taken into account.

   o  link-based: measurements are performed on all the traffic on a
      link-by-link basis.  The link could be a physical link or a
      logical link.  Counters could be instantiated for the traffic as a
      whole or for each traffic class (in case it is desired to monitor
      each class separately), but in the second case, two counters are
      needed for each class.

   The flow-based strategy is REQUIRED when implementing this
   specification.  It requires the identification of the flow to be
   monitored and the discovery of the path followed by the selected
   flow.  It is possible to monitor a single flow or multiple flows
   grouped together, but in this case, measurement is consistent only if
   all the flows in the group follow the same path.  Moreover, if a
   measurement is performed by grouping many flows, it is not possible
   to determine exactly which flow was affected by packet loss.  In
   order to have measures per single flow, it is necessary to configure
   counters for each specific flow.  Once the flow(s) to be monitored
   has been identified, it is necessary to configure the monitoring on
   the proper nodes.  Configuring the monitoring means configuring the
   rule to intercept the traffic and configuring the counters to count
   the packets.  To have just an end-to-end monitoring, it is sufficient
   to enable the monitoring on the first- and last-hop routers of the
   path: the mechanism is completely transparent to intermediate nodes
   and independent of the path followed by traffic flows.  On the
   contrary, to monitor the flow on a hop-by-hop basis along its whole
   path, it is necessary to enable the monitoring on every node from the
   source to the destination.  In case the exact path followed by the
   flow is not known a priori (i.e., the flow has multiple paths to

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   reach the destination), it is necessary to enable the monitoring on
   every path: counters on interfaces traversed by the flow will report
   packet count, whereas counters on other interfaces will be null.

3.2.  One-Way Delay Measurement

   The same principle used to measure packet loss can be applied also to
   one-way delay measurement.  There are two methodologies, as described
   hereinafter.

   Note that, for all the one-way delay alternatives described in the
   next sections, by summing the one-way delays of the two directions of
   a path, it is always possible to measure the two-way delay (round-
   trip "virtual" delay).  The Network Time Protocol (NTP) [RFC5905] or
   the IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol (As discussed in the previous
   section, ) [IEEE-1588] can be used for the timestamp formats
   depending on the needed precision.

3.2.1.  Single-Marking Methodology

   The alternation of colors can be used as a time reference to
   calculate the delay.  Whenever the color changes (which means that a
   new block has started), a network device can store the timestamp of
   the first packet of the new block; that timestamp can be compared
   with the timestamp of the same packet on a second router to compute
   packet delay.  When looking at Figure 2, R1 stores the timestamp
   TS(A1)R1 when it sends the first packet of block 1 (A-colored), the
   timestamp TS(B2)R1 when it sends the first packet of block 2
   (B-colored), and so on for every other block.  R2 performs the same
   operation on the receiving side, recording TS(A1)R2, TS(B2)R2, and so
   on.  Since the timestamps refer to specific packets (the first packet
   of each block), in the case where no packet loss or misordering
   exists, we would be sure that timestamps compared to compute delay
   refer to the same packets.  By comparing TS(A1)R1 with TS(A1)R2 (and
   similarly TS(B2)R1 with TS(B2)R2, and so on), it is possible to
   measure the delay between R1 and R2.  In order to have more
   measurements, it is possible to take and store more timestamps,
   referring to other packets within each block.  The number of
   measurements could be increased by considering multiple packets in
   the block: for instance, a timestamp could be taken every N packets,
   thus generating multiple delay measurements.  Taking this to the
   limit, in principle, the delay could be measured for each packet by
   taking and comparing the corresponding timestamps (possible but
   impractical from an implementation point of view).

   In order to coherently compare timestamps collected on different
   routers, the clocks on the network nodes MUST be in sync (Section 5).
   Furthermore, a measurement is valid only if no packet loss occurs and

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   if packet misordering can be avoided; otherwise, the first packet of
   a block on R1 could be different from the first packet of the same
   block on R2 (for instance, if that packet is lost between R1 and R2
   or it arrives after the next one).  Since packet misordering is
   generally undetectable it is not possible to check whether the first
   packet on R1 is the same on R2 and this is part of the intrinsic
   error in this measurement.

3.2.1.1.  Mean Delay

   The method previously exposed for measuring the delay is sensitive to
   out-of-order reception of packets.  In order to overcome this
   problem, an approach based on the concept of mean delay can be
   considered.  The mean delay is calculated by considering the average
   arrival time of the packets within a single block.  The network
   device locally stores a timestamp for each packet received within a
   single block: summing all the timestamps and dividing by the total
   number of packets received, the average arrival time for that block
   of packets can be calculated.  By subtracting the average arrival
   times of two adjacent devices, it is possible to calculate the mean
   delay between those nodes.  This method greatly reduces the number of
   timestamps that have to be collected (only one per block for each
   network device) and it is robust to out-of-order packets with only a
   small error introduced in case of packet loss.  But, when computing
   the mean delay, the measurement error could be augmented by
   accumulating the measurement error of a lot of packets.
   Additionally, it only gives one measure for the duration of the
   block, and it doesn't give the minimum, maximum, and median delay
   values [RFC6703].  This limitation could be overcome by reducing the
   duration of the block (for instance, from minutes to seconds), which
   implies a highly optimized implementation of the method.  For this
   reason, the mean delay calculation may not be so viable in some
   cases.

3.2.2.  Double-Marking Methodology

   As mentioned above, the Single-Marking methodology for one-way delay
   measurement has some limitations, since it is sensitive to out-of-
   order reception of packets and even the mean delay calculation is
   limited because it doesn't give information about the delay value's
   distribution for the duration of the block.  Actually, it may be
   useful to have not only the mean delay but also the minimum, maximum,
   and median delay values and, in wider terms, to know more about the
   statistical distribution of delay values.  So, in order to have more
   information about the delay and to overcome out-of-order issues, a
   different approach can be introduced and it is based on a Double-
   Marking methodology.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   Basically, the idea is to use the first marking to create the
   alternate flow and, within this colored flow, a second marking to
   select the packets for measuring delay/jitter.  The first marking is
   needed for packet loss and may be used for mean delay measurement.
   The second marking creates a new set of marked packets that are fully
   identified over the network, so that a network device can store the
   timestamps of these packets.  These timestamps can be compared with
   the timestamps of the same packets on the next node to compute packet
   delay values for each packet.  The number of measurements can be
   easily increased by changing the frequency of the second marking.
   But the frequency of the second marking must not be too high in order
   to avoid out-of-order issues.  Between packets with the second
   marking, there should be an adequate time gap to avoid out-of-order
   issues and also to have a number of measurement packets that are rate
   independent.  This gap may be, at the minimum, the mean network delay
   calculated with the previous methodology.  Therefore, it is possible
   to choose a proper time gap to guarantee a fixed number of double-
   marked packets uniformly spaced in each block.  If packets with the
   second marking are lost, it is easy to recognize the loss since the
   number of double-marked packets is known for each block.  Based on
   the spacing between these packets, it can also be possible to
   understand which packet of the second marking sequence has been lost
   and perform the measurements only for the remaining packets.  But,
   this may be complicated if more packets are lost.  In this case an
   implementation may simply discard the delay measurements for the
   corrupted block and proceed with the next block.

   An efficient and robust mode is to select a single packet with the
   second marking for each block, in this way there is no time gap to
   consider between the double-marked packets to avoid their reorder.
   In addition, it is also easier to identify the only double-marked
   packet in each block and skip the delay measurement for the block if
   it is lost.

   The Double-Marking methodology can also be used to get more
   statistics of delay extent data, e.g., percentiles, variance, and
   median delay values.  Indeed, a subset of batch packets is selected
   for extensive delay calculation by using the second marking and it is
   possible to perform a detailed analysis on these double-marked
   packets.  It is worth noting that there are classic algorithms for
   median and variance calculation, but they are out of the scope of
   this document.  The conventional range (maximum-minimum) should be
   avoided for several reasons, including stability of the maximum delay
   due to the influence by outliers.  In this regard, RFC 5481
   [RFC5481], Section 6.5 highlights how the 99.9th percentile of delay
   and delay variation is more helpful to performance planners.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

3.3.  Delay Variation Measurement

   Similar to one-way delay measurement (both for Single Marking and
   Double Marking), the method can also be used to measure the inter-
   arrival jitter.  We refer to the definition in RFC 3393 [RFC3393].
   The alternation of colors, for a Single-Marking Method, can be used
   as a time reference to measure delay variations.  In case of Double
   Marking, the time reference is given by the second-marked packets.
   Considering the example depicted in Figure 2, R1 stores the timestamp
   TS(A)R1 whenever it sends the first packet of a block, and R2 stores
   the timestamp TS(B)R2 whenever it receives the first packet of a
   block.  The inter-arrival jitter can be easily derived from one-way
   delay measurement, by evaluating the delay variation of consecutive
   samples.

   The concept of mean delay can also be applied to delay variation, by
   evaluating the average variation of the interval between consecutive
   packets of the flow from R1 to R2.

4.  Alternate-Marking Functions

4.1.  Marking the Packets

   The coloring operation is fundamental in order to create packet
   blocks and marked packets.  This implies choosing where to activate
   the coloring and how to color the packets.

   In case of flow-based measurements, the flow to monitor can be
   defined by a set of selection rules (e.g., header fields) used to
   match a subset of the packets; in this way, it is possible to control
   the number of nodes involved, the path followed by the packets, and
   the size of the flows.  It is possible, in general, to have multiple
   coloring nodes or a single coloring node that is easier to manage and
   doesn't raise any risk of conflict.  Coloring in multiple nodes can
   be done, and the requirement is that the coloring must change
   periodically between the nodes according to the timing considerations
   in Section 5; so every node that is designated as a measurement point
   along the path should be able to identify unambiguously the colored
   packets.  Furthermore, [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis] generalizes the
   coloring for multipoint-to-multipoint flow.  In addition, it can be
   advantageous to color the flow as close as possible to the source
   because it allows an end-to-end measure if a measurement point is
   enabled on the last-hop router as well.

   For link-based measurements, all traffic needs to be colored when
   transmitted on the link.  If the traffic had already been colored,
   then it has to be re-colored because the color must be consistent on
   the link.  This means that each hop along the path must (re-)color

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   the traffic; the color is not required to be consistent along
   different links.

   Traffic coloring can be implemented by setting specific flags in the
   packet header and changing the value of that bit periodically.  How
   to choose the marking field depends on the application and is out of
   scope here.

4.2.  Counting and Timestamping Packets

   For flow-based measurements, assuming that the coloring of the
   packets is performed only by the source nodes, the nodes between
   source and destination (inclusive) have to count and timestamp the
   colored packets that they receive and forward: this operation can be
   enabled on every router along the path or only on a subset, depending
   on which network segment is being monitored (a single link, a
   particular metro area, the backbone, or the whole path).  Since the
   color switches periodically between two values, two counters (one for
   each value) are needed for each flow and for every interface being
   monitored.  The number of timestamps to be stored depends on the
   method for delay measurement that is applied.  Furthermore,
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis] generalizes the counting for multipoint-
   to-multipoint flow.

   In case of link-based measurements, the behavior is similar except
   that coloring, counting and timestamping operations are performed on
   a link-by-link basis at each endpoint of the link.

   Another important consideration is when to read the counters or when
   to select the packets to be double-marked for delay measurement.  It
   involves timing aspects to consider that are further described in
   Section 5.

4.3.  Data Collection and Correlation

   The nodes enabled to perform performance monitoring collect the value
   of the counters and timestamps, but they are not able to directly use
   this information to measure packet loss and delay, because they only
   have their own samples.

   Data collection enables the transmission of the counters and
   timestamps as soon as it has been read.  Data correlation is the
   mechanism to compare counters and timestamps for packet loss, delay,
   and delay variation calculation.

   There are two main possibilities to perform both data collection and
   correlation depending on the Alternate-Marking application and use
   case:

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   o  Use of a centralized solution using Network Management System
      (NMS) to correlate data.  This can be done in Push Mode or Polling
      Mode.  In the first case, each router periodically sends the
      information to the NMS; in the latter case, it is the NMS that
      periodically polls routers to collect information.

   o  Definition of a protocol-based distributed solution to exchange
      values of counters and timestamps between the endpoints.  This can
      be done by introducing a new protocol or by extending the existing
      protocols (e.g., the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
      as defined in RFC 5357 [RFC5357] or the One-Way Active Measurement
      Protocol (OWAMP) as defined in RFC 4656 [RFC4656]) in order to
      communicate the counters and timestamps between nodes.

   In the following paragraphs, an example data correlation mechanism is
   explained and could be used independently of the adopted solutions.

   When data is collected on the upstream and downstream nodes, e.g.,
   packet counts for packet loss measurement or timestamps for packet
   delay measurement, and is periodically reported to or pulled by other
   nodes or an NMS, a certain data correlation mechanism SHOULD be in
   use to help the nodes or NMS tell whether any two or more packet
   counts are related to the same block of markers or if any two
   timestamps are related to the same marked packet.

   The Alternate-Marking Method described in this document literally
   splits the packets of the measured flow into different measurement
   blocks.  An implementation MAY use a Block Number (BN) for data
   correlation.  The BN MUST be assigned to each measurement block and
   associated with each packet count and timestamp reported to or pulled
   by other nodes or NMSs.  When the nodes or NMS see, for example, the
   same BNs associated with two packet counts from an upstream and a
   downstream node, respectively, it considers that these two packet
   counts correspond to the same block.  The assumption of this BN
   mechanism is that the measurement nodes are time synchronized.  This
   requires the measurement nodes to have a certain time synchronization
   capability (e.g., the NTP [RFC5905] or the IEEE 1588 PTP
   [IEEE-1588]).

5.  Synchronization and Timing

   Color switching is the reference for all the network devices acting
   as measurement points, and the only requirement to be achieved is
   that they have to recognize the right batch along the path in order
   to get the related information of counters and timestamps.

   In general, clocks in network devices are not accurate and for this
   reason, there is a clock error between the measurement points R1 and

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   R2.  And, to implement the methodology, they must be synchronized to
   the same clock reference with an adequate accuracy in order to
   guarantee that all network devices consistently match the marking bit
   to the correct block.  Additionally, in practice, besides clock
   errors, packet reordering is also common in a packet network due to
   equal-cost multipath (ECMP).  In particular, the delay between
   measurement points is the main cause of out of order because each
   packet can be delayed differently.  If the block is sufficiently
   large, packet reordering occurs only at the edge of adjacent blocks
   and it can be easy to assign reordered packets to the right interval
   blocks.

   In summary, we need to take into account two contributions: clock
   error between network devices and the interval we need to wait to
   avoid packets being out of order because of network delay.

   The following figure explains both issues.

   ...BBBBBBBBB | AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA | BBBBBBBBB...
                |<======================================>|
                |                   L                    |
   ...=========>|<==================><==================>|<==========...
                |       L/2                   L/2        |
                |<===>|                            |<===>|
                   d  |                            |   d
                      |<==========================>|
                       available counting interval

                         Figure 4: Timing Aspects

   Where L is the time duration of each block.

   It is assumed that all network devices are synchronized to a common
   reference time with an accuracy of +/- A/2.  Thus, the difference
   between the clock values of any two network devices is bounded by A.

   The network delay between the network devices can be represented as a
   normal distribution and 99.7% of the samples are within 3 standard
   deviation of the average.

   The guard band d is given by:

   d = A + D_avg + 3*D_stddev,

   where A is the clock accuracy, D_avg is the average value of the
   network delay between the network devices, and D_stddev is the
   standard deviation of the delay.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   The available counting interval is L - 2d that must be > 0.

   The condition that MUST be satisfied and is a requirement on the
   synchronization accuracy is:

   d < L/2.

   This is the fundamental rule for deciding when to read the counters
   and when to select the packets to be double-marked, indeed packet
   counter and double-marked packets MUST respectively be taken and
   chosen within the available counting interval that is not affected by
   error factors.

   If the time duration L of each block is not so small, the
   synchronization requirement could be satisfied even with a relatively
   inaccurate synchronization method.

6.  Packet Fragmentation

   Fragmentation can be managed with the Alternate-Marking Method using
   the following guidance:

      Marking nodes MUST mark all fragments if there are flag bits to
      use (i.e. it is in the specific encapsulation), as if they were
      separate packets.

      Nodes that fragment packets within the measurement domain SHOULD,
      if they have the capability to do so, ensure that only one
      resulting fragment carries the marking bit(s) of the original
      packet.  Failure to do so can introduce errors into the
      measurement.

      Measurement points SHOULD simply ignore unmarked fragments and
      count marked fragments as full packets.  However, if resources
      allow, measurement points MAY make note of both marked and
      unmarked initial fragments and only increment the corresponding
      counter if (a) other fragments are also marked, or (b) it observes
      all other fragments and they are unmarked.

   The proposed approach allows the marking node to mark all the
   fragments except in the case of fragmentation within the network
   domain, in that event it is suggested to mark only the first
   fragment.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

7.  Recommendations for Deployment

   The methodology described in the previous sections can be applied to
   various performance measurement problems.  The only requirement is to
   select and mark the flow to be monitored; in this way, packets are
   batched by the sender, and each batch is alternately marked such that
   it can be easily recognized by the receiver.  [RFC8321] reports
   experimental examples and [IEEE-Network-PNPM] also includes some
   information about the deployment experience.

   Either one or two flag bits might be available for marking in
   different deployments:

      One flag: packet loss measurement MUST be done as described in
      Section 3.1, while delay measurement MUST be done according to the
      single-marking method described in Section 3.2.1.  Mean delay
      (Section 3.2.1.1) MAY also be used but it could imply more
      computational load.

      Two flags: packet loss measurement MUST be done as described in
      Section 3.1, while delay measurement MUST be done according to
      double-marking method Section 3.2.2.  In this case single-marking
      MAY also be used in combination with double-marking and the two
      approaches provide slightly different pieces of information that
      can be combined to have a more robust data set.

   There are some operational guidelines to consider for the purpose of
   deciding to follow the recommendations above and use one or two
   flags.

      The Alternate-Marking method utilizes specific flags in the packet
      header, so an important factor is the number of flags available
      for the implementation.  Indeed, if there is only one flag
      available there is no other way, while if two flags are available
      the option with two flags is certainly more complete.

      The duration of the Alternate-Marking period affects the frequency
      of the measurement and this is a parameter that can be decided on
      the basis of the required temporal sampling.  But it cannot be
      freely chosen, as explained in Section 5.

      The Alternate-Marking methodologies enable packet loss, delay and
      delay variation calculation, but in accordance with the method
      used (e.g. single-marking or double-marking), there is different
      kind of information that can be derived.  For example, to get more
      statistics of extent data, the option with two flags is desirable.
      For this reason, the type of data needed in the specific scenario
      is an additional element to take into account.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

      The Alternate-Marking methods imply different computational load
      depending on the method employed.  Therefore, the available
      computational resources on the measurement points can also
      influence the choice.  As an example, mean delay calculation may
      require more processing and it may not be the best option to
      minimize the computational load.

   The experiment with Alternate-Marking methodologies confirmed the
   benefits already described in [RFC8321].

   A deployment of the Alternate-Marking Method should also take into
   account how to handle and recognize marked and unmarked traffic.
   Since Alternate-Marking normally employs a marking field which is
   dedicated, reserved, and included in a protocol extension, the
   measurement points can learn whether the measurement is activated or
   not by checking if the specific extension is included or not within
   the packets.

   It is worth mentioning some related work: in particular
   [IEEE-Network-PNPM] explains the Alternate-Marking method together
   with new mechanisms based on hashing techniques.

7.1.  Controlled Domain requirement

   The Alternate-Marking Method is an example of a solution limited to a
   controlled domain [RFC8799].

   A controlled domain is a managed network that selects, monitors, and
   controls access by enforcing policies at the domain boundaries, in
   order to discard undesired external packets entering the domain and
   check internal packets leaving the domain.  It does not necessarily
   mean that a controlled domain is a single administrative domain or a
   single organization.  A controlled domain can correspond to a single
   administrative domain or multiple administrative domains under a
   defined network management.  It must be possible to control the
   domain boundaries, and use specific precautions to ensure
   authentication, encryption and integrity protection if traffic
   traverses the Internet.

   For security reasons, the Alternate-Marking Method MUST only be
   applied to controlled domains.

8.  Compliance with Guidelines from RFC 6390

   RFC 6390 [RFC6390] defines a framework and a process for developing
   Performance Metrics for protocols above and below the IP layer (such
   as IP-based applications that operate over reliable or datagram
   transport protocols).

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   This document doesn't aim to propose a new Performance Metric but
   rather a new Method of Measurement for a few Performance Metrics that
   have already been standardized.  Nevertheless, it's worth applying
   guidelines from [RFC6390] to the present document, in order to
   provide a more complete and coherent description of the proposed
   method.  The mechanisms described in this document use a combination
   of the Performance Metric Definition template defined in Section 5.4
   of [RFC6390] and the Dependencies laid out in Section 5.5 of that
   document.

   o  Metric Name / Metric Description: as already stated, this document
      doesn't propose any new Performance Metrics.  On the contrary, it
      describes a novel method for measuring packet loss [RFC7680].  The
      same concept, with small differences, can also be used to measure
      delay [RFC7679] and jitter [RFC3393].  The document mainly
      describes the applicability to packet loss measurement.

   o  Method of Measurement or Calculation: according to the method
      described in the previous sections, the number of packets lost is
      calculated by subtracting the value of the counter on the source
      node from the value of the counter on the destination node.  Both
      counters must refer to the same color.  The calculation is
      performed when the value of the counters is in a steady state.
      The steady state is an intrinsic characteristic of the marking
      method counters because the alternation of color makes the counter
      associated with a color inactive for the duration of a marking
      period.

   o  Units of Measurement: the method calculates and reports the exact
      number of packets sent by the source node and not received by the
      destination node.

   o  Measurement Point(s) with Potential Measurement Domain: the
      measurement can be performed between adjacent nodes, on a per-link
      basis, or along a multi-hop path, provided that the traffic under
      measurement follows that path.  In case of a multi-hop path, the
      measurements can be performed both end-to-end and hop-by-hop.

   o  Measurement Timing: the method has a constraint on the frequency
      of measurements.  This is detailed in Section 5, where it is
      specified that the marking period and the guard band interval are
      strictly related to each other to avoid out-of-order issues.  That
      is because, in order to perform a measurement, the counter must be
      in a steady state, and this happens when the traffic is being
      colored with the alternate color.

   o  Implementation: the method uses one or two marking bits to color
      the packets; this enables the use of policy configurations on the

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

      router to color the packets and accordingly configure the counter
      for each color.  The path followed by traffic being measured
      should be known in advance in order to configure the counters
      along the path and be able to compare the correct values.

   o  Verification: the methodology has been tested and deployed
      experimentally in both lab and operational network scenarios
      performing packet loss and delay measurements on traffic patterns
      created by traffic generators together with precision test
      instruments and network emulators.

   o  Use and Applications: the method can be used to measure packet
      loss with high precision on live traffic; moreover, by combining
      end-to-end and per-link measurements, the method is useful to
      pinpoint the single link that is experiencing loss events.

   o  Reporting Model: the value of the counters has to be sent to a
      centralized management system that performs the calculations; such
      samples must contain a reference to the time interval they refer
      to, so that the management system can perform the correct
      correlation; the samples have to be sent while the corresponding
      counter is in a steady state (within a time interval); otherwise,
      the value of the sample should be stored locally.

   o  Dependencies: the values of the counters have to be correlated to
      the time interval they refer to.

   o  Organization of Results: the Method of Measurement produces
      singletons, according to the definition of [RFC2330].

   o  Parameters: the main parameters of the method are the information
      about the flow or the link to be measured, the time interval
      chosen to alternate the colors and to read the counters and the
      type of method selected for packet loss and delay measurements.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

10.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies a method to perform measurements that does
   not directly affect Internet security nor applications that run on
   the Internet.  However, implementation of this method must be mindful
   of security and privacy concerns.

   There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by
   the measurements and potential harm to the measurements.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   o  Harm caused by the measurement: the measurements described in this
      document are Passive, so there are no new packets injected into
      the network causing potential harm to the network itself and to
      data traffic.  Nevertheless, the method implies modifications on
      the fly to a header or encapsulation of the data packets: this
      must be performed in a way that doesn't alter the quality of
      service experienced by packets subject to measurements and that
      preserves stability and performance of routers doing the
      measurements.  One of the main security threats in OAM protocols
      is network reconnaissance; an attacker can gather information
      about the network performance by passively eavesdropping on OAM
      messages.  The advantage of the methods described in this document
      is that the marking bits are the only information that is
      exchanged between the network devices.  Therefore, Passive
      eavesdropping on data-plane traffic does not allow attackers to
      gain information about the network performance.

   o  Harm to the Measurement: the measurements could be harmed by
      routers altering the marking of the packets or by an attacker
      injecting artificial traffic.  Authentication techniques, such as
      digital signatures, may be used where appropriate to guard against
      injected traffic attacks.  Since the measurement itself may be
      affected by routers (or other network devices) along the path of
      IP packets intentionally altering the value of marking bits of
      packets, as mentioned above, the mechanism specified in this
      document can be applied just in the context of a controlled
      domain; thus, the routers (or other network devices) are locally
      administered and this type of attack can be avoided.

   An attacker that does not belong to the controlled domain can
   maliciously send marked packets.  But if Alternate-Marking is not
   supported in the controlled domain, no problem happens.  While if
   Alternate-Marking is supported in the controlled domain, it is also
   necessary to avoid that the measurements are affected and external
   marked packets must be checked.

   The precondition for the application of the Alternate-Marking is that
   it MUST be applied in specific controlled domains, thus confining the
   potential attack vectors within the network domain.  A limited
   administrative domain provides the network administrator with the
   means to select, monitor and control the access to the network,
   making it a trusted domain.  In this regard it is expected to enforce
   policies at the domain boundaries to filter both external marked
   packets entering the domain and internal marked packets leaving the
   domain.  Therefore, the trusted domain is unlikely subject to
   hijacking of packets since marked packets are processed and used only
   within the controlled domain.  But despite that, leakages may happen
   for different reasons, such as a failure or a fault.  In this case,

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   nodes outside the domain are expected to ignore marked packets since
   they are not configured to handle it and should not process it.

   It might be theoretically possible to modulate the marking to serve
   as a covert channel to be used by an on-path observer.  This may
   affect both the data and management plane, but, here too, the
   application to a controlled domain helps to reduce the effects.

   It is worth highlighting that an attacker can't gain information
   about network performance from a single monitoring point; it must use
   synchronized monitoring points at multiple points on the path,
   because they have to do the same kind of measurement and aggregation
   that Service Providers using Alternate-Marking must do.

   Attacks on the data collection and reporting of the statistics
   between the monitoring points and the network management system can
   interfere with the proper functioning of the system.  Hence, the
   channels used to report back flow statistics MUST be secured.

   The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited because the
   method only relies on information contained in the header or
   encapsulation without any release of user data.  Although information
   in the header or encapsulation is metadata that can be used to
   compromise the privacy of users, the limited marking technique in
   this document seems unlikely to substantially increase the existing
   privacy risks from header or encapsulation metadata.  It might be
   theoretically possible to modulate the marking to serve as a covert
   channel, but it would have a very low data rate if it is to avoid
   adversely affecting the measurement systems that monitor the marking.

   Delay attacks are another potential threat in the context of this
   document.  Delay measurement is performed using a specific packet in
   each block, marked by a dedicated color bit.  Therefore, an on-path
   attacker can selectively induce synthetic delay only to delay-colored
   packets, causing systematic error in the delay measurements.  As
   discussed in previous sections, the methods described in this
   document rely on an underlying time synchronization protocol.  Thus,
   by attacking the time protocol, an attacker can potentially
   compromise the integrity of the measurement.  A detailed discussion
   about the threats against time protocols and how to mitigate them is
   presented in RFC 7384 [RFC7384].

11.  Contributors

   Xiao Min
   ZTE Corp.
   Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 22]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

   Alessandro Capello
   Telecom Italia
   Email: alessandro.capello@telecomitalia.it

12.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Alberto Tempia Bonda, Luca
   Castaldelli and Lianshu Zheng for their contribution to the
   experimentation of the method.

   The authors would also thank Martin Duke and Tommy Pauly for their
   assistance and their detailed and precious reviews.

13.  References

13.1.  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/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3393]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
              Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.

   [RFC7679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
              Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
              (IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.

   [RFC7680]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
              Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics
              (IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>.

   [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/info/rfc8174>.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 23]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements]
              Cociglio, M., Ferrieux, A., Fioccola, G., Lubashev, I.,
              Bulgarella, F., Hamchaoui, I., Nilo, M., Sisto, R., and D.
              Tikhonov, "Explicit Flow Measurements Techniques", draft-
              ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements-01 (work in
              progress), May 2022.

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis]
              Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., Sisto, R., and T.
              Zhou, "Multipoint Alternate-Marking Clustered Method",
              draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02 (work in progress), June
              2022.

   [IEEE-1588]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
              Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
              IEEE Std 1588-2008.

   [IEEE-Network-PNPM]
              IEEE Network, "AM-PM: Efficient Network Telemetry using
              Alternate Marking", DOI 10.1109/MNET.2019.1800152, 2019.

   [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/info/rfc2330>.

   [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/info/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/info/rfc5357>.

   [RFC5481]  Morton, A. and B. Claise, "Packet Delay Variation
              Applicability Statement", RFC 5481, DOI 10.17487/RFC5481,
              March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5481>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 24]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   [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/info/rfc6390>.

   [RFC6703]  Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting
              IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View",
              RFC 6703, DOI 10.17487/RFC6703, August 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6703>.

   [RFC7384]  Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in
              Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384,
              October 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7384>.

   [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/info/rfc7799>.

   [RFC8321]  Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
              L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
              "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
              Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
              January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.

   [RFC8799]  Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
              Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.

Appendix A.  Changes Log

   Changes from RFC 8321 in draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-00 include:

   o  Minor editorial changes

   o  Replacement of the section on "Applications, Implementation, and
      Deployment" with "Finding of the Alternate Marking Implementations
      and Deployments"

   o  Moved advantages and benefits of the method from "Introduction" to
      the new section on "Finding of the Alternate Marking
      Implementations and Deployments"

   o  Removed section on "Hybrid Measurement"

   Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-01 include:

   o  Considerations on the reference: [IEEE-Network-PNPM]

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 25]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   o  Clarified that the method based on a fixed timer is specified in
      this document while the method based on a fixed number of packets
      is only mentioned but not detailed.

   o  Explanation of the intrinsic error in section 3.3.1 on "Single-
      Marking Methodology"

   o  Deleted some parts in section 4 "Considerations" that no longer
      apply

   o  New section on "Packet Fragmentation"

   Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-02 include:

   o  Considerations on how to handle unmarked traffic in section 5 on
      "Results of the Alternate Marking Experiment"

   o  Minor rewording in section 4.4 on "Packet Fragmentation"

   Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-03 include:

   o  Deleted numeric examples in sections on "Packet Loss Measurement"
      and on "Single-Marking Methodology"

   o  New section on "Alternate Marking Functions"

   o  Moved sections 3.1.1 on "Coloring the Packets", 3.1.2 on "Counting
      the Packets" and 3.1.3 on "Collecting Data and Calculating Packet
      Loss" into the new section on "Alternate Marking Functions"

   o  Renamed sections 4.1 as "Marking the Packets", 4.2 as "Counting
      and Timestamping Packets" and 4.3 as "Data Collection and
      Correlation"

   o  Merged old section on "Data Correlation" with section 4.3 on "Data
      Collection and Correlation"

   o  Moved and renamed section on "Timing Aspects" as "Synchronization
      and Timing"

   o  Merged old section on "Synchronization" with section on
      "Synchronization and Timing"

   o  Merged old section on "Packet Reordering" with section on
      "Synchronization and Timing"

   Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8321bis-04/draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-00
   include:

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 26]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   o  Revised "Introduction" section

   o  Revised sections 4.2 "Counting and Timestamping Packets" and 4.3
      on "Data Collection and Correlation"

   o  Revised section 5 on "Synchronization and Timing"

   Changes in draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-01 include:

   o  New section on "Summary of Changes from RFC 8321"

   o  Revised sections on "Single-Marking Methodology" and "Double-
      Marking Methodology"

   Changes in draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02 include:

   o  Revised section on "Double-Marking Methodology"

   o  Revised references

   Changes in draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-03 include:

   o  Comments addressed from Last Call review

   o  Renamed section 7 as "Recommendations for Deployment"

Authors' Addresses

   Giuseppe Fioccola (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   Riesstrasse, 25
   Munich  80992
   Germany

   Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com

   Mauro Cociglio
   Telecom Italia
   Via Reiss Romoli, 274
   Torino  10148
   Italy

   Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 27]
Internet-Draft                   AltMark                       July 2022

   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

   Tal Mizrahi
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com

   Tianran Zhou
   Huawei Technologies
   156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 28]