P2PSIP Working Group H. Song
Internet-Draft X. Jiang
Intended status: Standards Track R. Even
Expires: January 1, 2010 Huawei
D. Bryan
Cogent Force, LLC
June 30, 2009
P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics
draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-01
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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 1, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
Abstract
This document describes mechanisms for P2PSIP diagnostics. It
describes the usage scenarios and defines several simple methods for
performing diagnostics in P2PSIP overlay networks. It also describes
the diagnostic information which is useful for the connection and
node status monitoring. The methods and message formats are
specified as extensions to P2PSIP base protocol RELOAD.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Diagnostic Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Overview of operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Inspect: "Ping" behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Path_Track: "Traceroute" behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. RELOAD diagnostic extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Message Code Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Message Type Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.1. Inspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.2. Path_Track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Message Payload Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3.1. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3.2. Diagnostics information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4. Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.1. Message Creation and Transmission . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.2. Message Processing: Intermediate Peers . . . . . . . . 17
5.4.3. Message Response Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1. Message Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Error Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.3. Data Kind-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.4. Diagnostics Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Appendix: Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.1. Changes since draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-00 . . . . . . 22
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
1. Introduction
In the last few years, overlay networks have rapidly evolved and
emerged as a promising platform to deploy new applications and
services in the Internet. One of the reasons overlay networks are
seen as an excellent platform for large scale distributed systems is
their resilience in the presence of failures. This resilience has
three aspects: data replication, routing recovery, and static
resilience. Routing recovery algorithms are used to repopulate the
routing table with live nodes when failures are detected. Static
resilience measures the extent to which an overlay can route around
failures even before the recovery algorithm repairs the routing
table. Both routing recovery and static resilience relies on
accurate and timely detection of failures.
As described in "Security requirements in P2PSIP"
[I-D.matuszewski-p2psip-security-requirements], there are a number of
situations in which some peers in a P2PSIP overlay may malfunction or
behave badly. For example, these peers may be disabled peers,
congested peers or peers misrouting messages, and the impact of those
peers on the overlay network may be a degradation of quality of
service provided collectively by the peers in the overlay network or
an interruption of those services. It is desirable to identify
malfunctioning or badly behaving peers through diagnostic tools, and
exclude or reject them from the P2PSIP system. Besides those faults,
node failures may be caused by underlying failures, for example, the
recovery from an incorrect overlay topology may be slow when the IP
layer routing failover speed after link failures is very slow.
Moreover, if a backbone link fails and the failover is slow, the
network may be partitioned, leading to partitions of overlay
topologies and inconsistent routing results between different
partitioned components.
Some keep-alive algorithms based on periodic probe and acknowledge
mechanisms enable accurate and timely detection of failures of one
peer's neighbors [Overlay-Failure-Detection], but these algorithms by
themselves can only detect the disabled neighbors using the periodic
method, it may not be enough for service providers operating the
overlay network.
A single, general P2PSIP overlay diagnostic framework supporting
periodic and on-demand methods for detecting node failures and
network failures is desirable. This document describes a general
P2PSIP overlay diagnostic extension to the P2PSIP base protocol and
it is a good compliment to keep-alive algorithms in the P2P or P2PSIP
overlay itself.
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
2. Terminology
The concepts used in this document are compatible with "Concepts and
Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP" [I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts] and the
P2PSIP base protocol RELOAD [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Diagnostic Scenarios
P2P systems are self-organizing and ideally require no network
management in the traditional sense to set up and to configure
individual P2P nodes. However, P2P service providers may contemplate
usage scenarios where some monitoring and diagnostics are required.
We present a simple connectivity test and some useful diagnostic
information that may be used in such diagnostics.
The common usage scenarios for P2P diagnostics can be broadly
categorized in three classes:
a. Automatic diagnostics built into the P2P overlay routing
protocol. Nodes perform periodic checks of known neighbors and
remove those nodes from the routing tables that fail to respond to
connectivity checks [Handling_Churn_in_a_DHT]. However, the
unresponsive nodes may only be temporarily disabled due to some local
cryptographic processing overload, disk processing overload or link
overload. It is therefore useful to repeat the connectivity checks
to see if such nodes have recovered and can be again placed in the
routing tables. This process is known as 'failed node recovery' and
can be optimized as described in the paper "Handling Churn in a DHT"
[Handling_Churn_in_a_DHT].
b. P2P system diagnostics to check the overall health of the P2P
overlay network, the consumption of network bandwidth, for the
presence of problem links and also to check for abusive or malicious
nodes. This is not a trivial problem and has been studied in detail
for content and streaming P2P overlays [Diagnostic_Framework] as well
as in earlier P2PSIP documents
[Diagnostics_and_NAT_traversal_in_P2PP].
c. Diagnostics for a particular node to follow up an individual user
complaint. In this case a technical support person may use a desktop
sharing application with the permission of the user to determine
remotely the health and possible problems with the malfunctioning
node. Part of the remote diagnostics may consist of simple
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
connectivity tests with other nodes in the P2PSIP overlay and
retrieval statistics of nodes from the overlay . The simple
connectivity tests are not dependent on the type of P2PSIP overlay.
Note that other tests may be required as well, such as checking the
health and performance of the user's computer or mobile device and
also checking the bandwidth of the link connecting the user to the
Internet.
4. Overview of operations
The diagnostic mechanisms described in this document are mainly
intended to detect and localize failures or monitor performance in
P2PSIP overlay networks. It provides mechanisms to detect and
localize malfunctioning or badly behaving peers including disabled
peers, congested peers and misrouting peers. It provides a mechanism
to detect direct connectivity or connectivity to a specified peer, a
mechanism to detect the availability of specified resource records
and a mechanism to discover P2PSIP overlay topology and the underlay
topology failures.
The P2PSIP diagnostics extensions define Inspect and Path_Track
methods for connection quality check and retrieval of diagnostic
information, and the Error response to these methods. Essentially it
reuses P2PSIP base protocol specification and extends them to
introduce the new diagnostics methods. The extensions strictly
follow the P2PSIP base protocol specification on the messages
routing, transporting and NAT traversal etc. The diagnostic methods
are however P2PSIP protocol independent.
This document mainly describes how to detect and localize failures
including disabled peers, congested peers, misrouting behaviors and
underlying network faults in P2PSIP overlay networks through a simple
and efficient mechanism. This mechanism is modeled after the ping/
traceroute paradigm: ping (RFC792 ICMP echo request [RFC0792]) is
used for connectivity checks, and traceroute is used for hop-by-hop
fault localization as well as path tracing. This document specifies
a "ping" mode (by defining the Inspect method) and a "traceroute"
mode (by defining the Path_Track method) for diagnosing P2PSIP
overlay networks.
We define a simple Path_Track method for retrieving diagnostics
information iteratively. First, the initiating node asks its
neighbor A which is the next hop node to the destination ID, and then
retrieve the next hop node B information, along with optional
diagnostic information of A, to the initiator node. Then the
initiator node asks the next hop node B(directly or symmetric
routing) to get the further next hop node C information and
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
diagnostic information of B. This step can be iterative until the
request reaches responsible node D for the destination ID, and
retrieve diagnostic information of node D, or terminates by some
failures that prevent the process.
One approach these tools can be used is to detect the connectivity to
the specified peer or the availability of the specified resource-
record through P2PSIP Inspect operation once the overlay network
receives some alarms about overlay service degradation or
interruption, if the Inspect fails, one can then send a P2PSIP
Path_Track to determine where the fault lies.
The authors earlier considered an approach where a response was
generated by each intermediate peer as the message traversed the
overlay, but this approach was discarded as a result of working group
discussion. One reason this approach was discarded was that it could
provide a DoS mechanism, whereby an attacker could send an arbitrary
message claiming to be from a spoofed "sender" the real sender wished
to attack. As a result of sending this one message, many messages
would be generated and sent back to the spoofed "sender" -- one from
each intermediate peer on the message path. While authentication
mechanisms could reduce some of the risk of this attack, it still
resulted in a fundamental break from the request-response nature of
the RELOAD protocol, as multiple responses are generated to a single
request. Although one request with responses from all the peers in
the route will be more efficient.
The diagnostic information MUST be only provided to authorized peers.
Some diagnostic information can be authorized to all the participants
in the P2PSIP overlay, and some other diagnostic information can only
be provided to the authorization peer list of each diagnostic
information according to the local or overlay policy. The
authorization mainly depends on the kinds of the diagnostic
information and the administrative considerations.
4.1. Inspect: "Ping" behavior
To provide "ping" like behavior, an Inspect request message is
forwarded by the intermediate peers along the path and then
terminated by the responsible peer, and after optional local
diagnostics, the responsible peer returns an Inspect response
message. If an error is found when routing, an Error response is
sent to the initiator node by the intermediate peer.
4.2. Path_Track: "Traceroute" behavior
A simple Path_Track method is used for retrieving diagnostics
information iteratively. First, the initiating node asks its
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
neighbor A which is the next hop node to the destination ID, and then
retrieve the next hop node B information, along with optional
diagnostic information of A, to the initiator node. Then the
initiator node asks the next hop node B (directly or through
symmetric routing) to get the next hop node C information and
diagnostic information of B. Unless a failure prevents the message
from being forwarded, this step can be iterative until the request
reaches the responsible node D for the destination ID, and to
retrieve diagnostic information for node D.
One application of these tools is to detect and diagnose the
connectivity to the specified peer or the availability of the
specified resource-record through P2PSIP Inspect operation after the
overlay network receives some alarms about overlay service
degradation or interruption. If the Inspect fails, one can then send
a P2PSIP Path_Track to determine where the fault lies.
4.3. Authorization
The diagnostic information must be only be provided to authorized
peers. Some diagnostic information can be authorized to all the
participants in the P2PSIP overlay, and some other diagnostic
information can only be provided to the authorization peer list for
each piece of diagnostic information according to the local or
overlay policy. The authorization mainly depends on the kinds of the
diagnostic information and the administrative considerations.
5. RELOAD diagnostic extensions
This document extends the P2PSIP base protocol to carry diagnostics
information. Considering the special usage of diagnostics, this
document defines simple new methods: Inspect and Path_Track .
Additionally, the related Error codes for these methods, and some
useful diagnostics information are defined. Processing of the
messages is discussed.
As described in the P2PSIP base protocol, each message has three
parts. This specification is consistent with the format.
+-------------------------+
| Forwarding Header |
+-------------------------+
| Message Contents |
+-------------------------+
| Signature |
+-------------------------+
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
5.1. Message Code Extension
The mechanism defined in this document follows P2PSIP base protocol
specification, the new request and response message use the message
format specified in P2PSIP base protocol messages. Different types
of messages convey different message contents following the
forwarding header according to the protocol design. Please refer to
P2PSIP base protocol [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] for the detailed format
of forwarding header.
This document introduces two types of messages and their responses:
Name Message Code
Inspect request 101
Inspect response 102
Path_Track request 103
Path_Track response 104
The final message code will be assigned by IANA as specified in
section 13.6 of [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].
5.2. Message Type Extensions
All P2PSIP base protocol requests and responses use the common
forwarding header followed by the message contents.
This document defines Inspect and Path_Track methods to detect and
localize failures in P2PSIP overlay network. The Error Codes to
these requests are defined in Section 5.3.1 of this spec.
5.2.1. Inspect
In P2PSIP base protocol, Ping is used to test connectivity along a
path. However, connectivity quality can not be measured well without
some useful information, such as the timestamp and hop counter. Here
we define a new method Inspect for connectivity quality check
purposes.
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
Peer-1 Peer-2 Peer-3 Peer-4
| | | |
|(1). InspectReq | | |
|------------------->|(2).InspectReq | |
| |------------------->|(3). InspectReq |
| | |------------------->|
| | | |
| | |<-------------------|
| |<-------------------|(4). InspectAns |
|<-------------------|(5). InspectAns | |
|(6). InspectAns | | |
| | | |
Inspect example
See below for the Inspect formats.
Inspect Request:
struct {
uint64 expiration;
uint8 underlayTTL;
uint64 timestampInitiated;
} InspectReq;
Inspect Response:
struct {
uint64 expiration;
uint8 hopCounter;
uint64 timestampReceived;
}InspectAns;
expiration : The time-of-day (in seconds and microseconds, according
to the receiver's clock) in NTP timestamp format [RFC4330] when the
Inspect request expires. This field can be used to mitigate the
replay attack to the destination peer and overlay network.
underlayTTL : It indicates the underlay TTL which the intermediate
peer must adopt when forwarding the diagnostic requests, it is
specified by the initiator. If the value is 0, then the intermediate
peer must ignore this field, and use the underlay TTL from its local
configuration.
The requirement here for underlayTTL is that one may want to limit
each hop underlay TTL from the initiator to the destination, if the
underlay TTL expires somewhere, this may provide a (possibly false)
indication that the link is not of good quality.
Note: underlayTTL means IP layer time-to-live. RELOAD does not
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
require the intermediate peers to look into the message body. With
the diagnostics of UnderlayTTL, we need that. OTOH, what about using
Path_Track to gather underlay hops?
timestampInitiated : The time-of-day (in seconds and microseconds,
according to the sender's clock) in NTP timestamp format [RFC4330]
when the P2PSIP Overlay diagnostic request is sent.
timestampReceived : The time-of-day (in seconds and microseconds,
according to the receiver's clock) in NTP timestamp format [RFC4330]
when the P2PSIP Overlay diagnostic request was received.
hopCounter : This field only appears in diagnostic responses. It
must be exactly copied from the TTL field of the forwarding header in
the received request. This information is sent back to the request
initiator, allowing it to compute the hops that the message traversed
in the overlay.
5.2.2. Path_Track
This document defines a simple Path_Track method to retrieve the
diagnostic information from the intermediate peers along the routing
path. At each step of the Path_Track request, the responsible peer
responds to the initiator node with its status information like
congestion state, its processing power, its available bandwidth, the
number of entries in its neighbor table, its uptime, its identity and
network address information, and the next hop peer information.
Peer-1 Peer-2 Peer-3 Peer-4
| | | |
|(1).PathTrackReq | | |
|------------------->| | |
|(2).PathTrackAns | | |
|<-------------------| | |
| |(3).PathTrackReq | |
|--------------------|------------------->| |
| |(4).PathTrackAns | |
|<-------------------|--------------------| |
| | |(5).PathTrackReq |
|--------------------|--------------------|------------------->|
| | |(6).PathTrackAns |
|<-------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| | | |
Path_Track example
A Path_Track request specifies which diagnostic information is
requested by setting different bits in the flag contained in the
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
Path_Track request. If the flag is clear (no bits are set), then the
Path_Track request is only used for requesting the next hop
information. In this case the iterative mode of Path_Track is
degraded to a Route_Query method which is only used for checking the
liveness of the peers along the routing path. The Path_Track request
can be routed directly or through the overlay based on the routing
mode chosen by the initiator node.
A response to a successful PathTrackReq is a PathTrackAns message.
There is a general diagnostic information portion of the payload, the
contents of which are based on the flags in the request. Please
refer to Section 5.3.2 for the definitions of the diagnostic
information.
Path_Track request:
struct {
Destination destination;
uint64 expiration;
uint64 timestampInitiated;
uint8 length;
select (length){
case 0:
uint64 dMFlags;
case > 0:
uint64 dMFlags;
uint64 dEFlags<0...length-1>;
}
} PathTrackReq;
destination : The destination which the requester is interested
in. This may be any valid destination object, including a
Node-ID, compressed ids, or Resource-ID.
expiration : The time-of-day (in seconds and microseconds,
according to the receiver's clock) in NTP timestamp format
[RFC4330] when the Path_Track request expires. This field can be
used to mitigate the replay attack to the destination peer and
overlay network.
timestampInitiated : The time-of-day (in seconds and microseconds,
according to the sender's clock) in NTP timestamp format [RFC4330]
when the P2PSIP Overlay diagnostic request is sent.
length : the number of extended diagnostics flags (in the unit of
64 bits). If the value is greater than or equal to 1, then one or
more extended diagnostics flags (dEFlags) are specified. The
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
value of length must not be negative.
dMFlags : A mandatory flag which is an unsigned 64-bit integer
indicating which kind of diagnostic information the initiator is
interested in. The initiator sets different bits to retrieve
different kinds of diagnostic information. If dMFlags is clear,
then no mandatory diagnostic information is conveyed in the
Path_Track response. If dMFlag is set to all '1's, then all
diagnostic information kinds are requested. (Note: This memo
specifies the initial set of flags, the flags can be extended by
standard action We will add a section about extending the flags
both standard and application specific in a future version) The
dMflags indicate general diagnostic information The mapping
between the bits in the dMFlags and the diagnostic information
kind presented is as below.
STATUS_INFO(0x0001) : if set, the status information of the
responding peer is requested;
ROUTING_TABLE_SIZE(0x0002) : if set, the number of entries in
the responding peer's neighbor is requested;
PROCESS_POWER(0x0004) : if set, the processing power
information of the responding peer is requested;
BANDWIDTH(0x0008) : if set, the bandwidth information of the
responding peer is requested;
SOFTWARE_VERSION(0x0010): if set, the software version of the
peer program is requested;
MACHINE_UPTIME(0x0020): if set, the uptime of the machine is
requested;
APP_UPTIME(0x0040): if set, the uptime of the p2p application
is requested;
MEMORY_FOOTPRINT(0x0080): if set, the memory footprint of the
peer program is requested;
DATASIZE_STORED(0x0100): if set, the number of bytes of data
being stored by this node is requested;
MESSAGES_SENT_RCVD(0x0200): if set, an array element containing
the number of messages sent and received is requested;
EWMA_BYTES_SENT(0x0400): if set, an integer representing the
exponential weighted average of bytes sent per second by this
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
peer is requested;
EWMA_BYTES_RCVD(0x0800): if set, an integer representing the
exponential weighted average of bytes received per second by
this peer is requested;
dEFlags : the extended diagnostics flags which can be used by
applications to retrieve its own customized diagnostics information.
This allows private extensions.
Path_Track response:
struct {
Destination next_hop;
uint64 expiration;
uint64 timestampReceived;
uint8 length;
Diagnostic_Info diag_info_list<0..length-1>;
} PathTrackAns;
next_hop : The information of the next hop node from the
responding intermediate peer to the destination node. If the
responding peer is the responsible peer for the destination ID,
then the next_hop node ID equals the responding node ID, and after
that the initiator must stop the iterative process.
expiration : The time-of-day (in seconds and microseconds,
according to the receiver's clock) in NTP timestamp format
[RFC4330] when the Path_Track response expires. This field can be
used to mitigate the replay attack to the destination peer and
overlay network.
timestampReceived : The time-of-day (in seconds and microseconds,
according to the receiver's clock) in NTP timestamp format
[RFC4330] when the P2PSIP Overlay diagnostic request was received.
length : the number of Diagnostic_Info values contained in the
response.
diag_info_list : The diagnostic information from the responding
peer.
The TLV structure for Diagnostic_Info is as follows:
struct {
KindId kind;
uint8 length;
Opaque diagnosic_information<0..2^8-1>;
} Diagnostic_Info;
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
kind : A numeric code indicating the type of information being
reported.
length : the length in bytes of the opaque date containing the
information being reported
diagnostic_information : Data of length specified above containing
the value for the diagnostic information being reported.
Various kinds of diagnostic information can be retrieved, Please
refer to section Section 5.3.2 for details of the types and Kind-ID
for the diagnostic information that may be reported.
5.3. Message Payload Extensions
As an extension to P2PSIP base protocol, a P2PSIP diagnostics
protocol message content contains one message code following by its
payloads. Please refer to P2PSIP base protocol
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] for the detailed format of Message Contents.
In addition to the newly introduced methods, this document extends
the Error codes defined in P2PSIP base protocol specification.
5.3.1. Error Codes
This document extends the Error response method defined in the P2PSIP
base protocol specification to describe the result of diagnostics.
Name Message Code
Error 0xFFFF
This document defines new Error codes to carry different failure
reports to the initiator node when failure is detected during
diagnostics. This document introduces new Error Codes as below:
Code Value Error Code Name
101 Underlay Destination Unreachable
102 Underlay Time exceeded
103 Message Expired
104 Upstream Misrouting
105 Loop detected
106 TTL hops exceeded
The final error codes will be assigned by IANA as specified in
section 13.7 of the p2psip base protocol [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base].
This document introduces several types of error information in the
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
error_info field for Error Code 101 as an example:
error_info:
net unreachable
host unreachable
protocol unreachable
port unreachable
fragmentation needed
source route failed
Editor note: We may need more discussion here to see if we need to
define an additional sub-code field for the error information. Sub-
code is easier for the machine to process while various text is more
human readable.
5.3.2. Diagnostics information
This document introduces some diagnostics information conveyed in the
message payload which can be retrieved to get the statistics and also
allows for retrieval of other kinds that a node stores. In essence,
the usage allows querying a node's state such as storage and network
to obtain the relevant information. It can also be used to discover
information such as the software version, uptime, routing table,
stored resource-objects, performance statistics of a peer and link
quality of a overlay route. The diagnostic information data kinds
are defined below.
PROCESS_POWER (32 bits): A single value element containing an
unsigned 32-bit integer specifying the processing power of the
node in unit of MIPS.
BANDWIDTH (32 bits): A single value element containing an unsigned
32-bit integer specifying the bandwidth of the node in unit of
Kbps.
Editor's note: For the diagnostic information of processing
power, bandwidth and etc., we should look at what has been
useful for PlanetLab and in commercial deployments in this
context, and further discussion is needed on what mature
diagnostics information for p2p overlays can be brought here.
ROUTING_TABLE_SIZE (32 bits): A single value element containing an
unsigned 32-bit integer representing the number of peers in the
peer's routing table. The administrator of the overlay may be
interested in statistics of this value for the consideration such
as routing efficiency.
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
STATUS_INFO (8 bits): A single value element containing an
unsigned byte representing whether or not the node is in
congestion status.
SOFTWARE_VERSION: A single value element containing a US-ASCII
string that identifies the manufacture, model, and version of the
software.
MACHINE_UPTIME (64 bits): A single value element containing an
unsigned 64-bit integer specifying the time the nodes has been up
in seconds.
APP_UPTIME (64 bits): A single value element containing an
unsigned 64-bit integer specifying the time the p2p application
has been up in seconds.
MEMORY_FOOTPRINT (32 bits): A single value element containing an
unsigned 32- bit integer representing the memory footprint of the
peer program in kilo bytes.
Note: A kilo byte in this document represents 1024 bytes.
DATASIZE_STORED (64 bits): An unsigned 64-bit integer representing
the number of bytes of data being stored by this node.
INSTANCES_STORED An array element containing the number of
instances of each kind stored. The array is index by Kind-ID.
Each entry is an unsigned 64-bit integer.
MESSAGES_SENT_RCVD An array element containing the number of
messages sent and received. The array is indexed by method code.
Each entry in the array is a pair of unsigned 64-bit integers
(packed end to end) representing sent and received.
EWMA_BYTES_SENT (32 bits): A single value element containing an
unsigned 32-bit integer representing an exponential weighted
average of bytes sent per second by this peer. sent = alpha x
sent_present + (1 - alpha) x sent where sent_present represents
the bytes sent per second since the last calculation and sent
represents the last calculation of bytes sent per second. A
suitable value for alpha is 0.8. This value is calculated every
five seconds.
EWMA_BYTES_RCVD (32 bits): A single value element containing an
unsigned 32-bit integer representing an exponential weighted
average of bytes received per second by this peer. Same
calculation as above.
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
5.4. Message Processing
5.4.1. Message Creation and Transmission
When constructing either an Inspect message or a Path_Track message,
the sender MUST set both the destination and the expiration value (in
NTP timestamp format) for the message.
When constructing an Inspect message, the sender MAY specfify a value
for underlayTTL. If a value is not specified, the sender MUST set
underlayTTL to 0. The sender MUST generate an NTP format timestamp
for the current time of day and place it in the timeStampInitiated
field.
When constructing a Path_Track message, the sender MUST set the
length value to a value equal to or greater than 0. If the value of
length is set to 0, the sender MUST include a dMFlags value, and MUST
NOT include any dEFlags values. If the sender wishes to send dEFlags
in addition to dMFlags, the sender MUST set the value of length to be
equal to the number of dEFlags present. Note that the sender MUST
NOT set length to negative. The sender MAY set bits in dMFlags as
discussed above to request specific information, and MAY set bits in
dEFlags fields to request user-specific bits. The sender also MAY
set dMFlags to all zero, indicating that no diagnostic information is
requested.
A Path_Track request MUST specify which diagnostic information is
requested by setting different bits in the flag contained in the
Path_Track request payload. If the flag is clear, then the
Path_Track request is only used for asking the next hop information,
in this case the iterative mode of Path_Track is degraded to a
Route_Query method which is only used for checking the liveness of
the peers along the routing path. The Path_Track request can be
routed directly or through the overlay based on the routing mode
chosen by the initiator node.
5.4.2. Message Processing: Intermediate Peers
When a request arrives at a peer, if the peer's responsible ID space
does not cover the destination ID of the request, then the peer MUST
continue process this request according to the overlay specified
routing mode from the base draft.
In p2psip overlay, the error response can be generated by the
intermediate peer or responsible peer, to a diagnostic message or
other messages. When a request is received at a peer, the peer may
find some connectivity failures or malfunction peers through the pre-
defined rules of the overlay network, e.g. by analyzing via list or
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
underlay error messages. The peer should report the error responses
to the initiator node. The malfunction node information should also
be reported to the initiator node in the error message payload. All
error responses contain the Error code followed by the subcode and
descriptions if existed.
Each intermediate peer receiving an Inspect or Path_Track request/
response SHOULD check the expiration value (NTP format) to determine
if the message expired. If the message expired, the intermediate
peer SHOULD generate a message with Error Code 103 "Message Expired"
and return it to the initiator node, and discard the message.
The peer should return an Error response with the Error Code 101
"Underlay Destination Unreachable" when it receives an ICMP message
with "Destination Unreachable" information after forwarding the
received request to the destination peer.
The peer should return an Error response with the Error Code 102
"Underlay Time Exceeded" when it receives an ICMP message with "Time
Exceeded" information after forwarding the received request.
The peer should return an Error response with Error Code 104
"Upstream Misrouting" when it finds its upstream peer disobeys the
routing rules defined in the overlay. The immediate upstream peer
information should also be conveyed to the initiator node.
The peer should return an Error response with Error Code 105 "Loop
detected" when it finds a loop through the analysis of via list.
The peer should return an Error response with Error Code 106 "TTL
hops exceeded" when it finds that the TTL field value is no more than
0 when forwarding.
With Path_Track, if a former Path_Track message does not arrive at
the destination, then the following Path_Track request must copy the
next_hop field in the former response into the forwarding header and
keep the destination_ID unchanged.
Inspect is also used to detect possible failures in the specified
path of P2PSIP overlay network. If disabled peers, misrouting
behavior and underlying network faults are detected during the
routing process, the Error responses with Error codes and
descriptions, must be sent to the initiator node immediately.
5.4.3. Message Response Creation
When a diagnostic request message arrives at a peer, and it is
responsible for the destination ID specified in the forwarding
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
header, it MUST follow the specifications defined in 5.1.3 of the
base draft to form the response header.
When the responsible peer receives an Inspect or Path_Track request/
response it MUST check the expiration value (NTP format) to determine
if the message expired. If the message expired, the peer MUST
generate a message with the Error Code 103 "Message Expired" and
return it to the initiator node, and discard the message.
If the request is an Inspect, the destination peer MUST copy the TTL
value to the HopCounter field. The receiver MUST generate an NTP
format timestamp for the current time of day and place it in the
timestampReceived field.
The initiator node, as well as the responding peer, MAY compute the
overlay One-Way-Delay time through the value in timestampReceived and
the timestampInitiated field. However, for a single hop measurement,
the traditional measurement methods MUST be used instead of the
overlay layer diagnostics methods.
Editor note: We need more discussion and careful consideration on how
to use the timestamp here because time synchronization is a barrier
in open Internet environment, while in the operator's network, it may
be less of a problem.
The initiator node receiving the Inspect response MUST check the
hopCounter field and compute the overlay hops to the destination peer
for the statistics of connectivity quality from the perspective of
overlay hops.
If the request is a Path_Track, the destination peer MUST check if
the initiator node has the authority to get certain kinds of
diagnostic information, and if appropriate, appends the diagnostic
information requested in the dEFlags and dMFlags to the response
message. The peer should return an Error response with the Error
Code 1 "Error_Unauthorized" when the initiator node does not have the
authority to get the corresponding diagnostic information.
In the event of an error, an error response containing the error code
followed by the subcode and description (if they exist) MUST be
created and sent to the sender.
6. Examples
Below, we sketch how these metrics can be used.
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
6.1. Example 1
A peer may set EWMA_BYTES_SENT and WEMA_BYTES_RCVD flags in the
PathTrackReq to its direct neighbors. A peer can use EWMA_BYTES_SENT
and EWMA_BYTES_RCVD of another peer to infer whether it is acting as
a media relay. It may then choose not to forward any requests for
media relay to this peer. Similarly, among the various candidates
for filling up routing table, a peer may prefer a peer with a large
UPTIME value, small RTT, and small LAST_CONTACT value.
6.2. Example 2
A peer may set the StatusInfo Flag in the PathTrackReq to a remote
destination peer. The overlay has its own threshold definition for
congestion. The peer can get knowledge of all the status information
of the intermediate peers along the path. Then it can choose other
paths to that node for the later requests.
6.3. Example 3
A peer may use Inspect to evaluate the average overlay hops to other
peers by sending InspectReq to a set of random resource or node IDs
in the overlay. A peer may adjust its timeout value according to the
change of average overlay hops.
7. Security Considerations
The authorization for diagnostics information must be designed with
care to prevent it becoming a resort to retrieve information for bots
attacks. It should also be careful that attackers can use
diagnostics to analyze overlay information to attack certain key
peers if there are. As this draft is a RELOAD extension, it follows
RELOAD message header and routing specifications, the common security
considerations described in the base draft [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] are
also applicable to this draft.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Message Code
This document introduces two new types of message to the "RELOAD
Message Code" Registry as below:
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
+-------------------+----------------+----------+
| Message Code Name | Code Value | RFC |
+-------------------+----------------+----------+
| inspect_req | 101 | RFC-AAAA |
| inspect_ans | 102 | RFC-AAAA |
| path_track_req | 103 | RFC-AAAA |
| path_track_ans | 104 | RFC-AAAA |
+-------------------+----------------+----------+
8.2. Error Code
This document introduces some new Error Codes to the "RELOAD Message
Code" Registry as below:
Code Value Error Code Name
101 Underlay Destination Unreachable
102 Underlay Time exceeded
103 Message Expired
104 Upstream Misrouting
105 Loop detected
106 TTL hops exceeded
8.3. Data Kind-ID
This document introduces additional data kind-IDs to the "RELOAD Data
Kind-ID" Registry as below:
Kind Kind-ID
StatusInfo 101
ProcessPower 102
Bandwidth 103
8.4. Diagnostics Flag
IANA SHALL create a "RELOAD Dianogsitcs Flag" Registry. Entries in
this registry are 1-bit flag contained in a 64-bits long integer
dMFlags denoting diagnostic information to be retrieved as described
in Section 5.2.2. New entries SHALL be defined via [RFC5226]
Standards Action. The initial contents of this registry are:
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
+-------------------------+------------------------------+--------+
| diagnostic information |diagnostic flag in dMFlags | RFC |
|-------------------------+------------------------------+--------|
|Reserved | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0000 |RFC-BBBB|
|STATUS_INFO | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0001 |RFC-BBBB|
|ROUTING_TABLE_SIZE | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0002 |RFC-BBBB|
|PROCESS_POWER | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0004 |RFC-BBBB|
|BANDWIDTH | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0008 |RFC-BBBB|
|SOFTWARE_VERSION | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0010 |RFC-BBBB|
|MACHINE_UPTIME | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0020 |RFC-BBBB|
|APP_UPTIME | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0040 |RFC-BBBB|
|MEMORY_FOOTPRINT | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0080 |RFC-BBBB|
|DATASIZE_STORED | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0100 |RFC-BBBB|
|MESSAGES_SENT_RCVD | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0200 |RFC-BBBB|
|EWMA_BYTES_SENT | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0400 |RFC-BBBB|
|EWMA_BYTES_RCVD | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0800 |RFC-BBBB|
|Reserved | 0x FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF |RFC-BBBB|
+-------------------------+------------------------------+--------+
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Zheng Hewen for the contribution of the
initial version of this draft. We would also like to thank Bruce
Lowekamp, Salman Baset, Henning Schulzrinne and Jiang Haifeng for the
email discussion and their valued comments, and special thanks to
Henry Sinnreich for contributing to the usage scenarios text. We
would like to thank the authors of the p2psip base draft for
transferring text about diagnostics to this document.
The authors would also like to thank the many people of the IETF
P2PSIP WG that have contributed to discussions and provided input
invaluable in assembling this document.
10. Appendix: Changes
10.1. Changes since draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-00
1. Change Title from "Diagnose P2PSIP Overlay Network" into
"P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics";
2. Change the table of contents. Add a section about message
processing and another section about examples;
3. Merge diagnostics text from the p2psip base draft 01;
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
4. Remove ECHO method for security considerations.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip]
Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., and
H. Schulzrinne, "A SIP Usage for RELOAD",
draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-01 (work in progress), March 2009.
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]
Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., and
H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)
Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-02 (work in
progress), March 2009.
[I-D.zheng-p2psip-diagnose]
Yongchao, S. and X. Jiang, "Diagnose P2PSIP Overlay
Network", draft-zheng-p2psip-diagnose-04 (work in
progress), December 2008.
[Overlay-Failure-Detection]
Zhuang, S., "On failure detection algorithms in overlay
networks", Proc. IEEE Infocomm, Mar 2005.
[Handling_Churn_in_a_DHT]
Rhea, S., "Handling Churn in a DHT", USENIX Annual
Conference, June 2004.
[Diagnostic_Framework]
Jin, X., "A Diagnostic Framework for Peer-to-Peer
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
Streaming", 2005.
[Diagnostics_and_NAT_traversal_in_P2PP]
Gupta, G., "Diagnostics and NAT Traversal in P2PP - Design
and Implementation", Columbia University Report ,
June 2008.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4330] Mills, D., "Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4
for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI", RFC 4330, January 2006.
[RFC4981] Risson, J. and T. Moors, "Survey of Research towards
Robust Peer-to-Peer Networks: Search Methods", RFC 4981,
September 2007.
[I-D.ietf-behave-rfc3489bis]
Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for (NAT) (STUN)",
draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-18 (work in progress),
July 2008.
[I-D.matuszewski-p2psip-security-requirements]
Yongchao, S., Matuszewski, M., and D. York, "Security
requirements in Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol
(P2PSIP)",
draft-matuszewski-p2psip-security-requirements-04 (work in
progress), November 2008.
[I-D.song-p2psip-security-eval]
Yongchao, S., Zhao, B., Jiang, X., and J. Haifeng, "P2PSIP
Security Analysis and Evaluation",
draft-song-p2psip-security-eval-00 (work in progress),
February 2008.
[I-D.baset-p2psip-p2pp]
Baset, S., Schulzrinne, H., and M. Matuszewski, "Peer-to-
Peer Protocol (P2PP)", draft-baset-p2psip-p2pp-01 (work in
progress), November 2007.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice]
Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols",
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19 (work in progress), October 2007.
[I-D.bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios]
Bryan, D., Shim, E., Lowekamp, B., and S. Dawkins,
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
"Application Scenarios for Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation
Protocol (P2PSIP)", draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00
(work in progress), November 2007.
[I-D.bryan-p2psip-requirements]
Bryan, D., "P2PSIP Protocol Framework and Requirements",
draft-bryan-p2psip-requirements-00 (work in progress),
July 2007.
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts]
Bryan, D., Matthews, P., Shim, E., Willis, D., and S.
Dawkins, "Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP",
draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-02 (work in progress),
July 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Song Haibin
Huawei
Baixia Road No. 91
Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210001
P.R.China
Phone: +86-25-84565867
Fax: +86-25-84565888
Email: melodysong@huawei.com
Jiang Xingfeng
Huawei
Baixia Road No. 91
Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210001
P.R.China
Phone: +86-25-84565868
Fax: +86-25-84565888
Email: jiang.x.f@huawei.com
Roni Even
Huawei
14 David Hamelech
Tel Aviv 64953
Israel
Email: even.roni@huawei.com
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft P2PSIP Overlay Diagnostics June 2009
David A. Bryan
Cogent Force, LLC
Williamsburg, Virginia
United States of America
Email: dbryan@ethernot.org
Song, et al. Expires January 1, 2010 [Page 26]
