A Vocabulary of Path Properties
draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (panrg RG)
Authors Theresa Enghardt  , Cyrill Krähenbühl 
Last updated 2020-03-07
Stream Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PANRG                                                        T. Enghardt
Internet-Draft                                                 TU Berlin
Intended status: Informational                           C. Kraehenbuehl
Expires: September 8, 2020                                   ETH Zuerich
                                                          March 07, 2020

                    A Vocabulary of Path Properties
                  draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-00

Abstract

   Path properties express information about paths across a network and
   the services provided via such paths.  In a path-aware network, path
   properties may be fully or partially available to entities such as
   hosts.  This document defines and categorizes path properties.
   Furthermore, the document specifies several path properties which
   might be useful to hosts or other entities, e.g., for selecting
   between paths or for invoking some of the provided services.

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 September 8, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

   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
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Use Cases for Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Path Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Protocol Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Service Invocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Examples of Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   In the current Internet architecture, hosts generally do not have
   information about forwarding paths through the network and about
   services associated with these paths.  A path-aware network, as
   introduced in [I-D.irtf-panrg-questions], exposes information about
   paths to hosts or to other entities.  This document defines such
   information as path properties, addressing the first of the questions
   in path-aware networking [I-D.irtf-panrg-questions].

   As terms related to paths have different meanings in different areas
   of networking, first, this document provides a common terminology to
   define paths, path elements, and path properties.  Then, this
   document provides some examples for use cases for path properties.
   Finally, the document lists several path properties that may be
   useful for the mentioned use cases.

   Note that this document does not assume that any of the listed path
   properties are actually available to any entity.  The question of how
   entities can discover and distribute path properties in a trustworthy
   way is out of scope for this document.

2.  Terminology

   Node:  An entity which processes packets, e.g., sends, receives,
      forwards, or modifies them.  A node may be physical or virtual,
      e.g., a physical device or a service function provided as a
      virtual element.  A node may also be the collection of multiple

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

      entities which, as a collection, processes packets, e.g., an
      entire Autonomous System (AS).

   Host:  A node that generally executes application programs on behalf
      of user(s), employing network and/or Internet communication
      services in support of this function, as defined in [RFC1122].

   Link:  A medium or communication facility that connects two or more
      nodes with each other.  A link enables a node to send packets to
      other nodes.  Links can be physical, e.g., a Wi-Fi network which
      connects an Access Point to stations, or virtual, e.g., a virtual
      switch which connects two virtual machines hosted on the same
      physical machine.  A link is unidirectional.  As such,
      bidirectional communication can be modeled as two links between
      the same nodes in opposite directions.

   Path element:  Either a node or a link.

   Path:  A sequence of adjacent path elements over which a packet can
      be transmitted, starting and ending with a node.  A path is
      unidirectional.  Paths are time-dependent, i.e., the sequence of
      path elements over which packets are sent from one node to another
      may change.  A path is defined between two nodes.  For multicast
      or broadcast, a packet may be sent by one node and received by
      multiple nodes.  In this case, the packet is sent over multiple
      paths at once, one path for each combination of sending and
      receiving node; these paths do not have to be disjoint.  Note that
      an entity may have only partial visibility of the path elements
      that comprise a path and visibility may change over time.
      Different entities may have different visibility of a path and/or
      treat path elements at different levels of abstraction.  For
      example, a path may be given as a sequence of physical nodes and
      the links connecting these nodes, or it may be given as a sequence
      of logical nodes such as a sequence of ASes or an Explicit Route
      Object (ERO).  Similarly, the representation of a path and its
      properties, as it is known to a specific entity, may be more
      complex and include details about the physical layer technology,
      or it may be more abstract and only consist of a specific source
      and destination which is known to be reachable from that source.

   Reverse Path:  The path that is used by a remote node in the context
      of bidirectional communication.

   Subpath:  Given a path, a subpath is a sequence of adjacent path
      elements of this path.

   Flow:  An entity made of packets to which the traits of a path or set
      of subpaths may be applied in a functional sense.  For example, a

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

      flow can consist of all packets sent within a TCP session with the
      same five-tuple between two hosts, or it can consist of all
      packets sent on the same physical link.

   Property:  A trait of one or a sequence of path elements, or a trait
      of a flow with respect to one or a sequence of path elements.  An
      example of a link property is the maximum data rate that can be
      sent over the link.  An example of a node property is the
      administrative domain that the node belongs to.  An example of a
      property of a flow with respect to a subpath is the aggregated
      one-way delay of the flow being sent from one node to another node
      over this subpath.  A property is thus described by a tuple
      containing the path element(s), the flow or an empty set if no
      packets are relevant for the property, the name of the property
      (e.g., maximum data rate), and the value of the property (e.g.,
      1Gbps).

   Aggregated property:  A collection of multiple values of a property
      into a single value, according to a function.  A property can be
      aggregated over multiple path elements (i.e., a subpath), e.g.,
      the MTU of a path as the minimum MTU of all links on the path,
      over multiple packets (i.e., a flow), e.g., the median one-way
      latency of all packets between two nodes, or over both, e.g., the
      mean of the queueing delays of a flow on all nodes along a path.
      The aggregation function can be numerical, e.g., median, sum,
      minimum, it can be logical, e.g., "true if all are true", "true if
      at least 50\% of values are true", or an arbitrary function which
      maps multiple input values to an output value.

   Observed property:  A property that is observed for a specific path
      element, subpath, or path, e.g., using measurements.  For example,
      the one-way delay of a specific packet transmitted from one node
      to another node can be measured.

   Assessed property:  An approximate calculation or assessment of the
      value of a property.  An assessed property includes the
      reliability of the calculation or assessment.  The notion of
      reliability depends on the property.  For example, a path property
      based on an approximate calculation may describe the expected
      median one-way latency of packets sent on a path within the next
      second, including the confidence level and interval.  A non-
      numerical assessment may instead include the likelihood that the
      property holds.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

3.  Use Cases for Path Properties

   When a path-aware network exposes path properties to hosts or other
   entities, these entities may use this information to achieve
   different goals.  This section lists several use cases for path
   properties.  Note that this is not an exhaustive list, as with every
   new technology and protocol, novel use cases may emerge, and new path
   properties may become relevant.

3.1.  Path Selection

   Entities can choose what traffic to send over which path or subset of
   paths.  A node might be able to select between a set of paths, either
   if there are several paths to the same destination (e.g., in case of
   a mobile device with two wireless interfaces, both providing a path),
   or if there are several destinations, and thus several paths,
   providing the same service (e.g., Application-Layer Traffic
   Optimization (ALTO) [RFC5693], an application layer peer-to-peer
   protocol allowing hosts a better-than-random peer selection).  Care
   needs to be taken when selecting paths based on path properties, as
   path properties that were previously measured may not be helpful in
   predicting current or future path properties and such path selection
   may lead to unintended feedback loops.

   Entities may select their paths to fulfill a specific goal, e.g.,
   related to security or performance.  As an example of security-
   related path selection, an entity may allow or disallow sending
   traffic over paths involving specific networks or nodes to enforce
   traffic policies.  In an enterprise network where all traffic has to
   go through a specific firewall, a path-aware host can implement this
   policy using path selection, in which case the host needs to be aware
   of paths involving that firewall.  As an example of performance-
   related path selection, an entity may prefer paths with performance
   properties that best match its traffic requirements.  For example,
   for sending a small delay sensitive query, a host may select a path
   with a short One-Way Delay, while for retrieving a large file, it may
   select a path with high Link Capacities on all links.  Note, there
   may be trade-offs between path properties (e.g., One-Way Delay and
   Link Capacity), and entities may influence these trade-offs with
   their choices.  As a baseline, a path selection algorithm should aim
   to not perform worse than the default case most of the time.

   Path selection can be done both by hosts and by entities within the
   network: A network (e.g., an AS) can adjust its path selection for
   internal or external routing based on path properties.  In BGP, the
   Multi Exit Discriminator (MED) attribute is used in the decision-
   making process to select which path to choose among those having the
   same AS PATH length and origin [RFC4271]; in a path aware network,

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

   instead of using this single MED value, other properties such as Link
   Capacity or Link Usage could additionally be used to improve load
   balancing or performance [I-D.ietf-idr-performance-routing].

3.2.  Protocol Selection

   When sending traffic over a specific path, an entity may select an
   appropriate protocol or configure protocol parameters depending on
   path properties.  A host may cache state on whether a path allows the
   use of QUIC [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] and if so, first attempt to
   connect using QUIC before falling back to another protocol when
   connecting over this path again.  A video streaming application may
   choose an (initial) video quality based on the achievable data rate
   or the monetary cost of sending data (e.g., volume-base or flat-rate
   cost model).

3.3.  Service Invocation

   Conversely to path or protocol selection, in addition to selecting a
   protocol to use over a specific adjacent path element, an entity may
   choose to invoke additional functions influencing the nodes to be
   involved in the path.  For example, a 0-RTT Transport Converter
   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-converters] will be involved in a path only when
   invoked by a host; such invocation will lead to the use of MPTCP or
   TCPinc capabilities while such use is not supported via the default
   forwarding path.  Another example is a connection which is composed
   of multiple streams where each stream has specific service
   requirements.  A host may decide to invoke a given service function
   (e.g., transcoding) only for some streams while others are not
   processed by that service function.

4.  Examples of Path Properties

   This Section gives some examples of path properties which may be
   useful, e.g., for the use cases described in Section 3.

   Path properties may be relatively dynamic, e.g., the one-way delay of
   a packet sent over a specific path, or non-dynamic, e.g., the MTU of
   an Ethernet link which only changes infrequently.  Usefulness over
   time differs depending on how dynamic a property is: The merit of a
   momentary measurement of a dynamic path property diminishes greatly
   as time goes on, e.g. the merit of an RTT measurement from a few
   seconds ago is quite small, while a non-dynamic path property might
   stay relevant for a longer period of time, e.g. a NAT typically stays
   on a specific path during the lifetime of a connection involving
   packets sent over this path.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

   From the point of view of a host, path properties may relate to path
   elements close to the host, i.e., within the first few hops, or they
   may include path elements far from the host, e.g., list of ASes
   traversed.  The visibility of path properties to a specific entity
   may depend on factors such as the physical or network distance or the
   existence of trust or contractual relationships between the entity
   and the path element(s).

   Furthermore, entities may or may not be able to influence the path
   elements on their path and their path properties.  For example, a
   user might select between multiple potential adjacent links by
   selecting between multiple available Wi-Fi Access Points.  Or when
   connected to an Access Point, the user may move closer to enable
   their device to use a different access technology, potentially
   increasing the data rate available to the device.  Another example is
   a user changing their data plan to reduce the Monetary Cost to
   transmit or receive a given amount of data across a network.

   Access Technology:  The physical or link layer technology used for
      transmitting or receiving a flow on one or multiple path elements.
      If known, the Access Technology may be given as an abstract link
      type, e.g., as Wi-Fi, Wired Ethernet, or Cellular.  It may also be
      given as a specific technology used on a link, e.g., 2G, 3G, 4G,
      or 5G cellular, or 802.11a, b, g, n, or ac Wi-Fi.  Other path
      elements relevant to the access technology may include nodes
      related to processing packets on the physical or link layer, such
      as elements of a cellular backbone network.  Note that there is no
      common registry of possible values for this property.

   Monetary Cost:  The price to be paid to transmit or receive a
      specific flow across a network to which one or multiple path
      elements belong.

   Service function:  A service function that a path element applies to
      a flow, see [RFC7665].  Examples of abstract service functions
      include firewalls, Network Address Translation (NAT), and TCP
      optimizers.  Some stateful service functions, such as NAT, require
      the same instance to be involved in both directions, i.e., on the
      path and the reverse path.

   Transparency:  A node is transparent with respect to a protocol if it
      does not modify headers of this protocol and it processes packets
      independently of protocol-specific meta-information.  An IP router
      could be transparent for transport protocols such as TCP and UDP,
      in contrast to a NAT that actively modifies TCP and UDP header
      information.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

   Administrative Domain:  The administrative domain, e.g., the IGP
      area, AS, or Service provider network to which a path element
      belongs.

   Disjointness:  For a set of two paths or subpaths, the number of
      shared path elements can be a measure of intersection (e.g.,
      Jaccard coefficient, which is the number of shared elements
      divided by the total number of elements).  Conversely, the number
      of non-shared path elements can be a measure of disjointness
      (e.g., 1 - Jaccard coefficient).  A multipath protocol might use
      disjointness as a metric to reduce the number of single points of
      failure.

   Symmetric Path:  Two paths are symmetric if a path and its reverse
      path consist of the same path elements, but in reverse order,
      i.e., the paths have a Jaccard coefficient of one.

   Path MTU:  The maximum size, in octets, of an IP packet that can be
      transmitted without fragmentation.

   Transport Protocols available:  Whether a specific transport protocol
      can be used to establish a connection over a path or subpath,
      e.g., whether the path is QUIC-capable or MPTCP-capable, based on
      cached knowledge.

   Protocol Features available:  Whether a specific protocol feature is
      available over a path or subpath, e.g., Explicit Congestion
      Notification (ECN), or TCP Fast Open.

   Some path properties express the performance of the transmission of a
   packet or flow over a link or subpath.  Such transmission performance
   properties can be measured or approximated, e.g., by hosts or by path
   elements on the path.  They might be made available in an aggregated
   form, such as averages or minimums.  See [ANRW18-Metrics] for a
   discussion of how to measure some transmission performance properties
   at the host.  Properties related to a path element which constitutes
   a single layer 2 domain are abstracted from the used physical and
   link layer technology, similar to [RFC8175].

   Link Capacity:  The link capacity is the maximum data rate at which
      data that was sent over a link can correctly be received at the
      node adjacent to the link.  This property is analogous to the link
      capacity defined in [RFC5136] but not restricted to IP-layer
      traffic.

   Link Usage:  The link usage is the actual data rate at which data
      that was sent over a link is correctly received at the node

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

      adjacent to the link.  This property is analogous to the link
      usage defined in [RFC5136] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic.

   One-Way Delay:  The one-way delay is the delay between a node sending
      a packet and another node on the same path receiving the packet.
      This property is analogous to the one-way delay defined in
      [RFC7679] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic.

   One-Way Delay Variation:  The variation of the one-way delays within
      a flow.  This property is similar to the one-way delay variation
      defined in [RFC3393] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic and
      defined for packets on the same flow instead of packets sent
      between a source and destination IP address.

   One-Way Packet Loss:  Packets sent by a node but not received by
      another node on the same path after a certain time interval are
      considered lost.  This property is analogous to the one-way loss
      defined in [RFC7680] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic.
      Metrics such as loss patterns [RFC3357] and loss episodes
      [RFC6534] can be expressed as aggregated properties.

5.  Security Considerations

   If nodes are basing policy or path selection decisions on path
   properties, they need to rely on the accuracy of path properties that
   other devices communicate to them.  In order to be able to trust such
   path properties, nodes may need to establish a trust relationship or
   be able to verify the authenticity, integrity, and correctness of
   path properties received from another node.

   Security related properties such as confidentiality and integrity
   protection of payloads are difficult to characterize since they are
   only meaningful with respect to a threat model which depends on the
   use case, application, environment, and other factors.  Such
   properties are orthogonal to the path terminology and path properties
   defined in this document, as they are tied to the communicating
   entities and protocols used (e.g., client and server using HTTPS, or
   client and remote network node using VPN) and the path is typically
   oblivious to these properties.  Intuitively, the path describes what
   function the network applies to packets, while confidentiality and
   integrity describe what function the communicating parties apply to
   packets.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

7.  Informative References

   [ANRW18-Metrics]
              Enghardt, T., Tiesel, P., and A. Feldmann, "Metrics for
              access network selection", Proceedings of the Applied
              Networking Research Workshop on - ANRW '18,
              DOI 10.1145/3232755.3232764, 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-performance-routing]
              Xu, X., Hegde, S., Talaulikar, K., Boucadair, M., and C.
              Jacquenet, "Performance-based BGP Routing Mechanism",
              draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-02 (work in progress),
              October 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
              Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
              and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-27 (work
              in progress), February 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-converters]
              Bonaventure, O., Boucadair, M., Gundavelli, S., Seo, S.,
              and B. Hesmans, "0-RTT TCP Convert Protocol", draft-ietf-
              tcpm-converters-18 (work in progress), March 2020.

   [I-D.irtf-panrg-questions]
              Trammell, B., "Current Open Questions in Path Aware
              Networking", draft-irtf-panrg-questions-04 (work in
              progress), December 2019.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

   [RFC3357]  Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, "One-way Loss Pattern Sample
              Metrics", RFC 3357, DOI 10.17487/RFC3357, August 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3357>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

   [RFC5136]  Chimento, P. and J. Ishac, "Defining Network Capacity",
              RFC 5136, DOI 10.17487/RFC5136, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5136>.

   [RFC5693]  Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic
              Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5693, October 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5693>.

   [RFC6534]  Duffield, N., Morton, A., and J. Sommers, "Loss Episode
              Metrics for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 6534,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6534, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6534>.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8175]  Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
              Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to the Path-Aware Networking Research Group for the discussion
   and feedback.  Specifically, thanks to Mohamed Boudacair for the
   detailed review and various text suggestions, thanks to Brian
   Trammell for suggesting the flow definition, and thanks to Adrian
   Perrig and Matthias Rost for the detailed feedback.  Thanks to Paul
   Hoffman for the editorial changes.

Authors' Addresses

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                  March 2020

   Theresa Enghardt
   TU Berlin

   Email: ietf@tenghardt.net

   Cyrill Kraehenbuehl
   ETH Zuerich

   Email: cyrill.kraehenbuehl@inf.ethz.ch

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires September 8, 2020              [Page 12]