Skip to main content

Multipoint Alternate-Marking Clustered Method
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ippm WG)
Authors Giuseppe Fioccola , Mauro Cociglio , Amedeo Sapio , Riccardo Sisto , Tianran Zhou
Last updated 2022-07-25
Replaces draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats
Reviews
INTDIR Telechat Review Incomplete, due 2022-07-07
SECDIR Last Call Review Incomplete, due 2022-06-21
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 IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
Action Holder
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Has 2 DISCUSSes. Needs 3 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Martin Duke
Send notices to tpauly@apple.com
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-03
Network Working Group                                   G. Fioccola, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Obsoletes: 8889 (if approved)                                M. Cociglio
Intended status: Standards Track                          Telecom Italia
Expires: January 26, 2023                                       A. Sapio
                                                       Intel Corporation
                                                                R. Sisto
                                                   Politecnico di Torino
                                                                 T. Zhou
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           July 25, 2022

             Multipoint Alternate-Marking Clustered Method
                     draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-03

Abstract

   This document generalizes and expands Alternate-Marking methodology
   to measure any kind of unicast flow whose packets can follow several
   different paths in the network -- in wider terms, a multipoint-to-
   multipoint network.  For this reason, the technique here described is
   called "Multipoint Alternate-Marking".  This document obsoletes RFC
   8889.

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.

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Summary of Changes from RFC 8889  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Correlation with RFC 5644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Flow Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Extension of the Method to Multipoint Flows . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Monitoring Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Network Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Network Clustering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Algorithm for Clusters Partition  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Multipoint Packet Loss Measurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Multipoint Delay and Delay Variation  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.1.  Delay Measurements on a Multipoint-Paths Basis  . . . . .  14
       7.1.1.  Single-Marking Measurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.2.  Delay Measurements on a Single-Packet Basis . . . . . . .  15
       7.2.1.  Single- and Double-Marking Measurement  . . . . . . .  15
       7.2.2.  Hashing Selection Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Synchronization and Timing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Recommendations for Deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   10. A Closed-Loop Performance-Management Approach . . . . . . . .  20
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   13. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Appendix A.  Example of Monitoring Network and Clusters Partition  24
   Appendix B.  Changes Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28

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

1.  Introduction

   The Alternate-Marking Method, as described in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis], is applicable to a point-to-point path.
   The extension proposed in this document applies to the most general
   case of a multipoint-to-multipoint path and enables flexible and
   adaptive performance measurements in a managed network.

   The Alternate-Marking methodology consists in splitting the packet
   flow into marking blocks and the monitoring parameters are the packet
   counters and the timestamps for each marking period.  In some
   applications of the Alternate-Marking method, a lot of flows and
   nodes are to be monitored.  Multipoint Alternate-Marking aims to
   reduce these values and makes the performance monitoring more
   flexible in case a detailed analysis is not needed.  For instance, by
   considering n measurement points and m monitored flows, the order of
   magnitude of the packet counters for each time interval is n*m*2 (1
   per color).  The number of measurement points and monitored flows may
   vary and depends on the portion of the network we are monitoring
   (core network, metro network, access network) and the granularity
   (for each service, each customer).  So if both n and m are high
   values, the packet counters increase a lot, and Multipoint Alternate-
   Marking offers a tool to control these parameters.

   The approach presented in this document is applied only to unicast
   flows and not to multicast.  Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and
   Multicast (BUM) traffic is not considered here, because traffic
   replication is not covered by the Multipoint Alternate-Marking
   method.  Furthermore, it can be applicable to anycast flows, and
   Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) paths can also be easily monitored with
   this technique.

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis] applies to point-to-point unicast flows
   and BUM traffic.  For BUM traffic, the basic method of
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis] can easily be applied link by link and
   therefore split the multicast flow tree distribution into separate
   unicast point-to-point links.  While, this document and its Clustered
   Alternate-Marking method apply to multipoint-to-multipoint unicast
   flows, anycast, and ECMP flows.

   Therefore, the Alternate-Marking method can be extended to any kind
   of multipoint-to-multipoint paths, and the network-clustering
   approach presented in this document is the formalization of how to
   implement this property and allow a flexible and optimized
   performance measurement support for network management in every
   situation.

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

   Without network clustering, it is possible to apply Alternate-Marking
   only for all the network or per single flow.  Instead, with network
   clustering, it is possible to use the partition of the network into
   clusters at different levels in order to provide the needed degree of
   detail.  In some circumstances, it is possible to monitor a
   multipoint network by monitoring the network clusters, without
   examining in depth.  In case of problems (packet loss is measured, or
   the delay is too high), the filtering criteria could be enhanced in
   order to perform a detailed analysis by using a different combination
   of clusters up to a per-flow measurement as described in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

   This approach fits very well with the Closed-Loop Network and
   Software-Defined Network (SDN) paradigm, where the SDN orchestrator
   and the SDN controllers are the brains of the network and can manage
   flow control to the switches and routers and, in the same way, can
   calibrate the performance measurements depending on the desired
   accuracy.  An SDN controller application can orchestrate how
   accurately the network performance monitoring is set up by applying
   the Multipoint Alternate-Marking as described in this document.

   It is important to underline that, as an extension of
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis], this is a methodology document, so the
   mechanism that can be used to transmit the counters and the
   timestamps is out of scope here.

   This document assumes that the blocks are created according to a
   fixed timer as per [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].  Switching after a
   fixed number of packets is possible but it is out of scope here.

   Note that the fragmented packets' case can be managed with the
   Alternate-Marking methodology and the same guidance provided in
   section 6 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis] apply also in the case of
   Multipoint Alternate-Marking.

1.1.  Summary of Changes from RFC 8889

   This document defines the Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method,
   addressing ambiguities and overtaking its experimental phase in the
   original specification [RFC8889].

   The relevant changes are:

   o  Added the recommendations about the different deployments in case
      one or two flag bits are available for marking (Section 9).

   o  Changed the structure to improve the readability.

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

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

   o  Revised the description of detailed aspects of the methodology,
      e.g. synchronization and timing.

   It is important to note that all the changes are totally backward
   compatible with [RFC8889] and no new additional technique has been
   introduced in this document compared to [RFC8889].

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.  Terminology

   The definitions of the basic terms are identical to those found in
   Alternate-Marking [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].  It is to be remembered
   that [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis] is valid for point-to-point unicast
   flows and BUM traffic.

   The important new terms that need to be explained are listed below:

      Multipoint Alternate-Marking: Extension to
      [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis], valid for multipoint-to-multipoint
      unicast flows, anycast, and ECMP flows.  It can also be referred
      to as Clustered Alternate-Marking.

      Flow definition: The concept of flow is generalized in this
      document.  The identification fields are selected without any
      constraints and, in general, the flow can be a multipoint-to-
      multipoint flow, as a result of aggregate point-to-point flows.

      Monitoring Network: Identified with the nodes of the network that
      are the measurement points (MPs) and the links that are the
      connections between MPs.  The monitoring network graph depends on
      the flow definition, so it can represent a specific flow or the
      entire network topology as aggregate of all the flows.  Each node
      of the monitoring network cannot be both a source and a
      destination of the flow.

      Cluster: Smallest identifiable non-trivial subnetwork of the
      entire monitoring network graph that still satisfies the condition
      that the number of packets that go in is the same as the number

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

      that go out.  A cluster partition algorithm, such as that found in
      Section 5.1, can be applied to split the monitoring network into
      clusters.

      Multipoint metrics: Packet loss, delay and delay variation are
      extended to the case of multipoint flows.  It is possible to
      compute these metrics on the basis of multipoint paths in order to
      associate the measurements to a cluster, a combination of
      clusters, or the entire monitored network.  For delay and delay
      variation, it is also possible to define the metrics on a single-
      packet basis, and it means that the multipoint path is used to
      easily couple packets between input and output nodes of a
      multipoint path.

   The next section highlights the correlation with the terms used in
   RFC 5644 [RFC5644].

2.1.  Correlation with RFC 5644

   RFC 5644 [RFC5644] is limited to active measurements using a single
   source packet or stream.  Its scope is also limited to observations
   of corresponding packets along the path (spatial metric) and at one
   or more destinations (one-to-group) along the path.

   Instead, the scope of this memo is to define multiparty metrics for
   passive and hybrid measurements in a group-to-group topology with
   multiple sources and destinations.

   RFC 5644 [RFC5644] introduces metric names that can be reused here
   but have to be extended and rephrased to be applied to the Alternate-
   Marking schema:

   a.  the multiparty metrics are not only one-to-group metrics but can
       be also group-to-group metrics;

   b.  the spatial metrics, used for measuring the performance of
       segments of a source to destination path, are applied here to
       clusters.

3.  Flow Classification

   A unicast flow is identified by all the packets having a set of
   common characteristics.  This definition is inspired by RFC 7011
   [RFC7011].

   As an example, by considering a flow as all the packets sharing the
   same source IP address or the same destination IP address, it is easy
   to understand that the resulting pattern will not be a point-to-point

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

   connection, but a point-to-multipoint or multipoint-to-point
   connection.

   In general, a flow can be defined by a set of selection rules used to
   match a subset of the packets processed by the network device.  These
   rules specify a set of Layer 3 and Layer 4 header fields
   (identification fields) and the relative values that must be found in
   matching packets.

   The choice of the identification fields directly affects the type of
   paths that the flow would follow in the network.  In fact, it is
   possible to relate a set of identification fields with the pattern of
   the resulting graphs, as listed in Figure 1.

   A TCP 5-tuple usually identifies flows following either a single path
   or a point-to-point multipath (in the case of load balancing).  On
   the contrary, a single source address selects aggregate flows
   following a point-to-multipoint, while a multipoint-to-point can be
   the result of a matching on a single destination address.  In the
   case where a selection rule and its reverse are used for
   bidirectional measurements, they can correspond to a point-to-
   multipoint in one direction and a multipoint-to-point in the opposite
   direction.

   So the flows to be monitored are selected into the monitoring points
   using packet selection rules, which can also change the pattern of
   the monitored network.

   Note that, more generally, the flow can be defined at different
   levels based on the potential encapsulation, and additional
   conditions that are not in the packet header can also be included as
   part of matching criteria.

   The Alternate-Marking method is applicable only to a single path (and
   partially to a one-to-one multipath), so the extension proposed in
   this document is suitable also for the most general case of
   multipoint-to-multipoint, which embraces all the other patterns of
   Figure 1.

          point-to-point single path
              +------+      +------+      +------+
          ---<>  R1  <>----<>  R2  <>----<>  R3  <>---
              +------+      +------+      +------+

          point-to-point multipath
                           +------+

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

                          <>  R2  <>
                         / +------+ \
                        /            \
              +------+ /              \ +------+
          ---<>  R1  <>                <>  R4  <>---
              +------+ \              / +------+
                        \            /
                         \ +------+ /
                          <>  R3  <>
                           +------+

          point-to-multipoint
                                      +------+
                                     <>  R4  <>---
                                    / +------+
                          +------+ /
                         <>  R2  <>
                        / +------+ \
              +------+ /            \ +------+
          ---<>  R1  <>              <>  R5  <>---
              +------+ \              +------+
                        \ +------+
                         <>  R3  <>
                          +------+ \
                                    \ +------+
                                     <>  R6  <>---
                                      +------+

          multipoint-to-point
              +------+
          ---<>  R1  <>
              +------+ \
                        \ +------+
                        <>  R4  <>
                        / +------+ \
              +------+ /            \ +------+
          ---<>  R2  <>              <>  R6  <>---
              +------+              / +------+
                          +------+ /
                         <>  R5  <>
                        / +------+
              +------+ /
          ---<>  R3  <>
              +------+

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

          multipoint-to-multipoint
              +------+                +------+
          ---<>  R1  <>              <>  R6  <>---
              +------+ \            / +------+
                        \ +------+ /
                         <>  R4  <>
                          +------+ \
              +------+              \ +------+
          ---<>  R2  <>             <>  R7  <>---
              +------+ \            / +------+
                        \ +------+ /
                         <>  R5  <>
                        / +------+ \
              +------+ /            \ +------+
          ---<>  R3  <>              <>  R8  <>---
              +------+                +------+

                       Figure 1: Flow Classification

   The case of unicast flow is considered in Figure 1.  The anycast flow
   is also covered, since it is only a special case of a unicast flow if
   routing is stable throughout the measurement period.  Furthermore, an
   ECMP flow is in scope by definition, since it is a point-to-
   multipoint unicast flow.

4.  Extension of the Method to Multipoint Flows

   By using the Alternate-Marking method, only point-to-point paths can
   be monitored.  To have an IP (TCP/UDP) flow that follows a point-to-
   point path, in general we have to define, with a specific value, 5
   identification fields (IP Source, IP Destination, Transport Protocol,
   Source Port, Destination Port).

   Multipoint Alternate-Marking enables the performance measurement for
   multipoint flows selected by identification fields without any
   constraints (even the entire network production traffic).  It is also
   possible to use multiple marking points for the same monitored flow.

4.1.  Monitoring Network

   The monitoring network is deduced from the production network by
   identifying the nodes of the graph that are the measurement points,
   and the links that are the connections between measurement points.

   There are some techniques that can help with the building of the
   monitoring network (as an example, see [I-D.ietf-ippm-route]).  In
   general, there are different options: the monitoring network can be

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

   obtained by considering all the possible paths for the traffic or
   periodically checking the traffic (e.g. daily, weekly, monthly) and
   updating the graph as appropriate, but this is up to the Network
   Management System (NMS) configuration.

   So a graph model of the monitoring network can be built according to
   the Alternate-Marking method: the monitored interfaces and links are
   identified.  Only the measurement points and links where the traffic
   has flowed have to be represented in the graph.

   A simple example of a monitoring network graph is showed in
   Appendix A.

   Each monitoring point is characterized by the packet counter that
   refers only to a marking period of the monitored flow.  Also, it is
   assumed that there be a monitoring point at all possible egress
   points of the multipoint monitored network.

   The same is also applicable for the delay, but it will be described
   in the following sections.

   The rest of the document assumes that the traffic is going from left
   to right in order to simplify the explanation.  But the analysis done
   for one direction applies equally to all directions.

4.2.  Network Packet Loss

   Since all the packets of the considered flow leaving the network have
   previously entered the network, the number of packets counted by all
   the input nodes is always greater than, or equal to, the number of
   packets counted by all the output nodes.  It is assumed that routing
   is stable during the measurement period while packet fragmentation
   must be handled as described in [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

   In the case of no packet loss occurring in the marking period, if all
   the input and output points of the network domain to be monitored are
   measurement points, the sum of the number of packets on all the
   ingress interfaces equals the number on egress interfaces for the
   monitored flow.  In this circumstance, if no packet loss occurs, the
   intermediate measurement points only have the task of splitting the
   measurement.

   It is possible to define the Network Packet Loss of one monitored
   flow for a single period.  In a packet network, the number of lost
   packets is the number of packets counted by the input nodes minus the
   number of packets counted by the output nodes.  This is true for
   every packet flow in each marking period.

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

   The monitored network packet loss with n input nodes and m output
   nodes is given by:

   PL = (PI1 + PI2 +...+ PIn) - (PO1 + PO2 +...+ POm)

   where:

   PL is the network packet loss (number of lost packets)

   PIi is the number of packets flowed through the i-th input node in
   this period

   POj is the number of packets flowed through the j-th output node in
   this period

   The equation is applied on a per-time-interval basis and a per-flow
   basis:

      The reference interval is the Alternate-Marking period, as defined
      in [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

      The flow definition is generalized here.  Indeed, as described
      before, a multipoint packet flow is considered, and the
      identification fields can be selected without any constraints.

5.  Network Clustering

   The previous equation of Section 4.2 can determine the number of
   packets lost globally in the monitored network, exploiting only the
   data provided by the counters in the input and output nodes.

   In addition, it is also possible to leverage the data provided by the
   other counters in the network to converge on the smallest
   identifiable subnetworks where the losses occur.

   As defined in Section 2, a cluster is a non-trivial subnetwork of the
   entire monitoring network graph that still satisfies the condition
   that the number of packets that go in is the same as the number that
   go out, if no packet loss occurs.  According to this definition, a
   cluster should contain all the arcs emanating from its input nodes
   and all the arcs terminating at its output nodes.  This ensures that
   we can count all the packets (and only those) exiting an input node
   again at the output node, whatever path they follow.

   As for the entire monitoring network graph, the cluster is defined on
   a per-flow basis.  In a completely monitored network (a network where
   every network interface is monitored), each network device

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

   corresponds to a cluster, and each physical link corresponds to two
   clusters (one for each device).

   Clusters can have different sizes depending on the flow-filtering
   criteria adopted.

   Moreover, sometimes clusters can be optionally simplified.  For
   example, when two monitored interfaces are divided by a single router
   (one is the input interface, the other is the output interface, and
   the router has only these two interfaces), instead of counting
   exactly twice, upon entering and leaving, it is possible to consider
   a single measurement point.  In this case, we do not care about the
   internal packet loss of the router.

   It is worth highlighting that it might also be convenient to define
   clusters based on the topological information so that they are
   applicable to all the possible flows in the monitored network.

5.1.  Algorithm for Clusters Partition

   A simple algorithm can be applied in order to split the monitoring
   network into clusters.  This can be done for each direction
   separately, indeed a node cannot be both a source and a destination.
   The clusters partition is based on the monitoring network graph,
   which can be valid for a specific flow or can also be general and
   valid for the entire network topology.

   It is a two-step algorithm:

   o  Group the links where there is the same starting node;

   o  Join the grouped links with at least one ending node in common.

   Considering that the links are unidirectional, the first step implies
   listing all the links as connections between two nodes and grouping
   the different links if they have the same starting node.  Note that
   it is possible to start from any link, and the procedure will work.
   Following this classification, the second step implies eventually
   joining the groups classified in the first step by looking at the
   ending nodes.  If different groups have at least one common ending
   node, they are put together and belong to the same set.  After the
   application of the two steps of the algorithm, each one of the
   composed sets of links, together with the endpoint nodes, constitutes
   a cluster.

   A simple application of the clusters partition is showed in
   Appendix A.

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

   The algorithm, as applied in the example of a point-to-multipoint
   network, works for the more general case of multipoint-to-multipoint
   network in the same way.  It should be highlighted that for a
   multipoint-to-multipoint network the multiple sources MUST mark
   coherently the traffic and MUST be synchronized with all the other
   nodes according to the timing requirements detailed in Section 8.

   When the clusters partition is done, the calculation of packet loss,
   delay and delay variation can be made on a cluster basis.  Note that
   the packet counters for each marking period permit calculating the
   packet rate on a cluster basis, so Committed Information Rate (CIR)
   and Excess Information Rate (EIR) could also be deduced on a cluster
   basis.

   Obviously, by combining some clusters in a new connected subnetwork
   the packet-loss rule is still true.  So it is also possible to
   consider combinations of clusters if and where it suits.

   In this way, in a very large network, there is no need to configure
   detailed filter criteria to inspect the traffic.  It is possible to
   check a multipoint network and, in case of problems, go deep with a
   step-by-step cluster analysis, but only for the cluster or
   combination of clusters where the problem happens.

   In summary, once a flow is defined, the algorithm to build the
   clusters partition is based on topological information; therefore, it
   considers all the possible links and nodes that could potentially be
   crossed by the given flow, even if there is no traffic.  So, if the
   flow does not enter or traverse all the nodes, the counters have a
   non-zero value for the involved nodes and a zero value for the other
   nodes without traffic; but in the end, all the formulas are still
   valid.

   The algorithm described above is an iterative clustering algorithm
   since it executes steps in iterations, but it is also possible to
   apply a recursive clustering algorithm as detailed in
   [IEEE-ACM-ToN-MPNPM].

   The complete and mathematical analysis of the possible algorithms for
   clusters partition, including the considerations in terms of
   efficiency and a comparison between the different methods, is in the
   paper [IEEE-ACM-ToN-MPNPM].

6.  Multipoint Packet Loss Measurement

   The Network Packet Loss, defined in Section 4.2, valid for the entire
   monitored flow, can easily be extended to each multipoint path (e.g.,
   the whole multipoint network, a cluster, or a combination of

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

   clusters).  In this way it is possible to calculate Multipoint Packet
   Loss that is representative of a multipoint path.

   The same equation of Section 4.2 can be applied to a generic
   multipoint path like a cluster or a combination of clusters, where
   the number of packets are those entering and leaving the multipoint
   path.

   By applying the algorithm described in Section 5.1, it is possible to
   split the monitoring network into clusters.  Then, packet loss can be
   measured on a cluster basis for each single period by considering the
   counters of the input and output nodes that belong to the specific
   cluster.  This can be done for every packet flow in each marking
   period.

7.  Multipoint Delay and Delay Variation

   The same line of reasoning can be applied to delay and delay
   variation.  The delay measurement methods defined in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis] can be extended to the case of multipoint
   flows.  It is important to highlight that both delay and delay-
   variation measurements make sense in a multipoint path.  The delay
   variation is calculated by considering the same packets selected for
   measuring the delay.

   In general, it is possible to perform delay and delay-variation
   measurements on the basis of multipoint paths or single packets:

   o  Delay measurements on the basis of multipoint paths mean that the
      delay value is representative of an entire multipoint path (e.g.,
      the whole multipoint network, a cluster, or a combination of
      clusters).

   o  Delay measurements on a single-packet basis mean that it is
      possible to use a multipoint path just to easily couple packets
      between input and output nodes of a multipoint path, as described
      in the following sections.

7.1.  Delay Measurements on a Multipoint-Paths Basis

7.1.1.  Single-Marking Measurement

   Mean delay and mean delay-variation measurements can also be
   generalized to the case of multipoint flows.  It is possible to
   compute the average one-way delay of packets in one block, a cluster,
   or the entire monitored network.

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

   The average latency can be measured as the difference between the
   weighted averages of the mean timestamps of the sets of output and
   input nodes.  This means that, in the calculation, it is possible to
   weigh the timestamps with the number of packets for each endpoint.

   Note that, since the one-way delay value is representative of a
   multipoint path, it is possible to calculate the two-way delay of a
   multipoint path by summing the one-way delays of the two directions,
   similarly to [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

7.2.  Delay Measurements on a Single-Packet Basis

7.2.1.  Single- and Double-Marking Measurement

   Delay and delay-variation measurements associated with only one
   picked packet per period, both single and double marked, cannot be
   easily performed in a multipoint scenario since there are some
   limitations:

      Single marking based on the first/last packet of the interval does
      not work properly.  Indeed, by considering a point-to-multipoint
      scenario, it is not possible to recognize which path the first
      packet of each block takes over the multipoint flow in order to
      correlate it.  This is also true for the general case of the
      multipoint-to-multipoint scenario.

      Double marking or multiplexed marking work but only through
      statistical means.  In a point-to-multipoint scenario, by
      selecting only a single packet with the second marking for each
      block, it is possible to follow and calculate the delay for that
      picked packet.  But the measurement can only be done for a single
      path in each marking period.  To traverse all the paths of the
      multipoint flow, it can theoretically be done by continuing the
      measurement for the following marking periods and expect to span
      all the paths.  In the general case of a multipoint-to-multipoint
      path, it is also needed to take into account the multiple source
      nodes which complicate the correlation of the samples.  In this
      case, it can be possible to select the second marked packet only
      for a source node at a time for each block and cover the remaining
      source nodes one by one in the next marking periods.

   Note that, since the one-way delay measurement is done on a single-
   packet basis, it is always possible to calculate the two-way delay
   but it is not immediate since it is necessary to couple the
   measurement on each single path with the opposite direction.  In this
   case the NMS can do the calculation.

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

   If it is performed a delay measurement for more than one picked
   packet and for all the paths of the multipoint flow in the same
   marking period, neither the single- nor the double-marking method are
   applicable in the multipoint scenario.  The packets follow different
   paths and it becomes very difficult to correlate marked packets in a
   multipoint-to-multipoint path if there are more than one per period.

   A desirable option is to monitor simultaneously all the paths of a
   multipoint path in the same marking period.  For this purpose,
   hashing can be used, as reported in the next section.

7.2.2.  Hashing Selection Method

   RFCs 5474 [RFC5474] and 5475 [RFC5475] introduce sampling and
   filtering techniques for IP packet selection.

   The hash-based selection methodologies for delay measurement can work
   in a multipoint-to-multipoint path and can be used either coupled to
   mean delay or stand-alone.

   [IEEE-Network-PNPM] introduces how to use the hash method (RFC 5474
   [RFC5474] and RFC 5475 [RFC5475]) combined with the Alternate-Marking
   method for point-to-point flows.  It is also called Mixed Hashed
   Marking because it refers to the conjunction of the marking method
   and the hashing technique.  It involves only the single marking,
   indeed it is supposed that double marking is not used with hashing.
   The coupling of the single marking with the hashing selection allows
   choosing a simplified hash function since the alternation of blocks
   gives temporal boundaries for the hashing samples.  The marking
   batches anchor the samples selected with hashing and this eases the
   correlation of the hashing packets along the path.  For example, in
   case a hashed sample is lost, it is confined to the considered block
   without affecting the identification of the samples for the following
   blocks.

   Using the hash-based sampling, the number of samples in each block
   may vary a lot because it depends on the packet rate that is
   variable.  A dynamic approach can help to have an almost fixed number
   of samples for each marking period, and this is a better option for
   making regular measurements over time.  In the hash-based sampling,
   Alternate-Marking is used to create periods, so that hash-based
   samples are divided into batches, which allows anchoring the selected
   samples to their period.  Moreover, in a dynamic hash-based sampling,
   it can be possible to dynamically adapt the length of the hash value
   to meet the current packet rate, so that the number of samples is
   bounded in each marking period.

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

   In a multipoint environment, the hashing selection may be the
   solution for performing delay measurements on specific packets and
   overcoming the single- and double-marking limitations.

8.  Synchronization and Timing

   It is important to consider the timing aspects, since out-of-order
   packets happen and have to be handled as well, as described in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

   However, in a multisource situation, an additional issue has to be
   considered.  With multipoint path, the egress nodes will receive
   alternate marked packets in random order from different ingress
   nodes, and this must not affect the measurement.

   So, if we analyze a multipoint-to-multipoint path with more than one
   marking node, it is important to recognize the reference measurement
   interval.  In general, the measurement interval for describing the
   results is the interval of the marking node that is more aligned with
   the start of the measurement, as reported in Figure 2.

   Note that the mark switching approach based on a fixed timer is
   considered in this document.

           time -> start         stop
           T(R1)   |-------------|
           T(R2)     |-------------|
           T(R3)        |------------|

                      Figure 2: Measurement Interval

   In Figure 2, it is assumed that the node with the earliest clock (R1)
   identifies the right starting and ending times of the measurement,
   but it is just an assumption, and other possibilities could occur.
   So, in this case, T(R1) is the measurement interval, and its
   recognition is essential in order to make comparisons with other
   active/passive/hybrid Packet Loss metrics.

   Regarding the timing constraints of the methodology,
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis] already describes two contributions that
   are taken into account: the clock error between network devices and
   the network delay between the measurement points.

   When we expand to a multipoint environment, we have to consider that
   there are more marking nodes that mark the traffic based on
   synchronized clock time.  But, due to different synchronization

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

   issues that may happen, the marking batches can be of different
   lengths and with different offsets when they get mixed in a
   multipoint flow.  According to [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis], the
   maximum clock skew between the network devices is A.  Therefore, the
   additional gap that results between the multiple sources can be
   incorporated into A.

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

                         Figure 3: Timing Aspects

   Moreover, it is assumed that the multipoint path can be modeled with
   a normal distribution, otherwise it is necessary to reformulate based
   on the type of distribution.  Under this assumption, the definition
   of the guard band d is still applicable as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis] and 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, and D_stddev is the standard deviation of the delay.

   As shown in Figure 3 and according to [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis], the
   condition that must be satisfied to enable the method to function
   properly is that the available counting interval must be > 0, and
   that means:

   L - 2d > 0.

   This formula needs to be verified for each measurement point on the
   multipoint path.

   Note that the timing considerations are valid for both packet loss
   and delay measurements.

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

9.  Recommendations for Deployment

   The methodology described in the previous sections can be applied to
   various performance measurement problems, as also explained in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].  [RFC8889] reports experimental examples
   and [IEEE-Network-PNPM] also includes some information about the
   deployment experience.

   Different deployments are possible using one flag bit, two flag bits
   or hashing selection:

      One flag: packet loss measurement MUST be done as described in
      Section 6 by applying the network clustering partition described
      in Section 5.  While delay measurement MUST be done according to
      the Mean delay calculation representative of the multipoint path,
      as described in Section 7.1.1.  Single-marking method based on the
      first/last packet of the interval cannot be applied, as mentioned
      in Section 7.2.1.

      Two flags: packet loss measurement MUST be done as described in
      Section 6 by applying the network clustering partition described
      in Section 5.  While delay measurement SHOULD be done on a single
      packet basis according to double-marking method Section 7.2.1.  In
      this case the Mean delay calculation (Section 7.1.1) MAY also be
      used as a representative value of a multipoint path.

      One flag with hash-based selection: packet loss measurement MUST
      be done as described in Section 6 by applying the network
      clustering partition described in Section 5.  Hash-based selection
      methodologies, introduced in Section 7.2.2, MUST be used for delay
      measurement.

   Similarly to [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis], there are some operational
   guidelines to consider for the purpose of deciding to follow the
   recommendations above and use one or two flags or one flag with hash-
   based selection.

      The Multipoint 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 can be considered in
      comparison with the option of one flag with hash-based selection.

      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 8.

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

      The Multipoint 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 or hashing
      selection), there is different kind of information that can be
      derived.  For example, to get measurements on a multipoint-paths
      basis, one flag can be used.  While, to get measurements on a
      single-packet basis, two flags are preferred.  For this reason,
      the type of data needed in the specific scenario is an additional
      element to take into account.

      The Multipoint 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 Multipoint Alternate-Marking methodologies
   confirmed the benefits of the Alternate-Marking methodology
   ([I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis]), as its extension to the general case of
   multipoint-to-multipoint scenarios.

   The Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method MUST only be applied to
   controlled domains, as per [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

10.  A Closed-Loop Performance-Management Approach

   The Multipoint Alternate-Marking framework that is introduced in this
   document adds flexibility to Performance Management (PM), because it
   can reduce the order of magnitude of the packet counters.  This
   allows an SDN orchestrator to supervise, control, and manage PM in
   large networks.

   The monitoring network can be considered as a whole or split into
   clusters that are the smallest subnetworks (group-to-group segments),
   maintaining the packet-loss property for each subnetwork.  The
   clusters can also be combined in new, connected subnetworks at
   different levels, depending on the detail we want to achieve.

   An SDN controller or a Network Management System (NMS) can calibrate
   performance measurements, since they are aware of the network
   topology.  They can start without examining in depth.  In case of
   necessity (packet loss is measured, or the delay is too high), the
   filtering criteria could be immediately reconfigured in order to
   perform a partition of the network by using clusters and/or different
   combinations of clusters.  In this way, the problem can be localized
   in a specific cluster or a single combination of clusters, and a more
   detailed analysis can be performed step by step by successive

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

   approximation up to a point-to-point flow detailed analysis.  This is
   the so-called "closed loop".

   This approach can be called "network zooming" and can be performed in
   two different ways:

   1) change the traffic filter and select more detailed flows;

   2) activate new measurement points by defining more specified
   clusters.

   The network-zooming approach implies that some filters or rules are
   changed and that therefore there is a transient time to wait once the
   new network configuration takes effect.  This time can be determined
   by the Network Orchestrator/Controller, based on the network
   conditions.

   For example, if the network zooming identifies the performance
   problem for the traffic coming from a specific source, we need to
   recognize the marked signal from this specific source node and its
   relative path.  For this purpose, we can activate all the available
   measurement points and better specify the flow filter criteria (i.e.,
   5-tuple).  As an alternative, it can be enough to select packets from
   the specific source for delay measurements; in this case, it is
   possible to apply the hashing technique, as mentioned in the previous
   sections.

   [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework] defines an architecture where the
   centralized Data Collector and Network Management can apply the
   intelligent and flexible Alternate-Marking algorithm as previously
   described.

   As for [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis], it is possible to classify the
   traffic and mark a portion of the total traffic.  For each period,
   the packet rate and bandwidth are calculated from the number of
   packets.  In this way, the network orchestrator becomes aware if the
   traffic rate surpasses limits.  In addition, more precision can be
   obtained by reducing the marking period; indeed, some implementations
   use a marking period of 1 sec or less.

   In addition, an SDN controller could also collect the measurement
   history.

   It is important to mention that the Multipoint Alternate-Marking
   framework also helps Traffic Visualization.  Indeed, this methodology
   is very useful for identifying which path or cluster is crossed by
   the flow.

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

11.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies a method of performing measurements that does
   not directly affect Internet security or applications that run on the
   Internet.  However, implementation of this method must be mindful of
   security and privacy concerns, as explained in
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].

12.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

13.  Contributors

   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson
   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com

   Tal Mizrahi
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com

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

14.  Acknowledgements

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

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis]
              Fioccola, G., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., and
              T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", draft-ietf-ippm-
              rfc8321bis-02 (work in progress), June 2022.

   [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>.

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

   [RFC5475]  Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
              Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
              Selection", RFC 5475, DOI 10.17487/RFC5475, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5475>.

   [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/info/rfc5644>.

   [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>.

15.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-route]
              Alvarez-Hamelin, J. I., Morton, A., Fabini, J., Pignataro,
              C., and R. Geib, "Advanced Unidirectional Route Assessment
              (AURA)", draft-ietf-ippm-route-10 (work in progress),
              August 2020.

   [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]
              Song, H., Qin, F., Chen, H., Jin, J., and J. Shin, "A
              Framework for In-situ Flow Information Telemetry", draft-
              song-opsawg-ifit-framework-17 (work in progress), February
              2022.

   [IEEE-ACM-ToN-MPNPM]
              IEEE/ACM TRANSACTION ON NETWORKING, "Multipoint Passive
              Monitoring in Packet Networks",
              DOI 10.1109/TNET.2019.2950157, 2019.

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

   [RFC5474]  Duffield, N., Ed., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A.,
              Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for Packet
              Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474, DOI 10.17487/RFC5474,
              March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5474>.

   [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/info/rfc7011>.

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

   [RFC8889]  Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Sapio, A., and R. Sisto,
              "Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and
              Hybrid Performance Monitoring", RFC 8889,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8889, August 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8889>.

Appendix A.  Example of Monitoring Network and Clusters Partition

   Figure 4 shows a simple example of a monitoring network graph:

                                                    +------+
                                                   <>  R6  <>---
                                                  / +------+
                           +------+     +------+ /
                          <>  R2  <>---<>  R4  <>
                         / +------+ \   +------+ \
                        /            \            \ +------+
              +------+ /   +------+   \ +------+   <>  R7  <>---
          ---<>  R1  <>---<>  R3  <>---<>  R5  <>   +------+
              +------+ \   +------+ \   +------+ \
                        \            \            \ +------+
                         \            \            <>  R8  <>---
                          \            \            +------+
                           \            \
                            \            \ +------+
                             \            <>  R9  <>---
                              \            +------+
                               \
                                \ +------+
                                 <>  R10 <>---
                                  +------+

                    Figure 4: Monitoring Network Graph

   In the monitoring network graph example, it is possible to identify
   the clusters partition by applying this two-step algorithm described
   in Section 5.1.

   The first step identifies the following groups:

   1.  Group 1: (R1-R2), (R1-R3), (R1-R10)

   2.  Group 2: (R2-R4), (R2-R5)

   3.  Group 3: (R3-R5), (R3-R9)

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

   4.  Group 4: (R4-R6), (R4-R7)

   5.  Group 5: (R5-R8)

   And then, the second step builds the clusters partition (in
   particular, we can underline that Groups 2 and 3 connect together,
   since R5 is in common):

   1.  Cluster 1: (R1-R2), (R1-R3), (R1-R10)

   2.  Cluster 2: (R2-R4), (R2-R5), (R3-R5), (R3-R9)

   3.  Cluster 3: (R4-R6), (R4-R7)

   4.  Cluster 4: (R5-R8)

   The flow direction here considered is from left to right.  For the
   opposite direction, the same reasoning can be applied, and in this
   example, you get the same clusters partition.

   In the end, the following 4 clusters are obtained:

          Cluster 1
                           +------+
                          <>  R2  <>---
                         / +------+
                        /
              +------+ /   +------+
          ---<>  R1  <>---<>  R3  <>---
              +------+ \   +------+
                        \
                         \
                          \
                           \
                            \
                             \
                              \
                               \
                                \ +------+
                                 <>  R10 <>---
                                  +------+

          Cluster 2
              +------+     +------+
          ---<>  R2  <>---<>  R4  <>---
              +------+ \   +------+

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

                        \
              +------+   \ +------+
          ---<>  R3  <>---<>  R5  <>---
              +------+ \   +------+
                        \
                         \
                          \
                           \
                            \ +------+
                             <>  R9  <>---
                              +------+

          Cluster 3
                          +------+
                         <>  R6  <>---
                        / +------+
              +------+ /
          ---<>  R4  <>
              +------+ \
                        \ +------+
                         <>  R7  <>---
                          +------+

          Cluster 4
              +------+
          ---<>  R5  <>
              +------+ \
                        \ +------+
                         <>  R8  <>---
                          +------+

                        Figure 5: Clusters Example

   There are clusters with more than two nodes as well as two-node
   clusters.  In the two-node clusters, the loss is on the link (Cluster
   4).  In more-than-two-node clusters, the loss is on the cluster, but
   we cannot know in which link (Cluster 1, 2, or 3).

Appendix B.  Changes Log

   Changes from RFC 8889 in draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-00 include:

   o  Minor editorial changes

   o  Removed section on "Examples of application"

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

   Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-01 include:

   o  Considerations on BUM traffic

   o  Reference to RFC8321bis for the fragmentation part

   o  Revised section on "Delay Measurements on a Single-Packet Basis"

   o  Revised section on "Timing Aspects"

   Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-02 include:

   o  Clarified the formula in the section on "Timing Aspects" to be
      aligned with RFC 8321

   o  Considerations on two-way delay measurements in both sections 8.1
      and 8.2 on delay measurements

   o  Clarified in section 4.1 on "Monitoring Network" that the
      description is done for one direction but it can easily be
      extended to all direction

   o  New section on "Results of the Multipoint Alternate Marking
      Experiment"

   Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-03 include:

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

   o  Renamed old section on "Multipoint Packet Loss" as "Network Packet
      Loss"

   o  New section on "Multipoint Packet Loss Measurement"

   o  Renamed section on "Multipoint Performance Measurement" as
      "Extension of the Method to Multipoint Flows"

   Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-04/draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-00
   include:

   o  Revised section 5.1 on "Algorithm for Clusters Partition"

   Changes in draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-01 include:

   o  New section on "Summary of Changes from RFC 8889"

   Changes in draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02 include:

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

   o  Revised sections on "Single- and Double-Marking Measurement",
      "Hashing Selection Method" and "Synchronization and Timing"

   o  Revised references

   Changes in draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-03 include:

   o  Comments addressed from Last Call review

   o  Renamed section 9 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

   Amedeo Sapio
   Intel Corporation
   4750 Patrick Henry Dr.
   Santa Clara, CA  95054
   USA

   Email: amedeo.sapio@intel.com

   Riccardo Sisto
   Politecnico di Torino
   Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24
   Torino  10129
   Italy

   Email: riccardo.sisto@polito.it

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 28]
Internet-Draft                ClustAltMark                     July 2022

   Tianran Zhou
   Huawei Technologies
   156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com

Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 26, 2023               [Page 29]