Network Working Group E. Stephan
Internet-Draft France Telecom
Intended status: Informational L. Liang
Expires: January 7, 2008 University of Surrey
A. Morton
AT&T Labs
July 6, 2007
IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) for spatial and multicast
draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-04
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group has standardized
metrics for measuring end-to-end performance between 2 points. This
memo defines 2 sets of metrics to extend these end-to-end ones. It
defines spatial metrics for measuring the performance of segments
along a path and metrics for measuring the performance of a group of
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
users in multiparty communications.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Path Digest Hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Multiparty metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Spatial metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. One-to-group metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Points of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Reference point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.7. Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.8. Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Motivations for spatial metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Motivations for One-to-group metrics . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Discussion on Group-to-one and Group-to-group metrics . . 11
4. Spatial vectors metrics definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. A Definition for Spatial One-way Delay Vector . . . . . . 12
4.2. A Definition for Spatial One-way Packet Loss Vector . . . 13
4.3. A Definition for Spatial One-way Ipdv Vector . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Spatial Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Spatial Segments metrics definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. A Definition of a sample of One-way Delay of a segment
of the path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. A Definition of a sample of Packet Loss of a segment
of the path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3. A Definition of a sample of One-way Ipdv of a segment
of the path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4. Discussion on Passive Segment Metrics . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. One-to-group metrics definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Delay . . . . . . . 27
6.2. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Packet Loss . . . . 28
6.3. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Ipdv . . . . . . . . 28
7. One-to-Group Sample Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.1. Discussion on the Impact of packet loss on statistics . . 32
7.2. General Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.3. One-to-Group one-way Delay Statistics . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.4. One-to-Group one-way Loss Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.5. One-to-Group one-way Delay Variation Statistics . . . . . 39
8. Measurement Methods: Scaleability and Reporting . . . . . . . 39
8.1. Computation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.2. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.3. Effect of Time and Space Aggregation Order on Stats . . . 41
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
9.1. Reporting spatial metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
9.2. Reporting One-to-group metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9.3. Metric identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9.4. Reporting data model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10. Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
11.1. Spatial metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
11.2. one-to-group metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 58
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
1. Introduction
The IPPM WG defined a framework for metric definitions and end-to-end
measurements:
o A general framework for defining performance metrics, described in
the Framework for IP Performance Metrics [RFC2330];
o A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Requirements [RFC3763];
o A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656];
o An IP Performance Metrics Registry [RFC4148];
It specified a set of end-to-end metrics, which conform to this
framework:
o The IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity [RFC2678];
o The One-way Delay Metric for IPPM [RFC2679];
o The One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM [RFC2680];
o The Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM [RFC2681];
o A Framework for Defining Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics
[RFC3148];
o One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics [RFC3357];
o IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IPPM [RFC3393];
o Network performance measurement for periodic streams [RFC3432];
o Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM [RFC4737];
This memo defines spatial and one-to-group metrics based on the
framework and on the end-to-end metrics defined in these documents.
Firstly it defines spatial metrics:
o A 'vector', called Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector, will be
introduced to divide an end-to-end Type-P-One-way-Delay [RFC2679]
in a spatial sequence of one-way delays.
o A 'vector', called Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector, will
be introduced to divide an end-to-end Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss
[RFC2680] in a spatial sequence of packet loss.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o Using the Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector metric, a 'vector',
called Type-P-Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector, will be introduced to
divide an end-to-end Type-P-One-way-ipdv in a spatial sequence of
ipdv.
o Using the Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector metric, a 'sample',
called Type-P-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream, will be introduced to
define a set of one-way delays between a pair of host of the path;
o Using the Type-P-Spatial-Packet-Loss-Vector metric, a 'sample',
called Type-P-Segment-Packet-Loss-Stream, will be introduced to
define a set of packet losses between a pair of host of the path;
o Using the Type-P-Spatial-ipdv-Vector metric, a 'sample', called
Type-P-Segment-ipdv-Stream, will be introduced to define a set of
ipdvs between a pair of host of the path;
Then it defines one-to-group metrics.
o Using one test packet sent from one sender to a group of
receivers, a 'sample', called Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-
Vector, will be introduced to define the list of Type-P-one-way-
delay [RFC2679] between this sender and the group of receivers.
o Using one test packet sent from one sender to a group of
receivers, a 'sample', called Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Packet-
Loss-Vector, will be introduced to define the list of Type-P-One-
way-Packet-Loss [RFC2680] between this sender and the group of
receivers
o Using one test packet sent from one sender to a group of
receivers, a 'sample', called Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-ipdv-
Vector, will be introduced to define the list of Type-P-One-way-
ipdv between this sender and the group of receivers
o Then a discussion section presents the set of statistics that may
be computed using these metrics to present the network performance
in the view of a group of users. The statistics may be the basis
for requirements (e.g. fairness) on multiparty communications. .
Reporting of metrics is defined in the section "Manageability
Consideration".
2. Terminology
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
2.1. Path Digest Hosts
The list of the hosts of a path from a source to a destination.
2.2. Multiparty metric
A metric is said to be multiparty if the topology involves more than
one source or destination in the measurements. All multiparty
metrics define a set of hosts called "points of interest", where one
host is the source and other hosts are the measurement collection
points. For example, if the set of points of interest is < ha, hb,
hc, ..., hn >, where ha is the source and < hb, hc, ..., hn > are the
destinations, then measurements may be conducted between < ha, hb>, <
ha, hc>, ..., <ha, hn >.
For the purposes of this memo (reflecting the scope of a single
source), the only multiparty metrics are one-to-group metrics.
2.3. Spatial metric
A metric is said to be spatial if one of the hosts involved is
neither the source nor the destination of the measured packet.
2.4. One-to-group metric
A metric is said to be one-to-group if the measured packet is sent by
one source and (potentially) received by several destinations. Thus,
the topology of the communication group can be viewed as a centre-
distributed or server-client topology with the source as the centre/
server in the topology.
2.5. Points of interest
Points of interest are the set of hosts* (as per RFC2330 definition,
that is including nodes) of the set of hosts involved in the delivery
of the packets (in addition to the source itself). Note that the set
of the points of interest are (a possibly arbitrary) subset of all
the hosts involved in the path. Points of interest of One-to-group
metrics are the hosts receiving packets from the source (in addition
to the source itself).
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
Src Recv
`. ,-.
`. ,' `...... 1
`. ; :
`. ; :
; :... 2
| |
: ;
: ;.... 3
: ;
`. ,'
`-'....... N
Figure 1: One-to-group points of interest
A points of interest of spatial metrics is a host of the set of hosts
involved in the delivery of the packets from the source.
Src ------. Hosts
\
`---X ... 1
\
x
/
.---------X .... 2
/
x
\
`---X .... 3
\
\
\
X .... N
\
\
\
`---- Dst
Note: 'x' are nodes which are not points of interest
Figure 2: Spatial points of interest
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
2.6. Reference point
The centre/server in the multimetrics measurement that is controlled
by network operators can be a very good reference point where
measurement data can be collected for further processing although the
actual measurements have to be carried out at all points of interest.
Thus, we can define the reference point as the server where the
statistic calculation will be carried out.
2.7. Vector
A Vector is a set of singletons, which are a set of results of the
observation of the behaviour of the same packet at different places
of a network at different time. For instance, if One-way delay
singletons observed at N receivers for Packet P sent by the source
Src are dT1, dT2,..., dTN, it can be say that a vector V with N
elements can be organized as {dT1, dT2,..., dTN}. The elements in
one vector are singletons distinct with each other in terms of both
measurement point and time. Given the vector V as an example, the
element dT1 is distinct from the rest by measured at receiver 1 at
time T1. Additional to a singleton, Vector gives information over a
space dimension.
2.8. Matrix
Several vectors can form up a Matrix, which contains results observed
in a sampling interval at different place of a network at different
time. For instance, given One-way delay vectors V1={dT11, dT12,...,
dT1N}, V2={dT21, dT22,..., dT2N},..., Vm={dTm1, dTm2,..., dTmN} for
Packet P1, P2,...,Pm, we can have a One-way delay Matrix {V1,
V2,...,Vm}. Additional to the information given by a Vector, a
Matrix is more powerful to present network performance in both space
and time dimensions. It normally corresponds to a sample.
The relation among Singleton, Vector and Matrix can be shown in the
following Figure 3.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
Point of Singleton
interest / Samples
,----. ^ /
/ R1.....| / R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R3dTk \
/ \ | | |
; R2........| | R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 ... R3dTk |
Src | || | |
| R3....| | R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 ... R3dTk |
| || | |
: ;| | |
\ / | | |
\ Rn......| \ RndT1 RndT2 RndT3 ... RndTk /
`-----' +-------------------------------------> time
Vector Matrix
(space) (time)
Figure 3: Relation beween Singletons, vectors and matrix
3. Motivations
All IPPM metrics are defined for end-to-end measurement. These
metrics provide very good guides for measurement in the pair
communications. However, further efforts should be put to define
metrics for multiparty measurements such as one to one trajectory
metrics and one to multipoint metrics.
3.1. Motivations for spatial metrics
Decomposition of instantaneous end-to-end measures is needed:
o Decomposing the performance of interdomain path is desirable in
interdomain to qualify per AS contribution to the performance. So
it is necessary to define standard spatial metrics before going
further in the computation of inter domain path with QoS
constraint.
o Traffic engineering and troubleshooting applications require
spatial views of the one-way delay consumption, identification of
the location of the lost of packets and the decomposition of the
ipdv over the path.
o Monitoring the QoS of a multicast tree, of MPLS point-to-
multipoint and inter-domain communication require spatial
decomposition of the one-way delay, of the packet loss and of the
ipdv.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o Composition of metrics is a need to scale in the measurement
plane. Spatial measure give typically the individual performance
of an intra domain segment. It is the elementary piece of
information to exchange for measuring interdomain performance
based on composition of metrics.
o The PSAMP WG defines capabilities to sample packets in a way to to
support instantaneous measurement respecful of the IPPM framework
[RFC2330]. Consequently it is necessary to define a set of
spatial metrics for passive and active techniques.
3.2. Motivations for One-to-group metrics
While the node-to-node based spatial measures can provide very useful
data in the view of each connection, we also need measures to present
the performance of a multiparty communication in the view of a group
with consideration that it involves a group of people rather than
two. As a consequence a simple one-way metric cannot describe the
multi-connection situation. We need some new metrics to collect
performance of all the connections for further statistics analysis.
A group of metrics are proposed in this stage named one-to-group
performance metrics based on the unicast metrics defined in IPPM WG.
One-to-group metrics are trying to composite one-way metrics from one
source to a group of destinations to make up new metrics. The
compositions are necessary for judging the network performance of
multiparty communications and can also be used to describe the
difference of the QoS served among a group of users.
One-to-group performance metrics are needed for several reasons:
o For designing and engineering multicast trees and MPLS point-to-
multipoint LSP;
o For evaluating and controlling of the quality of the multicast
services;
o For controlling the performance of the inter domain multicast
services;
o For presenting and evaluating the relative QoS requirements for
the multiparty communications.
To understand the connection situation between one source and any one
receiver in the multiparty communication group, we need the
collection of instantaneous end-to-end measures. It will give us
very detailed insight into each branch of the multicast tree in terms
of end-to-end absolute QoS. It can provide clear and helpful
information for engineers to identify the connection with problems in
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
a complex multiparty routing tree.
The one-to-group metrics described in this memo introduce one-to-many
concerns to the IPPM working group to measure the performance of a
group of users who receiving data from the same source. The concept
extends the "path" in the one-way measurement to "path tree" to cover
both one-to-one and one-to-many communications. Nevertheless,
applied to one-to-one communications they provide exactly the same
results as the corresponding one-to-one metrics.
3.3. Discussion on Group-to-one and Group-to-group metrics
We note that points of interest can also be selected to define
measurements on Group-to-one and Group-to-group topologies. These
topologies are currently beyond the scope of this memo, because they
would involve multiple packets launched from different sources.
However, we can give some clues here on these two cases.
The measurements for group-to-one topology can be easily derived from
the one-to-group measurement. The measurement point is the reference
point that is acting as a receiver while all of clients/receivers
defined for one-to-group measurement act as sources in this case.
For the group-to-group connection topology, we can hardly define the
reference point and, therefore, have difficulty to define the
measurement points. However, we can always avoid this confusion by
treating the connections as one-to-group or group-to-one in our
measurements without consideration on how the real communication will
be carried out. For example, if one group of hosts < ha, hb, hc,
..., hn > are acting as sources to send data to another group of
hosts < Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, we can always decompose them into n
one-to-group communications as < ha, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, < hb, Ha,
Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, <hc, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, ..., < hn, Ha, Hb, Hc,
..., Hm >.
4. Spatial vectors metrics definitions
This section defines vectors for the decomposition of end-to-end
singleton metrics over a path.
Spatial vectors metrics are based on the decomposition of standard
end-to-end metrics defined by the IPPM WG in [RFC2679], [RFC2680],
[RFC3393] and [RFC3432].
Definitions are coupled with the corresponding end-to-end metrics.
Methodology specificities are common to all the vectors defined and
are consequently discussed in a common section.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
4.1. A Definition for Spatial One-way Delay Vector
This section is coupled with the definition of Type-P-One-way-Delay.
When a parameter from section 3 of [RFC2679] is first used in this
section, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.
Sections 3.5 to 3.8 of [RFC2679] give requirements and applicability
statements for end-to-end one-way-delay measurements. They are
applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure.
Spatial one-way-delay measurement SHOULD be respectful of them,
especially those related to methodology, clock, uncertainties and
reporting.
Following we adapt some of them and introduce points specific to
spatial measurement.
4.1.1. Metric Name
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector
4.1.2. Metric Parameters
o Src*, the IP address of the sender.
o Dst*, the IP address of the receiver.
o i, An integer if the list <1,2,...,n> which ordered the hosts in
the path.
o Hi, A host* of the path digest.
o T*, a time, the sending (or initial observation) time for a
measured packet.
o dT* a delay, the one-way delay for a measured packet.
o <dT1,..., dTn> a list of delay.
o P*, the specification of the packet type.
o <H1, H2,..., Hn>, hosts path digest.
4.1.3. Metric Units
A sequence of times.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
4.1.4. Definition
Given a Type-P packet sent by the sender Src at wire-time (first bit)
T to the receiver Dst in the path <H1, H2,..., Hn>. Given the
sequence of values <T+dT1,T+dT2,...,T+dTn,T+dT> such that dT is the
Type-P-One-way-Delay from Src to Dst and such that for each Hi of the
path, T+dTi is either a real number corresponding to the wire-time
the packet passes (last bit received) Hi, or undefined if the packet
never passes Hi.
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector metric is defined for the path
<Src, H1, H2,..., Hn, Dst> as the sequence of values
<T,dT1,dT2,...,dTn,dT>.
4.1.5. Discussion
Following are specific issues which may occur:
o the delay looks to decrease: dTi > DTi+1. This seem typically du
to some clock synchronisation issue. This point is discussed in
the section 3.7.1. "Errors or uncertainties related to Clocks" of
of [RFC2679]. One consequence of these uncertainties is that
times of a measure at different hosts shall not be used to order
hosts on the path of a measure;
o The location of the point of interest in the device influences the
result. If the packet is not observed on the input interface the
delay includes buffering time and consequently an uncertainty due
to the difference between 'wire time' and 'host time';
4.2. A Definition for Spatial One-way Packet Loss Vector
This section is coupled with the definition of Type-P-One-way-Packet-
Loss. Then when a parameter from the section 2 of [RFC2680] is first
used in this section, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.
Sections 2.5 to 2.8 of [RFC2680] give requirements and applicability
statements for end-to-end one-way-Packet-Loss measurements. They are
applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure.
Spatial packet loss measurement SHOULD be respectful of them,
especially those related to methodology, clock, uncertainties and
reporting.
Following we define the spatial metric, then we adapt some of the
points above and introduce points specific to spatial measurement.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
4.2.1. Metric Name
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector
4.2.2. Metric Parameters
+ Src*, the IP address of the sender.
+ Dst*, the IP address of the receiver.
+ i, An integer which ordered the hosts in the path.
+ Hi, exchange points of the path digest.
+ T*, a time, the sending (or initial observation) time for
a measured packet.
+ dT1,..., dTn, dT, a list of delay.
+ P*, the specification of the packet type.
+ <SH1, H2,..., Hn>, hosts path digest.
+ B1, B2, ..., Bi, ..., Bn, a list of Boolean values.
4.2.3. Metric Units
A sequence of Boolean values.
4.2.4. Definition
Given a Type-P packet sent by the sender Src at time T to the
receiver Dst in the path <H1, H2, ..., Hn>. Given the sequence of
times <T+dT1,T+dT2,...,T+dTn,T+dT> the packet passes <H1, H2 ..., Hn,
Dst>,
Type-P-One-way-Packet-Lost-Vector metric is defined as the sequence
of values <B1, B2, ..., Bn> such that for each Hi of the path, a
value of Bi of 0 means that dTi is a finite value, and a value of 1
means that dTi is undefined.
4.2.5. Discussion
Following are specific issues which may occur:
o the result includes the sequence 1,0. This case means that the
packet was seen by a host but not by it successor on the path;
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
The location of the point of interest in the device influences the
result:
o Even if the packet is received by a host, it may be not observed
by the point of interest located after a buffer;
4.3. A Definition for Spatial One-way Ipdv Vector
This section uses parameters from the definition of Type-P-One-way-
ipdv. When a parameter from section 2 of [RFC3393] is first used in
this section, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.
Following we adapt some of them and introduce points specific which
are to spatial measurement.
4.3.1. Metric Name
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
4.3.2. Metric Parameters
+ Src*, the IP address of the sender.
+ Dst*, the IP address of the receiver.
+ i, An integer which ordered the hosts in the path.
+ Hi, exchange points of the path digest.
+ T1*, the time the first packet was sent.
+ T2*, the time the second packet was sent.
+ P, the specification of the packet type.
+ P1, the first packet sent at time T1.
+ P2, the second packet sent at time T2.
+ <H1, H2,..., Hn>, host path digest.
+ <T1,dT1.1, dT1.2,..., dT1.n,dT1>,
the Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector for packet sent at
time T1;
+ <T2,dT2.1, dT2.2,..., dT2.n,dT2>,
the Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector for packet sent at
time T2;
+ L*, a packet length in bits. The packets of a Type P
packet stream from which the
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector metric is taken MUST
all be of the same length.
4.3.3. Metric Units
A sequence of times.
4.3.4. Definition
Given the Type-P packet having the size L and sent by the sender Src
at wire-time (first bit) T1 to the receiver Dst in the path <H1,
H2,..., Hn>.
Given the Type-P packet having the size L and sent by the sender Src
at wire-time (first bit) T2 to the receiver Dst in the same path.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
Given the Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector <T1,dT1.1, dT1.2,...,
dT1,n,dT1> of the packet P1.
Given the Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector <T2,dT2.1, dT2.2,...,
dT2,n,dT2> of the packet P2.
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector metric is defined as the sequence
of values <T2-T1,dT2.1-dT1.1,dT2.2-dT1.2,...,dT2.n-dT1.n,dT2-dT1>
Such that for each Hi of the path <H1, H2,..., Hn>, dT2.i-dT1.i is
either a real number if the packets P1 and P2 passes Hi at wire-time
(last bit) dT1.i, respectively dT2.i, or undefined if at least one of
them never passes Hi. T2-T1 is the inter-packet emission interval
and dT2-dT1 is ddT* the Type-P-One-way-ipdv at T1,T2*.
4.4. Spatial Methodology
Methodology, reporting and uncertainties points specified in section
3 of [RFC2679][RFC2679] applies to each point of interest Hi
measuring a element of a spatial delay vector.
Methodology, reporting and uncertainties points specified in section
2 of [RFC2680][RFC2680] applies to each point of interest Hi
measuring a element of a spatial packet loss vector.
Sections 3.5 to 3.7 of [RFC3393] give requirements and applicability
statements for end-to-end One-way ipdv measurements. They are
applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure.
Spatial One-way ipdv measurement SHOULD be respectful of methodology,
clock, uncertainties and reporting aspects given in this section.
Passive and active measurement approaches of the metrology are
considered as orthogonal. Active measure differs mainly from passive
measure by the knowledge of the time the packet was send by the
source and received by the destination, making the RFC2330 framework
difficults to apply to passive measurement. On the other hand,
spatial metrics rely on passive observation of the packets involved
in the measure.
In fact each approach compliments the other setting the base of
spatial measurement methodology: Active points of interest provide
information observed at the source and at the destination while
Passive points of interests provide information observed at
intermediary hosts of the path.
Generally, for a given Type-P of length L, in a given Hi, the
methodology for spatial vector metrics would proceed as follows:
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o At each Hi, points of interest prepare to capture the packet sent
a time T, take a timestamp Ti', determine the internal delay
correction dTi' (See section 3.7.1. "Errors or uncertainties
related to Clocks" of [RFC2679]),
o Each Hi extracts the path ordering information from the packet
(e.g. time-to-live);
o Each Hi compute the wiretime from Src to Hi: Ti = Ti' - dTi'.
This arrival time is undefined (infinite) if the packet is not
detected after the 'loss threshold' duration;
o Each Hi extracts the timestamp T from the packet,
o Each Hi computes the one-way-delay from Src to Hi: dTi = Ti - T;
o The reference point gathers the result and time-to-live of each Hi
and order them according to the path to build the Type-P-Spatial-
One-way-Delay-Vector metric <T,dT1,dT2,...,dTn,dT> over the path
<Src,H1, H2,..., Hn, Dst>.
4.4.1. Loss threshold
Loss threshold is the centrality of any methodology because it
determines the presence the packet in the measurement process of the
point of interest and consequently determines any ground truth metric
result. It determines the presence of an effective delay, and bias
the measure of ipdv, of packet loss and of the statistics.
This is consistent for end-to-end but impacts spatial measure:
depending on the consistency of the Loss threshold among the points
of interest, a packet may be considered loss a one host but present
in another one, or may be observed by the last host (last hop) of the
path but considered lost by Dst. The analysis of such results is not
deterministic: has the path change? Does the packet arrive at
destination or was it lost during the last mile? The same applies,
of course, for one-way-delay measures: a delay measured may be
infinite at one host but a real value in another one, or may be
measured as a real value by the last host of the path but observed as
infinite by Dst. The Loss threshold should be set up with the same
value in each host of the path and in the destination. The Loss
threshold must be systematically reported to permit careful
introspection and to avoid the introduction of any contradiction in
the statistic computation process.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
4.4.2. Host Path Digest
The methodology given above adds the order of the points of interest
over the path to [RFC2679] one's.
A perfect Host Path Digest (hum! of cource from the measurement point
of view only, that is, corresponding to the real path the test packet
experimented) may include several times several hosts:
o <Ha,..., Ha> coresponds to a loop in the path;
o <Ha,..,Hb,..., Ha,...,Hb> coresponds to a loop in the path which
may occurs during rerouting phases;
These cases MUST be identified before statistics computation to avoid
corrupted results' production. This applies especially to the
measure of segments which are build from results of a measure of a
vector metric.
5. Spatial Segments metrics definitions
This section defines samples to measure a sequence of delays, a
sequence of lost and a sequence of ipdv between 2 hosts of the path,
a segment. Singletons are taken from segments of vectors defined
above.
5.1. A Definition of a sample of One-way Delay of a segment of the path
This metric defines a sample of One-way delays between a pair of
hosts of a path.
5.1.1. Metric Name
Type-P-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
5.1.2. Metric Parameters
+ Src*, the IP address of the sender.
+ Dst*, the IP address of the receiver.
+ P*, the specification of the packet type;
+ i, An integer which orders exchange points in the path.
+ k, An integer which orders the packets sent.
+ Hi, a host of the path digest;
+ <H1, H2,..., Hn>, host path digest.
+ Ha, a host of the path digest different from Dst and Hb;
+ Hb, a host of the path digest different from Src and Ha.
Hb order in the path must greater that Ha;
+ <T1, ..., Tk>, a list of time ordered by k;
+ dT1,..., dTn a list of delay;
5.1.3. Metric Units
A sequence of delay
5.1.4. Definition
Given 2 hosts Ha and Hb of the path <Src, H1, H2,..., Hn, Dst>, given
a flow of packets of Type-P sent from Src to Dst at the times T1,
T2... Tn. At each of these times, we obtain a Type-P-Spatial-One-
way-Delay-Vector <T1,dT1.a, ..., dT1.b,...,, dT1.n,dT1>. We define
the value of the sample Type-P-segment-One-way-Delay-Stream as the
sequence made up of the delays dTk.b - dTk.a. dTk.a is the delay
between Src and Ha. dTk.b is the delay between Src and Hb. 'dTk.b -
dTk.a' is the one-way delay experienced by the packet sent by Src at
the time Tk when going from Ha to Hb.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
5.1.5. Discussion
Following are specific issues which may occur:
o When a is Src <Tk,dTk.b - dTk.a> is the measure of the first hop.
o When b is Dst <Tk,dTk.b - dTk.a> is the measure of the last hop.
o the delay looks to decrease: dTi > DTi+1:
* This is typically du to clock synchronisation issue. this point
is discussed in the section 3.7.1. "Errors or uncertainties
related to Clocks" of of [RFC2679];
* This may occurs too when the clock resolution of one probe is
bigger than the minimum delay of a path. As an example this
happen when measuring the delay of a path which is 500 km long
with one probe synchronized using NTP having a clock resolution
of 8ms.
o The location of the point of interest in the device influences the
result. If the packet is not observed on the input interface the
delay includes buffering time and consequently an uncertainty due
to the difference between 'wire time' and 'host time';
o dTk.b may be observed and not dTk.a.
o Tk is unknown if the flow is made of end user packets, that is
pure passive measure. In this case Tk may be forced to Tk+dTk.a.
This motivate separate metrics names for pure passive measurement
or specific reporting information.
o Pure passive measure should consider packets of the same size and
of the same Type-P.
5.2. A Definition of a sample of Packet Loss of a segment of the path
This metric defines a sample of Packet lost between a pair of hosts
of a path.
5.2.1. Metric Name
Type-P-segment-Packet-loss-Stream
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
5.2.2. Metric Parameters
+ Src*, the IP address of the sender.
+ Dst*, the IP address of the receiver.
+ P*, the specification of the packet type.
+ k, An integer which orders the packets sent.
+ n, An integer which orders the hosts on the path.
+ <H1, H2,..., Hn>, hosts path digest.
+ Ha, a host of the path digest different from Dst and Hb;
+ Hb, a host of the path digest different from Src and Ha.
Hb order in the path must greater that Ha;
+ Hi, exchange points of the path digest.
+ <B1, B2, ..., Bn> a list of bits.
+ <L1, L2, ..., Ln> a list of integers.
5.2.3. Metric Units
A sequence of integers <L1, L2,..., Lk>
5.2.4. Definition
Given 2 hosts Ha and Hb of the path <Src, H1, H2,..., Hn, Dst>, given
a flow of packets of Type-P sent from Src to Dst at the times T1,
T2... Tn. At each of these times, we obtain a Type-P-Spatial-
Packet-Lost-Vector <B1.1, B1.2,..., B1.n>. We define the value of
the sample Type-P-segment-Packet-Lost-Stream between Ha and Hb as the
sequence made up of the integer <L1, L2,..., Lk> such that for each
Tk:
o a value of Lk of 0 means that Bk.a has a value of 0 (observed) and
that Bk.b have a value of 0 (observed);
o a value of Lk of 1 means that Bk.a has a value of 0 (observed) and
that Bk.b have a value of 1 (not observed);
o a value of Lk of 2 means that Bk.a has a value of 1 (not observed)
and that Bk.b have a value of 0 (observed);
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o a value of Lk of 3 means that Bk.a has a value of 1 (not observed)
and that Bk.b have a value of 1 (not observed).
5.2.5. Discussion
The semantic of a Type-P-segment-Packet-loss-Stream is similar to the
one of Type-P-Packet-loss-Stream:
o a value of 0 means that the packet was observed by Ha (similar to
'send by Src') and not observed by Hb ( similar to 'not received
by Dst');
o a value of 1 means that it was observed by Ha (similar to 'send by
Src') and observed by Hb ( similar to 'received by Dst').
This definition of Type-P-segment-Packet-loss-Stream is similar to
the Type-P-Packet-loss-Stream defined in [RFC2680] excepted that in a
Type-P-segment-Packet-loss-Stream the rules of the point of interests
Ha and Hb are symetrical: The asumption that a set of packets are
going from Ha to Hb does not apply to Type-P-segment-Packet-loss-
Stream because as the host path digest is dynamic each packet has its
own host path digest.
Making the asumption that the host path digest of a Type-P-spatial-
Packet-loss-vector does not change and that the set of (Hk, Hk+1)
tuples is mostly stable over time lead to unusable results and to the
introduction of mistakes in the metrics aggregation processes. The
right approach consists in carefully scrutening the path ordering
information to build sample with elements of vectors sharing the same
properties in term of Ha and Hb and 'Ha to Hb'. So a measure of
Type-P-spatial-Packet-loss-vector differs from a Type-P-Packet-loss
one in that it produces different samples of packet loss over time.
The semantic of a Type-P-segment-Packet-loss-Stream defines 2 new
results:
o A value of Lk of 2 (1,0) corresponds to a mistake in the ordering
of Ha and Hb over the path coming either from the configuration
(asumption on the path) or from the processing of the vectors: bad
scrutening of the path ordering information, or some other mistake
in the measure or the reporting. It is not in the scope of this
document to go in further details which are mostly implementation
dependent. This value MUST not be used to compute packet lost
statistics.
o A value of Lk of 3 (1,1) corresponds to a lost of the packet in
upper segment of the path.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
5.3. A Definition of a sample of One-way Ipdv of a segment of the path
This metric defines a sample of ipdv between a pair of hosts of a
path.
Editor note: work in progress
5.3.1. Metric Name
Type-P-Segment-Ipdv-Stream
5.3.2. Metric Parameters
5.3.3. Metric Units
5.3.4. Definition
5.3.5. Discussion
5.4. Discussion on Passive Segment Metrics
A pure passive spatial measure is the measure of a spatial metric
based on the observation of user traffic instead of packets dedicated
to the measure.
This section discusses the applicability of pure passive measurement
methodology (e.g. without injecting test traffic as described by
PSAMP documents [draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt]) to measure
spatial metrics.
To permit comparison and discussion, we firstly define pure passive
measurement methodology following the spirit of IPPM framework
[RFC2330] and the methodology of [RFC2679]. Then we propose several
passive metrics complying to this framework.
5.4.1. A methodololy for passive segment metrics
The following starts from the point that the time a packet is sent is
not needed to measure the delay from one host Ha of the path to
another host Hb.
Generally, for the packets of Type-P and length L sent a time <T1,
T2,..., Tn> by the source Src pure passive methodology might proceed
as follows:
o Each point of interest Ha and Hb prepares to capture these
packets;
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o Each point of interest Ha and Hb takes a timestamp Ti', determines
the internal delay correction dTi' (See section 3.7.1. "Errors or
uncertainties related to Clocks" of [RFC2679]),
o Each points of interest Ha and Hb extracts the path ordering
information from the packet (e.g. time-to-live)
o Each points of interest Ha and Hb computes the wiretime fSrom Src
to Hi: Ti = Ti' - dTi'. ;
o The reference point gathers individual information for the packets
sent a time <T1, T2,..., Tn> from each point of interest Ha and Hb
and proceeds as follow:
* Orders them according to the path ordering information;
* Extracts the timestamps Ti.a and Ti+1.b. This arrival time is
undefined (infinite) if the packet is not detected;
* Computes the one-way-delay from Ha to Hb as (Ti+1.b - Ti.a).
The delay is undefined (infinite) if the packet is not detected
in Ha or Hb;
o The reference point builds the segment sample <T1.b - T1.a, T2.b -
T2.a,..., Tn.b - Tn.a> from Ha to Hb;
5.4.2. Discussion on passive methodololy
Intrinsically passive methodololy does not known (neither in the
points of interest nor in the point of reference) the time each
packet is sent <T1, T2,..., Tn> and the time each packet it received.
Section 5.4.1 shows that a passive segment one-way delay measure does
not rely on the time T the packet is sent to compute the delay from a
host Ha to a host Hb.
Intuitively, packets loss measurement does not require any time
information and only expects the packet was sent. Passive packet
loss methodology relies on the detection of the packet by one point
of interest and not by another. This relies on asumptions similar to
spatial methodology:
o The knowledge of the path and the order of the points of interest
over the path;
o The packet is observed by one point of interest and not by
another;
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
Nevertheless, passive packet loss measure is limited by the fact that
information that neither a packet has be sent nor that the packet was
received is never available:
when the path changes and the packet is not observed it is not
deterministic to state that the packet is lost because the measure
does not known that the packet is received by Dst.
when the measure does not observe any packets it is not possible
to state that all packets are lost because the measure does not
known that any packets were sent.
The drawback is that monitoring finely these events is crucial for
troubleshooting workflow.
IPPM framework relies on the mesure of the behavior of packets of the
same size. Consequently a passive metric sample MUST not mix
information of packets of different sizes.
Segment metrics may be measured using pure passive technics. Passive
segment metrics definitions are very closed to spatial segment
metrics definitions. Therefore below we just name passive segment
metrics to distinguish the methodology used. Having distinct metrics
identifiers for spatial metrics and passive spatial metrics in the
[RFC4148] will avoid interoperability issues especially during
composition of metrics the IPPM WG is currently defining.
5.4.3. Passive Segment metrics
5.4.3.1. Passive Segment One way Delay metric
This metric definition is based on the top of the Type-P-spatial-
segment-One-way-Delay-Stream metric definition.
name: Type-P-Passive-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream
5.4.3.2. Passive Segment Packet Loss metric
This metric definition is based on the top of the Type-P-spatial-
segment-Packet-Loss-Stream metric definition.
name: Type-P-Passive-Segment-Packet-Loss-Stream
5.4.3.3. Passive Segment One-way Ipdv metric
This metric definition is based on the top of the Type-P-Segment-
Ipdv-Stream metric definition.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
name: Type-P-Passive-Segment-One-way-Ipdv-Stream
6. One-to-group metrics definitions
6.1. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Delay
6.1.1. Metric Name
Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Vector
6.1.2. Metric Parameters
o Src, the IP address of a host acting as the source.
o Recv1,..., RecvN, the IP addresses of the N hosts acting as
receivers.
o T, a time.
o dT1,...,dTn a list of time.
o P, the specification of the packet type.
o Gr, the multicast group address (optional). The parameter Gr is
the multicast group address if the measured packets are
transmitted by multicast. This parameter is to identify the
measured traffic from other unicast and multicast traffic. It is
set to be optional in the metric to avoid losing any generality,
i.e. to make the metric also applicable to unicast measurement
where there is only one receivers.
6.1.3. Metric Units
The value of a Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Vector is a set of
singletons metrics Type-P-One-way-Delay [RFC2679].
6.1.4. Definition
Given a Type P packet sent by the source Src at Time T, given the N
hosts { Recv1,...,RecvN } which receive the packet at the time {
T+dT1,...,T+dTn }, a Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Vector is
defined as the set of the Type-P-One-way-Delay singleton between Src
and each receiver with value of { dT1, dT2,...,dTn }.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
6.2. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Packet Loss
6.2.1. Metric Name
Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector
6.2.2. Metric Parameters
o Src, the IP address of a host acting as the source.
o Recv1,..., RecvN, the IP addresses of the N hosts acting as
receivers.
o T, a time.
o T1,...,Tn a list of time.
o P, the specification of the packet type.
o Gr, the multicast group address (optional).
6.2.3. Metric Units
The value of a Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector is a
set of singletons metrics Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss [RFC2680].
6.2.4. Definition
Given a Type P packet sent by the source Src at T and the N hosts,
Recv1,...,RecvN, which should receive the packet at T1,...,Tn, a
Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector is defined as a set of
the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss singleton between Src and each of the
receivers {<T1,0|1>,<T2,0|1>,..., <Tn,0|1>}.
6.3. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Ipdv
6.3.1. Metric Name
Type-P-One-to-group-One-way-ipdv-Vector
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
6.3.2. Metric Parameters
+ Src, the IP address of a host acting as the source.
+ Recv1,..., RecvN, the IP addresses of the N hosts acting as
receivers.
+ T1, a time.
+ T2, a time.
+ ddT1,...,ddTn, a list of time.
+ P, the specification of the packet type.
+ F, a selection function defining unambiguously the two
packets from the stream selected for the metric.
+ Gr, the multicast group address (optional)
6.3.3. Metric Units
The value of a Type-P-One-to-group-One-way-ipdv-Vector is a set of
singletons metrics Type-P-One-way-ipdv [RFC3393].
6.3.4. Definition
Given a Type P packet stream, Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-ipdv-Vector
is defined for two packets from the source Src to the N hosts
{Recv1,...,RecvN },which are selected by the selection function F, as
the difference between the value of the Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-
Delay-Vector from Src to { Recv1,..., RecvN } at time T1 and the
value of the Type-P-one-to-group- One-way-Delay-Vector from Src to {
Recv1,...,RecvN } at time T2. T1 is the wire-time at which Src sent
the first bit of the first packet, and T2 is the wire-time at which
Src sent the first bit of the second packet. This metric is derived
from the Type-P-one-to- group-One-way-Delay-Vector metric.
Therefore, for a set of real number {ddT1,...,ddTn},Type-P-one- to-
group-One-way-ipdv-Vector from Src to { Recv1,...,RecvN } at T1, T2
is {ddT1,...,ddTn} means that Src sent two packets, the first at
wire-time T1 (first bit), and the second at wire-time T2 (first bit)
and the packets were received by { Recv1,...,RecvN } at wire-time
{dT1+T1,...,dTn+T1}(last bit of the first packet), and at wire-time
{dT'1+T2,...,dT'n+T2} (last bit of the second packet), and that
{dT'1-dT1,...,dT'n-dTn} ={ddT1,...,ddTn}.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
7. One-to-Group Sample Statistics
The defined one-to-group metrics above can all be directly achieved
from the relevant unicast one-way metrics. They managed to collect
all unicast measurement results of one-way metrics together in one
profile and sort them by receivers and packets in a multicast group.
They can provide sufficient information regarding the network
performance in terms of each receiver and guide engineers to identify
potential problem happened on each branch of a multicast routing
tree. However, these metrics can not be directly used to
conveniently present the performance in terms of a group and neither
to identify the relative performance situation.
From the performance point of view, the multiparty communication
services not only require the absolute performance support but also
the relative performance. The relative performance means the
difference between absolute performance of all users. Directly using
the one-way metrics cannot present the relative performance
situation. However, if we use the variations of all users one-way
parameters, we can have new metrics to measure the difference of the
absolute performance and hence provide the threshold value of
relative performance that a multiparty service might demand. A very
good example of the high relative performance requirement is the
online gaming. A very light difference in delay might result in
failure in the game. We have to use multicast specific statistic
metrics to define exactly how small the relative delay the online
gaming requires. There are many other services, e.g. online biding,
online stock market, etc., that require multicast metrics in order to
evaluate the network against their requirements. Therefore, we can
see the importance of new, multicast specific, statistic metrics to
feed this need.
We might also use some one-to-group statistic conceptions to present
and report the group performance and relative performance to save the
report transmission bandwidth. Statistics have been defined for One-
way metrics in corresponding RFCs. They provide the foundation of
definition for performance statistics. For instance, there are
definitions for minimum and maximum One-way delay in [RFC2679].
However, there is a dramatic difference between the statistics for
one-to-one communications and for one-to-many communications. The
former one only has statistics over the time dimension while the
later one can have statistics over both time and space dimensions.
This space dimension is introduced by the Matrix concept as
illustrated in Figure 9. For a Matrix M each row is a set of One-way
singletons spreading over the time dimension and each column is
another set of One-way singletons spreading over the space dimension.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
Receivers
Space
^
1 | / R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R3dTk \
| | |
2 | | R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 ... R3dTk |
| | |
3 | | R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 ... R3dTk |
. | | |
. | | |
. | | |
n | \ RndT1 RndT2 RndT3 ... RndTk /
+--------------------------------------------> time
T0
Figure 9: Matrix M (n*m)
In Matrix M, each element is a One-way delay singleton. Each column
is a delay vector contains the One-way delays of the same packet
observed at M points of interest. It implies the geographical factor
of the performance within a group. Each row is a set of One-way
delays observed during a sampling interval at one of the points of
interest. It presents the delay performance at a receiver over the
time dimension.
Therefore, one can either calculate statistics by rows over the space
dimension or by columns over the time dimension. It's up to the
operators or service provides which dimension they are interested in.
For example, a TV broadcast service provider might want to know the
statistical performance of each user in a long term run to make sure
their services are acceptable and stable. While for an online gaming
service provider, he might be more interested to know if all users
are served fairly by calculating the statistics over the space
dimension. This memo does not intend to recommend which of the
statistics are better than the other.
To save the report transmission bandwidth, each point of interest can
send statistics in a pre-defined time interval to the reference point
rather than sending every One-way singleton it observed. As long as
an appropriate time interval is decided, appropriate statistics can
represent the performance in a certain accurate scale. How to decide
the time interval and how to bootstrap all points of interest and the
reference point depend on applications. For instance, applications
with lower transmission rate can have the time interval longer and
ones with higher transmission rate can have the time interval
shorter. However, this is out of the scope of this memo.
Moreover, after knowing the statistics over the time dimension, one
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
might want to know how this statistics distributed over the space
dimension. For instance, a TV broadcast service provider had the
performance Matrix M and calculated the One-way delay mean over the
time dimension to obtain a delay Vector as {V1,V2,..., VN}. He then
calculated the mean of all the elements in the Vector to see what
level of delay he has served to all N users. This new delay mean
gives information on how good the service has been delivered to a
group of users during a sampling interval in terms of delay. It
needs twice calculation to have this statistic over both time and
space dimensions. We name this kind of statistics 2-level statistics
to distinct with those 1-level statistics calculated over either
space or time dimension. It can be easily prove that no matter over
which dimension a 2-level statistic is calculated first, the results
are the same. I.e. one can calculate the 2-level delay mean using
the Matrix M by having the 1-level delay mean over the time dimension
first and then calculate the mean of the obtained vector to find out
the 2-level delay mean. Or, he can do the 1-level statistic
calculation over the space dimension first and then have the 2-level
delay mean. Both two results will be exactly the same. Therefore,
when define a 2-level statistic, there is no need to specify in which
procedure the calculation should follow.
Comment: The above statement depends on whether the order of
operations has any affect on the outcome.
Many statistics can be defined for the proposed one-to-group metrics
over either the space dimension or the time dimension or both. This
memo treats the case where a stream of packets from the Source
results in a sample at each of the Receivers in the Group, and these
samples are each summarized with the usual statistics employed in
one-to-one communication. New statistic definitions are presented,
which summarize the one-to-one statistics over all the Receivers in
the Group.
7.1. Discussion on the Impact of packet loss on statistics
The packet loss does have effects on one-way metrics and their
statistics. For example, the lost packet can result an infinite one-
way delay. It is easy to handle the problem by simply ignoring the
infinite value in the metrics and in the calculation of the
corresponding statistics. However, the packet loss has so strong
impact on the statistics calculation for the one-to-group metrics
that it can not be solved by the same method used for one-way
metrics. This is due to the complex of building a Matrix, which is
needed for calculation of the statistics proposed in this memo.
The situation is that measurement results obtained by different end
users might have different packet loss pattern. For example, for
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
User1, packet A was observed lost. And for User2, packet A was
successfully received but packet B was lost. If the method to
overcome the packet loss for one-way metrics is applied, the two
singleton sets reported by User1 and User2 will be different in terms
of the transmitted packets. Moreover, if User1 and User2 have
different number of lost packets, the size of the results will be
different. Therefore, for the centralized calculation, the reference
point will not be able to use these two results to build up the group
Matrix and can not calculate the statistics. In an extreme
situation, no single packet arrives all users in the measurement and
the Matrix will be empty. One of the possible solutions is to
replace the infinite/undefined delay value by the average of the two
adjacent values. For example, if the result reported by user1 is {
R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R1dTK-1 UNDEF R1dTK+1... R1DM } where "UNDEF"
is an undefined value, the reference point can replace it by R1dTK =
{(R1dTK-1)+( R1dTK+1)}/2. Therefore, this result can be used to
build up the group Matrix with an estimated value R1dTK. There are
other possible solutions such as using the overall mean of the whole
result to replace the infinite/undefined value, and so on. It is out
of the scope of this memo.
For the distributed calculation, the reported statistics might have
different "weight" to present the group performance, which is
especially true for delay and ipdv relevant metrics. For example,
User1 calculates the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean R1DM as shown
in Figure. 8 without any packet loss and User2 calculates the R2DM
with N-2 packet loss. The R1DM and R2DM should not be treated with
equal weight because R2DM was calculated only based on 2 delay values
in the whole sample interval. One possible solution is to use a
weight factor to mark every statistic value sent by users and use
this factor for further statistic calculation.
7.2. General Metric Parameters
o Src, the IP address of a host
o G, the Group IP address
o N, the number of Receivers (Recv1, Recv2, ... RecvN)
o T, a time (start of test interval)
o Tf, a time (end of test interval)
o K, the number of packets sent from the source during the test
interval
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o J[n], the number of packets received at a particular Receiver, n,
where 1<=n<=N
o lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds (for Poisson Streams)
o incT, the nominal duration of inter-packet interval, first bit to
first bit (for Periodic Streams)
o T0, a time that MUST be selected at random from the interval [T,
T+I] to start generating packets and taking measurements (for
Periodic Streams)
o TstampSrc, the wire time of the packet as measured at MP(Src) (the
Source Measurement Point)
o TstampRecv, the wire time of the packet as measured at MP(Recv),
assigned to packets that arrive within a "reasonable" time
o Tmax, a maximum waiting time for packets at the destination, set
sufficiently long to disambiguate packets with long delays from
packets that are discarded (lost), thus the distribution of delay
is not truncated
o dT, shorthand notation for a one-way delay singleton value
o L, shorthand notation for a one-way loss singleton value, either
zero or one, where L=1 indicates loss and L=0 indicates arrival at
the destination within TstampSrc + Tmax, may be indexed over n
Receivers
o DV, shorthand notation for a one-way delay variation singleton
value
7.3. One-to-Group one-way Delay Statistics
This section defines the overall one-way delay statistics for an
entire Group or receivers. For example, we can define the group mean
delay, as illustrated below. This is a metric designed to summarize
the whole matrix.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
Recv /----------- Sample -------------\ Stats Group Stat
1 R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R1dTk R1DM \
|
2 R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 ... R2dTk R2DM |
|
3 R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 ... R3dTk R2DM > GMD
. |
. |
. |
n RndT1 RndT2 RndT3 ... RndTk RnDM /
Figure 10: One-to-GroupGroup Mean Delay
where:
R1dT1 is the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay singleton evaluated at
Receiver 1 for packet 1.
R1DM is the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean evaluated at Receiver 1
for the sample of packets (1,...K).
GMD is the mean of the sample means over all Receivers (1, ...N).
7.3.1. Definition and Metric Units
Using the parameters above, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-
Delay singleton for all packets sent during the test interval at each
Receiver (Destination), as per [RFC2679]. For each packet that
arrives within Tmax of its sending time, TstampSrc, the one-way delay
singleton (dT) will be a finite value in units of seconds.
Otherwise, the value of the singleton is Undefined.
For each packet [i] that has a finite One-way Delay at Receiver n (in
other words, excluding packets which have undefined one-way delay):
Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Receiver-n-[i] =
= TstampRecv[i] - TstampSrc[i]
The units of Finite one-way delay are seconds, with sufficient
resolution to convey 3 significant digits.
7.3.2. Sample Mean Statistic
This section defines the Sample Mean at each of N Receivers.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean-Receiver-n = RnDM =
J[n]
---
1 \
--- * > Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Receiver-n-[i]
J[n] /
---
i = 1
Figure 11: Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean-Receiver-n
where all packets i= 1 through J[n] have finite singleton delays.
7.3.3. One-to-Group Mean Delay Statistic
This section defines the Mean One-way Delay calculated over the
entire Group (or Matrix).
Type-P-One-to-Group-Mean-Delay = GMD =
N
---
1 \
- * > RnDM
N /
---
n = 1
Figure 12: Type-P-One-to-Group-Mean-Delay
Note that the Group Mean Delay can also be calculated by summing the
Finite one-way Delay singletons in the Matrix, and dividing by the
number of Finite One-way Delay singletons.
7.3.4. One-to-Group Range of Mean Delays
This section defines a metric for the range of mean delays over all N
receivers in the Group, (R1DM, R2DM,...RnDM).
Type-P-One-to-Group-Range-Mean-Delay = GRMD = max(RnDM) - min(RnDM)
7.3.5. One-to-Group Maximum of Mean Delays
This section defines a metrics for the maximum of mean delays over
all N receivers in the Group, (R1DM, R2DM,...RnDM).
Type-P-One-to-Group-Max-Mean-Delay = GMMD = max(RnDM)
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
7.4. One-to-Group one-way Loss Statistics
This section defines the overall 1-way loss statistics for an entire
Group. For example, we can define the group loss ratio, as
illustrated below. This is a metric designed to summarize the entire
Matrix.
Recv /----------- Sample ----------\ Stats Group Stat
1 R1L1 R1L2 R1L3 ... R1Lk R1LR \
|
2 R2L1 R2L2 R2L3 ... R2Lk R2LR |
|
3 R3L1 R3L2 R3L3 ... R3Lk R3LR > GLR
. |
. |
. |
n RnL1 RnL2 RnL3 ... RnLk RnLR /
Figure 13: One-to-Group Loss Ratio
where:
R1L1 is the Type-P-One-way-Loss singleton (L) evaluated at Receiver 1
for packet 1.
R1LR is the Type-P-One-way-Loss-Ratio evaluated at Receiver 1 for the
sample of packets (1,...K).
GLR is the loss ratio over all Receivers (1, ..., N).
7.4.1. One-to-Group Loss Ratio
The overall Group loss ratio id defined as
Type-P-One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio =
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
K,N
---
1 \
= --- * > L(k,n)
K*N /
---
k,n = 1
Figure 14
ALL Loss ratios are expressed in units of packets lost to total
packets sent.
7.4.2. One-to-Group Loss Ratio Range
Given a Matrix of loss singletons as illustrated above, determine the
Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Average for the sample at each receiver,
according to the definitions and method of [RFC2680]. The Type-P-
One-way-Packet-Loss-Average, RnLR for receiver n, and the Type-P-One-
way-Loss-Ratio illustrated above are equivalent metrics. In terms of
the parameters used here, these metrics definitions can be expressed
as
Type-P-One-way-Loss-Ratio-Receiver-n = RnLR =
K
---
1 \
- * > RnLk
K /
---
k = 1
Figure 15: Type-P-One-way-Loss-Ratio-Receiver-n
The One-to-Group Loss Ratio Range is defined as
Type-P-One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio-Range = max(RnLR) - min(RnLR)
It is most effective to indicate the range by giving both the max and
minimum loss ratios for the Group, rather than only reporting the
difference between them.
7.4.3. Comparative Loss Ratio
Usually, the number of packets sent is used in the denominator of
packet loss ratio metrics. For the comparative metrics defined here,
the denominator is the maximum number of packets received at any
receiver for the sample and test interval of interest.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
The Comparative Loss Ratio is defined as
Type-P-Comp-Loss-Ratio-Receiver-n = RnCLR =
K
---
\
> Ln(k)
/
---
k=1
= -----------------------------
/ K \
| --- |
| \ |
K - Min | > Ln(k) |
| / |
| --- |
\ k=1 / N
Figure 16: Type-P-Comp-Loss-Ratio-Receiver-n
7.5. One-to-Group one-way Delay Variation Statistics
There are two delay variation (DV) statistics that summarize the
performance over the Group: the maximum DV over all receivers and the
minimum DV over all receivers (where DV is a point-to-point metric).
For each receiver, the DV is usually expressed as the 1-10^(-3)
quantile of one-way delay minus the minimum one-way delay.
8. Measurement Methods: Scaleability and Reporting
Virtually all the guidance on measurement processes supplied by the
earlier IPPM RFCs (such as [RFC2679] and [RFC2680]) for one-to-one
scenarios is applicable here in the spatial and multiparty
measurement scenario. The main difference is that the spatial and
multiparty configurations require multiple measurement points where a
stream of singletons will be collected. The amount of information
requiring storage grows with both the number of metrics and the
number of measurement points, so the scale of the measurement
architecture multiplies the number of singleton results that must be
collected and processed.
It is possible that the architecture for results collection involves
a single aggregation point with connectivity to all the measurement
points. In this case, the number of measurement points determines
both storage capacity and packet transfer capacity of the host acting
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
as the aggregation point. However, both the storage and transfer
capacity can be reduced if the measurement points are capable of
computing the summary statistics that describe each measurement
interval. This is consistent with many operational monitoring
architectures today, where even the individual singletons may not be
stored at each measurement point.
In recognition of the likely need to minimize form of the results for
storage and communication, the Group metrics above have been
constructed to allow some computations on a per-Receiver basis. This
means that each Receiver's statistics would normally have an equal
weight with all other Receivers in the Group (regardless of the
number of packets received).
8.1. Computation methods
The scalability issue can be raised when there are thousands of
points of interest in a group who are trying to send back the
measurement results to the reference point for further processing and
analysis. The points of interest can send either the whole measured
sample or only the calculated statistics. The former one is a
centralized statistic calculation method and the latter one is a
distributed statistic calculation method. The sample should include
all metrics parameters, the values and the corresponding sequence
numbers. The transmission of the whole sample can cost much more
bandwidth than the transmission of the statistics that should include
all statistic parameters specified by policies and the additional
information about the whole sample, such as the size of the sample,
the group address, the address of the point of interest, the ID of
the sample session, and so on. Apparently, the centralized
calculation method can require much more bandwidth than the
distributed calculation method when the sample size is big. This is
especially true when the measurement has huge number of the points of
interest. It can lead to a scalability issue at the reference point
by over load the network resources. The distributed calculation
method can save much more bandwidth and release the pressure of the
scalability issue at the reference point side. However, it can
result in the lack of information because not all measured singletons
are obtained for building up the group matrix. The performance over
time can be hidden from the analysis. For example, the loss pattern
can be missed by simply accepting the loss ratio as well as the delay
pattern. This tradeoff between the bandwidth consuming and the
information acquiring has to be taken into account when design the
measurement campaign to optimize the measurement results delivery.
The possible solution could be to transit the statistic parameters to
the reference point first to obtain the general information of the
group performance. If the detail results are required, the reference
point should send the requests to the points of interest, which could
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
be particular ones or the whole group. This procedure can happen in
the off peak time and can be well scheduled to avoid delivery of too
many points of interest at the same time. Compression techniques can
also be used to minimize the bandwidth required by the transmission.
This could be a measurement protocol to report the measurement
results. It is out of the scope of this memo.
8.2. Measurement
To prevent any bias in the result, the configuration of a one-to-many
measure must take in consideration that implicitly more packets will
to be routed than send and selects a test packets rate that will not
impact the network performance.
8.3. Effect of Time and Space Aggregation Order on Stats
This section presents the impact of the aggregation order on the
scalability of the reporting and of the computation. It makes the
hypothesis that receivers are managed remotely and not co-located.
multimetrics samples represented a matrix as illustrated below
Point of
interest
1 R1S1 R1S1 R1S1 ... R1Sk \
|
2 R2S1 R2S2 R2S3 ... R2Sk |
|
3 R3S1 R3S2 R3S3 ... R3Sk > sample over space
. |
. |
. |
n RnS1 RnS2 RnS3 ... RnSk /
S1M S2M S3M ... SnM Stats over space
\------------- ------------/
\/
Stat over space and time
Figure 17: Impact of space aggregation on multimetrics Stat
2 methods are available to compute statistics on the resulting
matrix:
o metric is computed over time and then over space;
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o metric is computed over space and then over time.
They differ only by the order of the time and of the space
aggregation. View as a matrix this order is neutral as does not
impact the result, but the impact on a measurement deployment is
critical.
In both cases the volume of data to report is proportional to the
number of probes. But there is a major difference between these 2
methods:
method2: In space and time aggregation mode the volume of data to
collect is proportional to the number of test packets received;
Each received packet RiSi triggers out a block of data that must
be reported to a common place for computing the stat over space;
method1: In time and space aggregation mode the volume of data to
collect is proportional to the period of aggregation, so it does
not depend on the number of packet received;
Method 2 property has severe drawbacks in terms of security and
dimensioning:
The increasing of the rate of the test packets may result in a
sort of DoS toward the computation points;
The dimensioning of a measurement system is quite impossible to
validate.
The time aggregation interval provides the reporting side with a
control of various collecting aspects such as bandwidth and
computation and storage capacities. So this draft defines metrics
based on method 1.
Note: In some specific cases one may need sample of singletons over
space. To address this need it is suggested firstly to limit the
number of test and the number of test packets per seconds. Then
reducing the size of the sample over time to one packet give sample
of singleton over space..
8.3.1. Impact on group stats
2 methods are available to compute group statistics:
o method1: Figure 10 andFigure 13 illustrate the method chosen: the
one-to-one statistic is computed per interval of time before the
computation of the mean over the group of receivers;
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o method2: Figure 17 presents the second one, metric is computed
over space and then over time.
8.3.2. Impact on spatial stats
2 methods are available to compute group statistics:
o method 1: spatial segment metrics and statistics are preferably
computed over time by each points of interest;
o method 2: Vectors metrics are intrinsecally instantaneous space
metrics which must be reported using method2 whenever
instantaneous metrics information is needed. Pure passive
measurement approach has no choice but to use this method because
delay and losses may not be computed in each point of interest.
9. Manageability Considerations
Usually IPPM WG documents defines each metric reporting within its
definition. This document defines the reporting of all the metrics
introduced in a single section to provide consistent information
while avoiding repetitions. the aim is to contribute to the work of
the WG on the reporting and to satisfy IESG recommendation of
gathering manageability considerations in a dedicated section.
Data models of spatial and one-to-group metrics are similar excepted
that points of interests of spatial vectors must be ordered.
The complexity of the reporting relies on the number of points of
interests.
9.1. Reporting spatial metric
The reporting of spatial metrics shares a lot of aspects with
RFC2679-80. New ones are common to all the definitions and are
mostly related to the reporting of the path and of methodology
parameters that may bias raw results analysis. This section presents
these specific parameters and then lists exhaustively the parameters
that shall be reported.
9.1.1. Path
End-to-end metrics can't determine the path of the measure despite
IPPM RFCs recommend it to be reported (Section 3.8.4 of [RFC2679]).
Spatial metrics vectors provide this path. The report of a spatial
vector must include the points of interests involved: the sub set of
the hosts of the path participating to the instantaneous measure.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
9.1.2. Host order
A spatial vector must order the points of interest according to their
order in the path. It is highly suggested to use the TTL in IPv4,
the Hop Limit in IPv6 or the corresponding information in MPLS.
The report of a spatial vector must include the ordered list of the
hosts involved in the instantaneous measure.
9.1.3. Timestamping bias
The location of the point of interest inside a node influences the
timestamping skew and accuracy. As an example, consider that some
internal machinery delays the timestamping up to 3 milliseconds then
the minimal uncertainty reported be 3 ms if the internal delay is
unknown at the time of the timestamping.
The report of a spatial vector must include the uncertainty of the
timestamping compared to wire time.
9.1.4. Reporting spatial One-way Delay
The reporting includes information to report for one-way-delay as
perthe Section 3.6 of [RFC2679].the same apply for packet loss and
ipdv
9.2. Reporting One-to-group metric
9.3. Metric identification
IANA assigns each metric defined by the IPPM WG with a unique
identifier as per [RFC4148] in the IANA-IPPM-METRICS-REGISTRY-MIB.
To avoid misunderstanding and to address specific reporting
constraints, section Section 5.4.3 of this memo gives distinct names
to passive metrics and Section 13 requests a distinct metric
identifier for each metrics the memo defines.
As it is crucial for composition of metrics to know the methodology
used (e.g. generation method, detection method...), the report of a
metric result used in composition of metrics MUST alway include its
metric identifier.
9.4. Reporting data model
This section presents the elements of the datamodel and the usage of
the information reported for real network performance analysis. It
is out of the scope of this section to define how the information is
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
reported.
The data model is build with pieces of information introduced and
explained in one-way delay definitions [RFC2679], in packet loss
definitions [RFC2680] and in IPDV definitions[RFC3393][RFC3432]. It
includes not only information given by "Reporting the metric"
sections but by sections "Methodology" and "Errors and Uncertainties"
sections.
Following are the elements of the datamodel taken from end-to-end
definitions referred in this memo and from spatial and multicast
metrics it defines:
o Packet_type, The Type-P of test packets (Type-P);
o Packet_length, a packet length in bits (L);
o Src_host, the IP address of the sender;
o Dst_host, the IP address of the receiver;
o Hosts_serie: <H1, H2,..., Hn>, a list of points of interest;
o Loss_threshold: The threshold of infinite delay;
o Systematic_error: constant delay between wire time and
timestamping;
o Calibration_error: maximal uncertainty;
o Src_time, the sending time for a measured packet;
o Dst_time, the receiving time for a measured packet;
o Result_status : an indicator of usability of a result 'Resource
exhaustion' 'infinite', 'lost';
o Delays_serie: <dT1,..., dTn> a list of delays;
o Losses_serie: <B1, B2, ..., Bi, ..., Bn>, a list of Boolean values
(spatial) or a set of Boolean values (one-to-group);
o Result_status_serie: a list of results status;
o dT: a delay;
o Singleton_number: a number of singletons;
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o Observation_duration: An observation duration;
o metric_identifier.
Following is the information of each vector that should be available
to compute samples:
o Packet_type;
o Packet_length;
o Src_host, the sender of the packet;
o Dst_host, the receiver of the packet, apply only for spatial
vectors;
o Hosts_serie: not ordered for one-to-group;
o Src_time, the sending time for the measured packet;
o dT, the end-to-end one-way delay for the measured packet, apply
only for spatial vectors;
o Delays_serie: apply only for delays and ipdv vector, not ordered
for one-to-group;
o Losses_serie: apply only for packets loss vector, not ordered for
one-to-group;
o Result_status_serie;
o Observation_duration: the difference between the time of the last
singleton and the time of the first singleton.
o Following is the context information (measure, points of
interests) that should be available to compute samples :
* Loss threshold;
* Systematic error: constant delay between wire time and
timestamping;
* Calibration error: maximal uncertainty;
A spatial or a one-to-group sample is a collection of singletons
giving the performance from the sender to a single point of interest.
Following is the information that should be available for each sample
to compute statistics:
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
o Packet_type;
o Packet_length;
o Src_host, the sender of the packet;
o Dst_host, the receiver of the packet;
o Start_time, the sending time of the first packet;
o Delays_serie: apply only for delays and ipdv samples;
o Losses_serie: apply only for packets loss samples;
o Result_status_serie;
o Observation_duration: the difference between the time of the last
singleton of the last sample and the time of the first singleton
of the first sample.
o Following is the context information (measure, points of
interests) that should be available to compute statistics :
* Loss threshold;
* Systematic error: constant delay between wire time and
timestamping;
* Calibration error: maximal uncertainty;
Following is the information of each statistic that should be
reported:
o Result;
o Start_time;
o Duration;
o Result_status;
o Singleton_number, the number of singletons the statistic is
computed on;
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
10. Open issues
Do we define min, max, avg of for each segment metrics ?
having the maximum loss metric value could be interesting. Say,
the segment between router A and B always contributes loss metric
value of "1" means it could be the potential problem segment.
Uploading dTi of each Hi consume a lot of bandwidth. Computing
statistics (min, max and avg) of dTi locally in each Hi reduce the
bandwidth consumption.
11. Security Considerations
Spatial and one-to-group metrics are defined on the top of end-to-end
metrics. Security considerations discussed in One-way delay metrics
definitions of [RFC2679] , in packet loss metrics definitions
of[RFC2680] and in IPDV metrics definitions of[RFC3393] and [RFC3432]
apply to multimetrics.
11.1. Spatial metrics
Malicious generation of packets with spoofing addresses may corrupt
the results without any possibility to detect the spoofing.
Malicious generation of packets which match systematically the hash
function used to detect the packets may lead to a DoS attack toward
the point of reference.
11.2. one-to-group metric
The reporting of measurement results from a huge number of probes may
overload the network the reference point is attach to, the reference
point network interfaces and the reference point computation
capacities.
The configuration of a measure must take in consideration that
implicitly more packets will to be routed than send and selects a
test packets rate accordingly. Collecting statistics from a huge
number of probes may overload any combination of the network where
the measurement controller is attach to, measurement controller
network interfaces and measurement controller computation capacities.
one-to-group metrics measurement should consider using source
authentication protocols, standardized in the MSEC group, to avoid
fraud packet in the sampling interval. The test packet rate could be
negotiated before any measurement session to avoid deny of service
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
attacks.
12. Acknowledgments
Lei would like to acknowledge Prof. Zhili Sun from CCSR, University
of Surrey, for his instruction and helpful comments on this work.
13. IANA Considerations
Metrics defined in this memo Metrics defined in this memo are
designed to be registered in the IANA IPPM METRICS REGISTRY as
described in initial version of the registry [RFC4148] :
IANA is asked to register the following metrics in the IANA-IPPM-
METRICS-REGISTRY-MIB :
Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Spatial-Packet-Loss-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-Packet-Loss-Vector"
REFERENCE
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Spatial-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Spatial-Segment-Packet-Loss-Stream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
"Type-P-Spatial-Segment-Packet-Loss-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Spatial-Segment-One-way-ipdv-Stream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-Segment-ipdv-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Passive-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Passive-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.4.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Passive-Segment-Packet-Loss-Stream OBJECT-IDENTITY
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Passive-Segment-Packet-Loss-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.4.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Passive-Segment-One-way-ipdv-Stream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Passive-Segment-One-way-ipdv-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.4.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
-- One-to-group metrics
one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
one-to-group-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
one-to-group-One-way-ipdv-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-ipdv-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
One-to-Group-Mean-Delay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.3.3."
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
One-to-Group-Range-Mean-Delay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Range-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.3.4."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
One-to-Group-Max-Mean-Delay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Max-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.3.5."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio"
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.4.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
--
One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio-Range OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio-Range"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.4.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
--
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
May 1998.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
November 2002.
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
14.2. Informative References
[RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.
[RFC3148] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining
Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148,
July 2001.
[RFC3357] Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, "One-way Loss Pattern Sample
Metrics", RFC 3357, August 2002.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002.
[RFC3763] Shalunov, S. and B. Teitelbaum, "One-way Active
Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) Requirements", RFC 3763,
April 2004.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
November 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Stephan Emile
France Telecom Division R&D
2 avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion, F-22307
Fax: +33 2 96 05 18 52
Email: emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
Lei Liang
CCSR, University of Surrey
Guildford
Surrey, GU2 7XH
Fax: +44 1483 683641
Email: L.Liang@surrey.ac.uk
Al Morton
200 Laurel Ave. South
Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Email: acmorton@att.com
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Spatial and Multicast Metrics July 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Stephan, et al. Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 58]
