IPPM M. Cociglio
Internet-Draft M. Nilo
Intended status: Informational F. Bulgarella
Expires: April 30, 2021 Telecom Italia (TIM)
G. Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
October 27, 2020
User Devices Explicit Monitoring
draft-cnbf-ippm-user-devices-explicit-monitoring-00
Abstract
This document describes a methodology to monitor network performance
exploiting user devices. This can be achieved using the Explicit
Flow Measurement Techniques, protocol independent methods that employ
few marking bits, inside the header of each packet, for loss and
delay measurement. User devices and servers, marking the traffic,
signal these metrics to intermediate network observers allowing them
to measure connection performance, and to locate the network segment
where impairments happen. In addition or in alternative to network
observers, a probe can be installed on the user device with
remarkable benefits in terms of hardware deployment and measurement
scalability.
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 April 30, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Cociglio, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft User Device Probe October 2020
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Explicit Performance Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Explicit Performance Probes on User Devices . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Device Owner Activates Explicit Performance Measurement . . . 3
6. Who Will Handle the Performance Data? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. The Explicit Performance App . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Explicit Performance Monitoring enables a passive observer (a probe)
to measure delay and loss just watching the marking (a few header
bits) of live traffic packets. It works on client-server protocols:
e.g. QUIC [QUIC-TRANSPORT], TCP [TCP]. The different methods are
described in [EXPLICIT-FLOW-MEASUREMENTS].
This document explains how to employ the methods described in
[EXPLICIT-FLOW-MEASUREMENTS] by proposing the user device as a
convenient place for the Explicit Performance Observer.
2. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Cociglio, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft User Device Probe October 2020
3. Explicit Performance Open Issues
There are some open issues to consider for the deployment of
[EXPLICIT-FLOW-MEASUREMENTS]:
- Who decides whether to mark traffic? Explicit measures only work
if both the server and the client mark the production traffic.
- What about scalability? Could network probes monitor all the
connections? If they cannot, which ones to choose?
- Which connections to monitor within the network? Network probes
need an effective way to identify which connections really need to
be monitored.
- How to monitor both traffic directions? Not always possible for
network probes (asymmetric connections).
4. Explicit Performance Probes on User Devices
This document proposes the user device (e.g. mobile phones, PCs) as a
convenient place where to put the Explicit Performance Observer.
The placement of the observer on the user device helps to mitigate
the issues reported in the previous section, in particular:
- The device should decide whether to mark the traffic or not.
- Regarding the scalability issue, on the user device there are few
connections to monitor so it becomes less relevant.
- Connections eligible for monitoring should be the impaired ones.
User devices and network probes can cooperate to achieve this
goal. It is possible to set alarm thresholds on the user device
and to signal to the network probes only the sessions with
impairments. This allows to segment the performance measurements
and to locate the faults. In this way network probes, that could
also be embedded into network nodes, have to monitor a limited
number of connections.
- Monitoring both directions is always possible on the user device.
5. Device Owner Activates Explicit Performance Measurement
The decision whether to activate the marking (e.g. [SPIN-BIT],
[ANRW19-PM-QUIC], [EXPLICIT-FLOW-MEASUREMENTS]) or not should be made
by the device owner by properly configuring the applications (e.g.
Cociglio, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft User Device Probe October 2020
browsers) based on connection-oriented protocols that support
explicit measurements (e.g. QUIC).
All applications should provide the activation or deactivation of
packet marking, for example by providing a user interface or exposing
API.
So, during the client-server handshake, the client will decide
whether the marking is active or not within a session and notify its
decision to the server.
6. Who Will Handle the Performance Data?
Performance data are stored only on the user device or also sent to
"external bodies" according to the will of the device owner.
The main recipient would be the Internet Service Provider. Indeed,
as explained in the previous section, this enables user device and
network probes coordination that permits an improved performance
measurement approach.
Moreover these data could also be of interest for the national
regulatory authorities or others authorized subjects.
7. The Explicit Performance App
This methodology could be implemented with an "Explicit Performance
App" installed on the user device.
The App should perform the following tasks:
- collect user preferences;
- activate/deactivate marking on device Apps (e.g. browsers);
- implement the observer;
- show performances to the user;
- send data to the "Explicit Performance Management Center";
- set performance thresholds.
8. Security Considerations
TBD
Cociglio, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft User Device Probe October 2020
9. Privacy Considerations
TBD
10. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
11. Change Log
TBD
12. Contributors
TBD
13. Acknowledgements
TBD
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
14.2. Informative References
[ANRW19-PM-QUIC]
Bulgarella, F., Cociglio, M., Fioccola, G., Marchetto, G.,
and R. Sisto, "Performance measurements of QUIC
communications", Proceedings of the Applied Networking
Research Workshop, DOI 10.1145/3340301.3341127, July 2019.
[EXPLICIT-FLOW-MEASUREMENTS]
Cociglio, M., Fioccola, G., Nilo, M., Bulgarella, F., and
R. Sisto, "Client-Server Explicit Performance
Measurements", draft-cfb-ippm-spinbit-measurements-02
(work in progress), July 2020.
Cociglio, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft User Device Probe October 2020
[QUIC-TRANSPORT]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-32 (work
in progress), October 2020.
[SPIN-BIT]
Trammell, B., Vaere, P., Even, R., Fioccola, G., Fossati,
T., Ihlar, M., Morton, A., and S. Emile, "Adding Explicit
Passive Measurability of Two-Way Latency to the QUIC
Transport Protocol", draft-trammell-quic-spin-03 (work in
progress), May 2018.
Authors' Addresses
Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia (TIM)
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
EMail: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
Massimo Nilo
Telecom Italia (TIM)
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
EMail: massimo.nilo@telecomitalia.it
Fabio Bulgarella
Telecom Italia (TIM)
Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148
Italy
EMail: fabio.bulgarella@guest.telecomitalia.it
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei Technologies
Riesstrasse, 25
Munich 80992
Germany
EMail: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Cociglio, et al. Expires April 30, 2021 [Page 6]