ippm                                                        R. Geib, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                          Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: Standards Track                       December 23, 2020
Expires: June 26, 2021

               A Connectivity Monitoring Metric for IPPM


   Within a Segment Routing domain, segment routed measurement packets
   can be sent along pre-determined paths.  This enables new kinds of
   measurements.  Connectivity monitoring allows to supervise the state
   and performance of a connection or a (sub)path from one or a few
   central monitoring systems.  This document specifies a suitable
   type-P connectivity monitoring metric.

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 June 26, 2021.

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
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  A brief segment routing connectivity monitoring framework . .   4
   3.  Network topology requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Singleton Definition for Type-P-SR-Path-Connectivity-and-
       Congestion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Metric Units  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.5.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.6.  Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.7.  Errors and Uncertainties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.8.  Reporting the Metric  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Singleton Definition for Type-P-SR-Path-Round-Trip-Delay-
       Estimate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   Within a Segment Routing domain, measurement packets can be sent
   along pre-determined segment routed paths [RFC8402].  A segment
   routed path may consist of pre-determined sub paths, specific router-
   interfaces or a combination of both.  A measurement path may also
   consist of sub paths spanning multiple routers, given that all
   segments to address a desired path are available and known at the SR
   domain edge interface.

   A Path Monitoring System or PMS (see [RFC8403]) is a dedicated
   central Segment Routing (SR) domain monitoring device (as compared to
   a distributed monitoring approach based on router-data and -functions
   only).  Monitoring individual sub-paths or point-to-point connections
   is executed for different purposes.  IGP exchanges hello messages
   between neighbors to keep alive routing and swiftly adapt routing to
   topology changes.  Network Operators may be interested in monitoring
   connectivity and congestion of interfaces or sub-paths at a timescale
   of seconds, minutes or hours.  In both cases, the periodicity is
   significantly smaller than commodity interface monitoring based on

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   router counters, which may be collected on a minute timescale to keep
   the processor- or monitoring data-load low.

   The IPPM architecture was a first step to that direction [RFC2330].
   Commodity IPPM solutions require dedicated measurement systems, a
   large number of measurement agents and synchronised clocks.
   Monitoring a domain from edge to edge by commodity IPPM solutions
   increases scalability of the monitoring system.  But localising the
   site of a detected change in network behaviour may then require
   network tomography methods.

   The IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity offer generic
   connectivity metrics [RFC2678].  These metrics allow to measure
   connectivity between end nodes without making any assumption on the
   paths between them.  The metric and the type-p packet specified by
   this document follow a different approach: they are designed to
   monitor connectivity and performance of a specific single link or a
   path segment.  The underlying definition of connectivity is partially
   the same: a packet not reaching a destination indicates a loss of
   connectivity.  An IGP re-route may indicate a loss of a link, while
   it might not cause loss of connectivity between end systems.  The
   metric specified here detects a link-loss, if the change in end-to-
   end delay along a new route is differing from that of the original

   A Segment Routing PMS is part of an SR domain.  The PMS is IGP
   topology aware, covering the IP and (if present) the MPLS layer
   topology [RFC8402].  This allows to steer PMS measurement packets
   along arbitrary pre-determined concatenated sub-paths, identified by
   suitable Segment IDs.  Basically, the SR connectivity metric as
   specified by this document requires set up of a number of
   constrained, overlaid measurement loops (or measurement paths).  The
   delay of the packets sent along each of these measurement loops is
   measured.  A single congested interface or a single loss of
   connectivity of a monitored sub-path cause a delay change on several
   measurement paths.  Any single evnet of that type on one of the
   monitored sub-paths changes delays of a unique subset of measurement
   loops.  The number of measurement loops may be limited to one per
   sub-path (or connection) to be monitored, if a hub-and-spoke like
   sub-path topology as described below is monitored.  In addition to
   information revealed by a commodity ICMP ping measurement, the
   metrics and methods specified here identify the location of a
   congested interface.  To do so, tomography assumptions and methods
   are combined to first plan the overlaid SR measurement loop set up
   and later on to evaluate the captured delay measurements.

   There's another difference as compared with commodity ping: the
   measurement loop packets remain in the data plane of passed routers.

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   These need to forward the measurement packets without additional
   processing apart from that.

   It is recommended to consider automated measurement loop set-ups.
   The methods proposed here are error-prone if the topology and
   measurement loop design isn't followed properly.  While details of an
   automated set-up are not within scope of this document, some formal
   defintions of constraints to respected are given.

   This document specifies a type-p metric determining properties of an
   SR path which allows to monitor connectivity and congestion of
   interfaces and further allows to locate the path or interface which
   caused a change in the reported type-p metric.  This document is
   limited on the MPLS layer, but the methodology may be applied within
   SR domains or MPLS domains in general.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  A brief segment routing connectivity monitoring framework

   The Segment Routing IGP topology information consists of the IP and
   (if present) the MPLS layer topology.  The minimum SR topology
   information consists of Node-Segment-Identifiers (Node-SID),
   identifying an SR router.  The IGP exchange of Adjacency-SIDs
   [RFC8667], which identify local interfaces to adjacent nodes, is
   optional.  It is RECOMMENDED to distribute Adj-SIDs in a domain
   operating a PMS to monitor connectivity as specified below.  If Adj-
   SIDs aren't availbale, [RFC8029] provides methods how to steer
   packets along desired paths by the proper choice of an MPLS Echo-
   request IP-destination address.  A detailed description of [RFC8029]
   methods as a replacement of Adj-SIDs is out of scope of this

   An active round trip measurement between two adjacent nodes is a
   simple method to monitor connectivity of a connecting link.  If
   multiple links are operational between two adjacent nodes and only a
   single one fails, a single plain round trip measurement may fail to
   notice that or identify which link has failed.  A round trip
   measurement also fails to identify which interface is congested, even
   if only a single link connects two adjacent nodes.

   Segment Routing enables the set-up of extended measurement loops.
   Several different measurement loops can be set up to form a partial
   overlay.  If done properly, any network change impacts more than a

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   single measurement loop's round trip delay (or causes drops of
   packets of more than one loop).  Randomly chosen measurement loop
   paths including the interfaces or paths to be monitored may fail to
   produce the desired unique result patterns, hence commodity network
   tomography methods aren't applicable here [CommodityTomography].  The
   approach pursued here uses a pre-specified measurement loop overlay

   A centralised monitoring approach doesn't require report collection
   and result correlation from two (or more) receivers (the measured
   delays of different measurement loops still need to be correlated).

   An additional property of the measurement path set-up specified below
   is that it allows to estimate the packet round trip and the one way
   delay of a monitored sub-path.  The delay along a single link is not
   perfectly symmetric.  Packet processing causes small delay
   differences per interface and direction.  These cause an error, which
   can't be quantified or removed by the specified method.  Quantifying
   this error requires a different measurement set-up.  As this will
   introduce additional measurements loops, packets and evaluations, the
   cost in terms of reduced scalability is not felt to be worth the
   benefit in measurement accuracy.  IPPM metrics prefer precision to
   accuracy and the mentioned processing differences are relatively
   stable, resulting in relatively precise delay estimates for each
   monitored sub-path.

   An example hub and spoke network, operated as SR domain, is shown
   below.  The included PMS shown is supposed to monitor the
   connectivity of all 6 links (a very generic kind of sub-path)
   attaching the spoke-nodes L050, L060 and L070 to the hub-nodes L100
   and L200.

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

      +---+   +----+     +----+
      |PMS|   |L100|-----|L050|
      +---+   +----+\   /+----+
        |    /    \  \_/_____
        |   /      \  /      \+----+
     +----+/        \/_  +----|L060|
     |L300|         /  |/     +----+
     +----+\       /   /\_
            \     /   /   \
             \+----+ /   +----+
              +----+     +----+

   Hub and spoke connectivity verification with a PMS

                                 Figure 1

   The SID values are picked for convenient reading only.  Node-SID: 100
   identifies L100, Node-SID: 300 identifies L300 and so on.  Adj-SID
   10050: Adjacency L100 to L050, Adj-SID 10060: Adjacency L100 to L060,
   Adj-SID 60200: Adjacency L60 to L200 and so on (note that the Adj-SID
   are locally assigned per node interface, meaning two per link).

   Monitoring the 6 links between hub nodes Ln00 (where n=1,2) and spoke
   nodes L0m0 (where m=5,6,7) requires 6 measurement loops, which have
   the following properties:

   o  Each measurement loop follows a single round trip from one hub
      Ln00 to one spoke L0m0 (e.g., between L100 and L050).

   o  Each measurement loop passes two more links: one between the same
      hub Ln00 and another spoke L0m0 and from there to the alternate
      hub Ln00 (e.g., between L100 and L060 and then from L060 to L200)

   o  Every monitored link is passed by a single round trip measurement
      loop only once and further only once unidirectional by two other
      loops.  These unidirectional mearurement loop sections forward
      packets in opposing direction along the monitored link.  In the
      end, three measurement loops pass each single monitored link (sub-
      path).  In figure 1, e.g., one measurement loop having a round
      trip L100 to L050 and back (M1, see below), a second loop passing
      L100 to L050 only (M3) and a third loop passing L050 to L100 only

   Note that any 6 links connecting two to five nodes can be monitored
   that way too.  Further note that the measurement loop overlay chosen
   is optimised for 6 links and a hub and spoke topology of two to five

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   nodes.  The 'one measurement loop per measured sub-path' paradigm
   only works under these conditions.

   The above overlay scheme results in 6 measurement loops for the given
   example.  The start and end of each measurement loop is PMS to L300
   to L100 or L200 and a similar sub-path on the return leg.  These
   parts of the measurement loops are omitted here for brevity (some
   discussion may befound below).  The following delays are measured
   along the SR paths of each measurement loop:

   1.  M1 is the delay along L100 -> L050 -> L100 -> L060 -> L200

   2.  M2 is the delay along L100 -> L060 -> L100 -> L070 -> L200

   3.  M3 is the delay along L100 -> L070 -> L100 -> L050 -> L200

   4.  M4 is the delay along L200 -> L050 -> L200 -> L060 -> L100

   5.  M5 is the delay along L200 -> L060 -> L200 -> L070 -> L100

   6.  M6 is the delay along L200 -> L070 -> L200 -> L050 -> L100

   An example for a stack of a loop consisting of Node-SID segments
   allowing to caprture M1 is (top to bottom): 100 | 050 | 100 | 060 |
   200 | PMS.

   An example for a stack of Adj-SID segments the loop resulting in M1
   is (top to bottom): 100 | 10050 | 50100 | 10060 | 60200 | PMS.  As
   can be seen, the Node-SIDs 100 and PMS are present at top and bottom
   of the segment stack.  Their purpose is to transport the packet from
   the PMS to the start of the measurement loop at L100 and return it to
   the PMS from its end.

   The Evaluation of the measurement loop Round Trip Delays M1 - M6
   allow to detect the follwing state-changes of the monitored sub-

   o  If the loops are set up using Node-SIDs only, any single complete
      loss of connectivity caused by a failing single link between any
      Ln00 and any L0m0 node briefly disturbs (and changes the measured
      delay) of three loops.  The traffic to the Node-SIDs is rerouted
      (in the case of a single links loss, no node is completely
      disconnected in the example network).

   o  If the loops are set up using Adj-SIDs only, any single complete
      loss of connectivity caused by a failing single link between any
      Ln00 and any L0m0 node terminates the traffic along three
      measurement loops.  The packets of all three loops will be

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

      dropped, until the link gets back into service.  Traffic to Adj-
      SIDs is not rerouted.  Note that Node-SIDs may be used to foward
      the measurement packets from the PMS to the hub node, where the
      first sub-path to be monitored begins and from the hub node,
      receiving the measurement from the last monitored sub path, to the

   o  Any congested single interface between any Ln00 and any L0m0 node
      only impacts the measured delay of two measurement loops.

   o  As an example, the formula for a single link (sub-path) Round Trip
      Delay (RTD) is shown here 4 * RTD_L100-L050-L100 = 3 * M1 + M3 +
      M6 - M2 - M4 - M5.  This formula is reproducible for all other
      links: sum up 3*RTD measured along the loop passing the monitored
      link of interest in round trip fashion, and add the RTDs of the
      two measurement loops passing the link of interest only in a
      single direction.  From this sum subtract the RTD measured on all
      loops not passing the monitored link of interest to get four times
      the RTD of the monitored link of interest.

   A closer look reveals that each single event of interest for the
   proposed metric, which are a loss of connectivity or a case of
   congestion, uniquely only impacts a single set of measurement loops
   which can be determined a-priori.  If, e.g., connectivity is lost
   between L200 and L050, measurement loops (3), (4) and (6) indicate a
   change in the measured delay.

   As a second example: if the interface L070 to L100 is congested,
   measurement loops (3) and (5) indicate a change in the measured
   delay.  Without listing all events, all cases of single losses of
   connectivity or single events of congestion influence only delay
   measurements of a unique set of measurement loops.

   Assume that the measurement loops are set up while there's no
   congestion.  In that case, the congestion free RTDs of all monitored
   links can be calculated as shown above.  A single congestion event
   adds queuing delay to the RTD measured by two specific measurement
   loops.  The two measurement loops impacted allow to distinct the
   congested interface and calculation of the queue-depth in terms of
   seconds.  As an example, assume a queue of an average depth of 20 ms
   to build up at interface L200 to L070 after the uncongested
   measurement interval T0.  The measurement loops M5 and M6 are the
   only ones passing the interface in that direction.  Both indicate a
   congestion M5 and M6 of + 20 ms during measurement interval T1, while
   M1-4 indicate no change.  The location of the congested interface is
   determined by the combination of the two (and only two) measurement
   loops M5 and M6 showing an increased delay.  The average queue depth
   = ( M5[T1] - M5[T0] + M5[T1] - M5[T0] )/2.

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   As mentioned there's a constant delay added for each measurement
   loop, which is the delay of the path transversed from PMS -> L100 +
   L200 -> PMS.  Please note, that this added delay is appearing twice
   in the formula resulting in the monitored link delay estimate of the
   example network.  Then it is the RTD PMS -> L100 + RTD L200 -> PMS.
   Both RTDs can be directly measured by two additional measurements
   Cor1 = RTD ( PMS -> L100 -> PMS) and Cor2 = RTD (PMS -> L200 -> PMS).
   The monitored link RTD formula was linkRTDuncor = 3*Mx + My + Mz - Ms
   - Mt - Mu.  The correct 4*linkRTDx = 4*linkRTDxuncor - Cor1 - Cor2.

   If the interface between PMS and L100/L200 is congested, all
   measurements loops M1-M6 as well as Cor1 and Cor2 will see a change.
   A congested interface of a monitored link doesn't impact the RTDs
   captured by Cor1 and Cor2.

   The measurement loops may also be set up between hub nodes L100 and
   L200, if that's preferred and supported by the nodes.  In that case,
   the above formulas apply without correction.

3.  Network topology requirements

   The metric and methods specified below can be applied in networks
   with a hub and spoke topology.  A single network change of type loss
   of connectivity or congestion can be detected.  The nodes don't have
   to be hubs or spokes, this is just a topology requirement.  In
   detail, the topology MUST meet the following constraints:

   o  The SR domain sub-paths to be monitored create a hub and spoke
      topology with a PMS connected to all hub nodes.  The PMS may
      reside in a hub.

   o  Exactly 6 (six) sub-paths are monitored.

   o  The monitored sub-paths connect at least two and no more than 5

   o  Every spoke node MUST have at least one path to every hub node.

   o  Every spoke node MUST at least be connected to one (or more) hub
      node(s) by two monitored sub-paths.

   o  Sub-paths between spokes can't be monitored and therefore are out
      of scope (the overlay measurement loops can't be set up as

   Shared resources, like a Shared Risk Link Group (e.g., a single fiber
   bundle) or a shared queue passed by several logical links need to be
   considered during set up.  Shared resources may either be desired or

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   to be avoided.  As an example, if a set of logical links share one
   parental scheduler queue, it is sufficient to monitor a single
   logical connection to monitor the state of that parental scheduler.

4.  Singleton Definition for Type-P-SR-Path-Connectivity-and-Congestion

4.1.  Metric Name


4.2.  Metric Parameters

   o  Src, the IP address of a source host

   o  Dst, the IP address of a destination host if IP routing is
      applicable; in the case of MPLS routing, a diagnostic address as
      specified by [RFC8029]

   o  T, a time

   o  L, a packet length in bits.  The packets of a Type P packet stream
      from which the sample Path-Connectivity-and-Congestion metric is
      taken MUST all be of the same length.

   o  MLA, a stack of Segment IDs determining a Monitoring Loop.  The
      Segment-IDs MUST be chosen so that a singleton type-p packet
      passes one single monitored sub-path_a bidirectional, one
      monitored sub-path_b unidirectional and one monitored sub-path_c
      unidirectional, where sub-path_a, -_b and -_c MUST NOT be
      identical and MUST NOT share properties to be monitored.

   o  P, the specification of the packet type, over and above the source
      and destination addresses

   o  DS, a constant time interval between two type-P packets in unit

4.3.  Metric Units

   A sequence of consecutive time values.

4.4.  Definition

   A moving average of AV time values per measurement path is compared
   by a change point detection algorithm.  The temporal packet spacing
   value DS represents the smallest period within which a change in
   connectivity or congestion may be detected.

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   A single loss of connectivity of a sub-path between two nodes affects
   three different measurement paths.  Depending on the value chosen for
   DS, packet loss might occur (note that the moving average evaluation
   needs to span a longer period than convergence time; alternatively,
   packet-loss visible along the three measurement paths may serve as an
   evaluation criterium).  After routing convergence the type-p packets
   along the three measurement paths show a change in delay.

   A congestion of a single interface of a sub-path connecting two nodes
   affects two different measurement paths.  The the type-p packets
   along the two congested measurement paths show an additional change
   in delay.

4.5.  Discussion

   Detection of a multiple losses of monitored sub-path connectivity or
   congestion of a multiple monitored sub-paths may be possible.  These
   cases have not been investigated, but may occur in the case of Shared
   Risk Link Groups.  Monitoring Shared Risk LinkGroups and sub-paths
   with multiple failures abd congestion is not within scope of this

4.6.  Methodologies

   For the given type-p, the methodology is as follows:

   o  The set of measurement paths MUST be routed in a way that each
      single loss of connectivity and each case of single interface
      congestion of one of the sub-paths passed by a type-p packet
      creates a unique pattern of type-p packets belonging to a subset
      of all configured measurement paths indicate a change in the
      measured delay.  As a minimum, each sub-path to be monitored MUST
      be passed


      *  by one measurement_path_1 and its type-p packet in
         bidirectional direction

      *  by one measurement_path_2 and its type-p packet in "downlink"

      *  by one measurement_path_3 and its type-p packet in "uplink"

   o  "Uplink" and "Downlink" have no architectural relevance.  The
      terms are chosen to express, that the packets of
      measurement_path_2 and measuremnt_path_3 pass the monitored sub-

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

      path unidirectional in opposing direction.  Measuremnt_path_1,
      measurement_path_2 and measurement_path_3 MUST NOT be identical.

   o  All measurement paths SHOULD terminate between identical sender
      and receiver interfaces.  It is recommended to connect the sender
      and receiver as closely to the paths to be monitored as possible.
      Each intermediate sub-path between sender and receiver one one
      hand and sub-paths to be monitored is an additional source of
      errors requiring separate monitoring.

   o  Segment Routed domains supporting Node- and Adj-SIDs should enable
      the monitoring path set-up as specified.  Other routing protocols
      may be used as well, but the monitoring path set up might be
      complex or impossible.

   o  Pre-compute how the two and three measurement path delay changes
      correlate to sub-path connectivity and congestion patterns.
      Absolute change valaues aren't required, a simultaneous change of
      two or three particular measurement paths is.

   o  Ensure that the temporal resolution of the measurement clock
      allows to reliably capture a unique delay value for each
      configured measurement path while sub-path connectivity is
      complete and no congestion is present.

   o  Synchronised clocks are not strictly required, as the metric is
      evaluating differences in delay.  Changes in clock synchronisation
      SHOULD NOT be close to the time interval within which changes in
      connectivity or congestion should be monitored.

   o  At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and address
      information to route the type-p packet along one of the configured
      measurement path.  Form a test packet of Type-P with these

   o  Configure the Dst host access to receive the packet.

   o  At the Src host, place a timestamp, a sequence number and a unique
      identifier of the measurement path in the prepared Type-P packet,
      and send it towards Dst.

   o  Capture the one-way delay and determine packet-loss by the metrics
      specified by [RFC7679] and [RFC7680] respectively and store the
      result for the path.

   o  If two or three subpaths indicate a change in delay, report a
      change in connectivity or congestion status as pre-computed above.

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   o  If two or three sub paths indicate a change in delay, report a
      change in connectivity or congestion status as pre-computed above.

   Note that monitoring 6 sub paths requires setting up 6 monitoring
   paths as shown in the figure above.

4.7.  Errors and Uncertainties

   Sources of error are:

   o  Measurement paths whose delays don't indicate a change after sub-
      path connectivity changed.

   o  A timestamps whose resolution is missing or inacurrate at the
      delays measured for the different monitoring paths.

   o  Multiple occurrences of sub path connectivity and congestion.

   o  Loss of connectivity and congestion along sub-paths connecting the
      measurement device(s) with the sub-paths to be monitored.

4.8.  Reporting the Metric

   The metric reports loss of connectivity of monitored sub-path or
   congestion of an interface and identifies the sub-path and the
   direction of traffic in the case of congestion.

   The temporal resolution of the detected events depends on the spacing
   interval of packets transmitted per measurement path.  An identical
   sending interval is chosen for every measurement path.  As a rule of
   thumb, an event is reliably detected if a sample consists of at least
   5 probes indicating the same underlying change in behavior.
   Depending on the underlying event either two or three measurement
   paths are impacted.  At least two consecutively received measurement
   packets per measurement path should suffice to indicate a change.
   The values chosen for an operational network will have to reflect
   scalability constraints of a PMS measurement interface.  As an
   example, a PMS may work reliable if no more than one measurement
   packet is transmitted per millisecond.  Further, measurement is
   configured so that the measurement packets return to the sender
   interface.  Assume always groups of 6 links to be monitored as
   described above by 6 measurements paths.  If one packet is sent per
   measurement path within 500 ms, up to 498 links can be monitored with
   a reliable temporal resolution of roughly one second per detected

   Note that per group measurement packet spacing, measurement loop
   delay difference and latency caused by congestion impact the

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   reporting interval.  If each measurement path of a single 6 link
   monitoring group is addressed in consecutive milliseconds (within the
   500 ms interval) and the sum of maximum physical delay of the per
   group measurement paths and latency possibly added by congestion is
   below 490 ms, the one second reports reliably capture 4 packets of
   two different measurement paths, if two measurement paths are
   congested, or 6 packets of three different measurement paths, if a
   link is lost.

   A variety of reporting options exist, if scalability issues and
   network properties are respected.

5.  Singleton Definition for Type-P-SR-Path-Round-Trip-Delay-Estimate

   This section will be added in a later version, if there's interest in
   picking up this work.

6.  IANA Considerations

   If standardised, the metric will require an entry in the IPPM metric

7.  Security Considerations

   This draft specifies how to use methods specified or described within
   [RFC8402] and [RFC8403].  It does not introduce new or additional SR
   features.  The security considerations of both references apply here

8.  References

8.1.  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,

   [RFC2678]  Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
              Connectivity", RFC 2678, DOI 10.17487/RFC2678, September
              1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2678>.

   [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>.

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   [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>.

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

   [RFC8667]  Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
              Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
              Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,

8.2.  Informative References

              Lakhina, A., Papagiannaki, K., Crovella, M., Diot, C.,
              Kolaczyk, ED., and N. Taft, "Structural analysis of
              network traffic flows", 2004,

   [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
              "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,

   [RFC8403]  Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N.
              Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane
              Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>.

Author's Address

Geib                      Expires June 26, 2021                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title              December 2020

   Ruediger Geib (editor)
   Deutsche Telekom
   Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7
   Darmstadt  64295

   Phone: +49 6151 5812747
   Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de