PANRG T. Enghardt
Internet-Draft Netflix
Intended status: Informational C. Krähenbühl
Expires: 8 September 2022 ETH Zürich
7 March 2022
A Vocabulary of Path Properties
draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-05
Abstract
Path properties express information about paths across a network and
the services provided via such paths. In a path-aware network, path
properties may be fully or partially available to entities such as
endpoints. This document defines and categorizes path properties.
Furthermore, the document specifies several path properties which
might be useful to endpoints or other entities, e.g., for selecting
between paths or for invoking some of the provided services.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the "Path-Aware Networking
Research Group" mailing list (PANRG), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/panrg/. Subscription
information is at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/panrg/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/panrg/path-properties/.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 September 2022.
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology usage for specific technologies . . . . . . . 5
3. Use Cases for Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Protocol Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Service Invocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Examples of Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The current Internet architecture does not explicitly support
endpoint discovery of forwarding paths through the network as well as
the discovery of properties and services associated with these paths.
Path-aware networking, as defined in Section 1.1 of
[I-D.irtf-panrg-questions], describes "endpoint discovery of the
properties of paths they use for communication across an
internetwork, and endpoint reaction to these properties that affects
routing and/or data transfer". This document provides a generic
definition of path properties, addressing the first of the questions
in path-aware networking [I-D.irtf-panrg-questions].
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
As terms related to paths have been used with different meanings in
different areas of networking, first, this document provides a common
terminology to define paths, path elements, and flows. Based on
these terms, the document defines path properties. Then, this
document provides some examples of use cases for path properties.
Finally, the document lists several path properties that may be
useful for the mentioned use cases.
Note that this document does not assume that any of the listed path
properties are actually available to any entity. The question of how
entities can discover and distribute path properties in a trustworthy
way is out of scope for this document.
2. Terminology
Entity: A physical or virtual device or function, or a collection of
devices or functions, which plays a role related to path-aware
networking for particular paths and flows. An entity can be on-
path or off-path: On the path, an entity may participate in
forwarding the flow, i.e., what may be called data plane
functionality. On or off the path, an entity may influence
aspects of how the flow is forwarded, i.e., what may be called
control plane functionality, such as Path Selection or Service
Invocation. An entity influencing forwarding aspects is usually
aware of path properties, e.g., by observing or measuring them or
by learning them from another entity.
Node: An on-path entity which processes packets, e.g., sends,
receives, forwards, or modifies them. A node may be physical or
virtual, e.g., a physical device, a service function provided as a
virtual element, or even a single queue within a switch. A node
may also be an entity which consists of a collection of devices or
functions, e.g., an entire Autonomous System (AS).
Link: A medium or communication facility that connects two or more
nodes with each other. A link enables a node to send packets to
other nodes. Links can be physical, e.g., a Wi-Fi network which
connects an Access Point to stations, or virtual, e.g., a virtual
switch which connects two virtual machines hosted on the same
physical machine. A link is unidirectional. As such,
bidirectional communication can be modeled as two links between
the same nodes in opposite directions.
Path element: Either a node or a link. For example, a path element
can be an Abstract Network Element (ANE) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector].
Path: A sequence of adjacent path elements over which a packet can
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
be transmitted, starting and ending with a node. A path is
unidirectional. Paths are time-dependent, i.e., the sequence of
path elements over which packets are sent from one node to another
may change. A path is defined between two nodes. For multicast
or broadcast, a packet may be sent by one node and received by
multiple nodes. In this case, the packet is sent over multiple
paths at once, one path for each combination of sending and
receiving node; these paths do not have to be disjoint. Note that
an entity may have only partial visibility of the path elements
that comprise a path and visibility may change over time.
Different entities may have different visibility of a path and/or
treat path elements at different levels of abstraction. For
example, a path may be given as a sequence of physical nodes and
the links connecting these nodes, or it may be given as a sequence
of logical nodes such as a sequence of ASes or an Explicit Route
Object (ERO). Similarly, the representation of a path and its
properties, as it is known to a specific entity, may be more
complex and include details about the physical layer technology,
or it may be more abstract and only consist of a specific source
and destination which is known to be reachable from that source.
Endpoint: The endpoints of a path are the first and the last node on
the path. For example, an endpoint can be a host as defined in
[RFC1122], which can be a client (e.g., a node running a web
browser) or a server (e.g., a node running a web server).
Reverse Path: The path that is used by a remote node in the context
of bidirectional communication.
Subpath: Given a path, a subpath is a sequence of adjacent path
elements of this path.
Flow: One or multiple packets to which the traits of a path or set
of subpaths may be applied in a functional sense. For example, a
flow can consist of all packets sent within a TCP session with the
same five-tuple between two hosts, or it can consist of all
packets sent on the same physical link.
Property: A trait of one or a sequence of path elements, or a trait
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
of a flow with respect to one or a sequence of path elements. An
example of a link property is the maximum data rate that can be
sent over the link. An example of a node property is the
administrative domain that the node belongs to. An example of a
property of a flow with respect to a subpath is the aggregated
one-way delay of the flow being sent from one node to another node
over this subpath. A property is thus described by a tuple
containing the path element(s), the flow or an empty set if no
packets are relevant for the property, the name of the property
(e.g., maximum data rate), and the value of the property (e.g.,
1Gbps).
Aggregated property: A collection of multiple values of a property
into a single value, according to a function. A property can be
aggregated over multiple path elements (i.e., a subpath), e.g.,
the MTU of a path as the minimum MTU of all links on the path,
over multiple packets (i.e., a flow), e.g., the median one-way
latency of all packets between two nodes, or over both, e.g., the
mean of the queueing delays of a flow on all nodes along a path.
The aggregation function can be numerical, e.g., median, sum,
minimum, it can be logical, e.g., "true if all are true", "true if
at least 50\% of values are true", or an arbitrary function which
maps multiple input values to an output value.
Observed property: A property that is observed for a specific path
element, subpath, or path, e.g., using measurements. For example,
the one-way delay of a specific packet transmitted from one node
to another node can be measured.
Assessed property: An approximate calculation or assessment of the
value of a property. An assessed property includes the
reliability of the calculation or assessment. The notion of
reliability depends on the property. For example, a path property
based on an approximate calculation may describe the expected
median one-way latency of packets sent on a path within the next
second, including the confidence level and interval. A non-
numerical assessment may instead include the likelihood that the
property holds.
2.1. Terminology usage for specific technologies
The terminology defined in this document is intended to be general
and applicable to existing and future path-aware technologies. Using
this terminology, a path-aware technology can define and consider
specific path elements and path properties on a specific level of
abstraction. For instance, a technology may define path elements as
IP routers, e.g., in source routing ([RFC1940]). Alternatively, it
may consider path elements on a different layer of the Internet
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
Architecture ([RFC1122]) or as a collection of entities not tied to a
specific layer, such as an AS or an ERO. Even within a single path-
aware technology, specific definitions might differ depending on the
context in which they are used. For example, the endpoints might be
the communicating hosts in the context of the transport layer, ASes
that contain the hosts in the context of routing, or specific
applications in the context of the application layer.
3. Use Cases for Path Properties
When a path-aware network exposes path properties to endpoints or
other entities, these entities may use this information to achieve
different goals. This section lists several use cases for path
properties.
Note that this is not an exhaustive list, as with every new
technology and protocol, novel use cases may emerge, and new path
properties may become relevant. Moreover, for any particular
technology, entities may have visibility of and control over
different path elements and path properties, and consider them on
different levels of abstraction. Therefore, a new technology may
implement an existing use case related to different path elements or
on a different level of abstraction.
3.1. Path Selection
Nodes may be able to send flows via one (or a subset) out of multiple
possible paths, and an entity may be able to influence the decision
which path(s) to use. Path Selection may be feasible if there are
several paths to the same destination (e.g., in case of a mobile
device with two wireless interfaces, both providing a path), or if
there are several destinations, and thus several paths, providing the
same service (e.g., Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
[RFC5693], an application layer peer-to-peer protocol allowing
endpoints a better-than-random peer selection). Care needs to be
taken when selecting paths based on path properties, as path
properties that were previously measured may not be helpful in
predicting current or future path properties and such path selection
may lead to unintended feedback loops.
Entities may select their paths to fulfill a specific goal, e.g.,
related to security or performance. As an example of security-
related path selection, an entity may allow or disallow sending flows
over paths involving specific networks or nodes to enforce traffic
policies. In an enterprise network where all traffic has to go
through a specific firewall, a path-aware entity can implement this
policy using path selection. As an example of performance-related
path selection, an entity may prefer paths with performance
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
properties that best match application requirements. For example,
for sending a small delay sensitive query, the entity may select a
path with a short One-Way Delay, while for retrieving a large file,
it may select a path with high Link Capacities on all links. Note,
there may be trade-offs between path properties (e.g., One-Way Delay
and Link Capacity), and entities may influence these trade-offs with
their choices. As a baseline, a path selection algorithm should aim
to not perform worse than the default case most of the time.
Path selection can be done either by the communicating node(s) or by
other entities within the network: A network (e.g., an AS) can adjust
its path selection for internal or external routing based on path
properties. In BGP, the Multi Exit Discriminator (MED) attribute is
used in the decision-making process to select which path to choose
among those having the same AS PATH length and origin [RFC4271]; in a
path-aware network, instead of using this single MED value, other
properties such as Link Capacity or Link Usage could additionally be
used to improve load balancing or performance
[I-D.ietf-idr-performance-routing].
3.2. Protocol Selection
Before sending data over a specific path, an entity may select an
appropriate protocol or configure protocol parameters depending on
path properties. For example, an endpoint may cache state on whether
a path allows the use of QUIC [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] and if so,
first attempt to connect using QUIC before falling back to another
protocol when connecting over this path again. A video streaming
application may choose an (initial) video quality based on the
achievable data rate or the monetary cost of sending data (e.g.,
volume-base or flat-rate cost model).
3.3. Service Invocation
In addition to path or protocol selection, an entity may choose to
invoke additional functions in the context of Service Function
Chaining [RFC7665], which may influence what nodes are on the path.
For example, a 0-RTT Transport Converter [I-D.ietf-tcpm-converters]
will be involved in a path only when invoked by an endpoint; such
invocation will lead to the use of MPTCP or TCPinc capabilities while
such use is not supported via the default forwarding path. Another
example is a connection which is composed of multiple streams where
each stream has specific service requirements. An endpoint may
decide to invoke a given service function (e.g., transcoding) only
for some streams while others are not processed by that service
function.
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
4. Examples of Path Properties
This Section gives some examples of path properties which may be
useful, e.g., for the use cases described in Section 3.
Within the context of any particular technology, available path
properties may differ as entities have insight into and are able to
influence different path elements and path properties. For example,
an endpoint may have some visibility into path elements that are on a
low level of abstraction and close, e.g., individual nodes within the
first few hops, or it may have visibility into path elements that are
far away and/or on a higher level of abstraction, e.g., the list of
ASes traversed. This visibility may depend on factors such as the
physical or network distance or the existence of trust or contractual
relationships between the endpoint and the path element(s). A path
property can be defined relative to individual path elements, a
sequence of path elements, or "end-to-end", i.e., relative to a path
that comprises of two endpoints and a single virtual link connecting
them.
Path properties may be relatively dynamic, e.g., the one-way delay of
a packet sent over a specific path, or non-dynamic, e.g., the MTU of
an Ethernet link which only changes infrequently. Usefulness over
time differs depending on how dynamic a property is: The merit of a
momentary measurement of a dynamic path property diminishes greatly
as time goes on, e.g. the merit of an RTT measurement from a few
seconds ago is quite small, while a non-dynamic path property might
stay relevant for a longer period of time, e.g. a NAT typically stays
on a specific path during the lifetime of a connection involving
packets sent over this path.
Access Technology: The physical or link layer technology used for
transmitting or receiving a flow on one or multiple path elements.
If known, the Access Technology may be given as an abstract link
type, e.g., as Wi-Fi, Wired Ethernet, or Cellular. It may also be
given as a specific technology used on a link, e.g., 2G, 3G, 4G,
or 5G cellular, or 802.11a, b, g, n, or ac Wi-Fi. Other path
elements relevant to the access technology may include nodes
related to processing packets on the physical or link layer, such
as elements of a cellular backbone network. Note that there is no
common registry of possible values for this property.
Monetary Cost: The price to be paid to transmit or receive a
specific flow across a network to which one or multiple path
elements belong.
Service function: A service function that a path element applies to
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
a flow, see [RFC7665]. Examples of abstract service functions
include firewalls, Network Address Translation (NAT), and TCP
optimizers. Some stateful service functions, such as NAT, need to
observe the same flow in both directions, e.g., by being an
element of both the path and the reverse path.
Transparency: When a node performs an action A on a flow F, the node
is transparent to F with respect to some (meta-)information M if
the node performs A independently of M. M can for example be the
existence of a protocol (header) in a packet or the content of a
protocol header, payload, or both. A can for example be blocking
packets or reading and modifying (other protocol) headers or
payloads. Transparency can be modeled using a function f, which
takes as input F and M and outputs the action taken by the node.
If a taint analysis shows that the output of f is not tainted
(impacted) by M or if the output of f is constant for arbitrary
values of M, then the node is considered to be transparent. An IP
router could be transparent to transport protocol headers such as
TCP/UDP but not transparent to IP headers since its forwarding
behavior depends on the IP headers. A firewall that only allows
outgoing TCP connections by blocking all incoming TCP SYN packets
regardless of their IP address is transparent to IP but not to TCP
headers. Finally, a NAT that actively modifies IP and TCP/UDP
headers based on their content is not transparent to either IP or
TCP/UDP headers. Note that according to this definition, a node
that modifies packets in accordance with the endpoints, such as a
transparent HTTP proxy, as defined in [RFC2616], and a node
listening and reacting to implicit or explicit signals, see
[RFC8558], are not considered transparent.
Administrative Domain: The identity of an individual or an
organization that owns a path element (or several path elements).
Examples of administrative domains are an IGP area, an AS, or a
service provider network.
Routing Domain Identifier: An identifier indicating the routing
domain of a path element. Path elements in the same routing
domain are in the same administrative domain and use a common
routing protocol to communicate with each other. An example of a
routing domain identifier is the globally unique autonomous system
number (ASN) as defined in [RFC1930].
Disjointness: For a set of two paths or subpaths, the number of
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
shared path elements can be a measure of intersection (e.g.,
Jaccard coefficient, which is the number of shared elements
divided by the total number of elements). Conversely, the number
of non-shared path elements can be a measure of disjointness
(e.g., 1 - Jaccard coefficient). A multipath protocol might use
disjointness as a metric to reduce the number of single points of
failure.
Symmetric Path: Two paths are symmetric if the path and its reverse
path consist of the same path elements on the same level of
abstraction, but in reverse order. For example, a path which
consists of layer 3 switches and links between them and a reverse
path with the same path elements but in reverse order are
considered "routing" symmetric, as the same path elements on the
same level of abstraction (IP forwarding) are traversed in the
opposite direction.
Path MTU: The maximum size, in octets, of an IP packet that can be
transmitted without fragmentation.
Transport Protocols available: Whether a specific transport protocol
can be used to establish a connection over a path or subpath,
e.g., whether the path is QUIC-capable or MPTCP-capable, based on
cached knowledge.
Protocol Features available: Whether a specific protocol feature is
available over a path or subpath, e.g., Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN), or TCP Fast Open.
Some path properties express the performance of the transmission of a
packet or flow over a link or subpath. Such transmission performance
properties can be measured or approximated, e.g., by endpoints or by
path elements on the path, or they may be available as cost metrics,
see [I-D.ietf-alto-performance-metrics]. Transmission performance
properties may be made available in an aggregated form, such as
averages or minimums. Properties related to a path element which
constitutes a single layer 2 domain are abstracted from the used
physical and link layer technology, similar to [RFC8175].
Link Capacity: The link capacity is the maximum data rate at which
data that was sent over a link can correctly be received at the
node adjacent to the link. This property is analogous to the link
capacity defined in [RFC5136] but not restricted to IP-layer
traffic.
Link Usage: The link usage is the actual data rate at which data
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
that was sent over a link is correctly received at the node
adjacent to the link. This property is analogous to the link
usage defined in [RFC5136] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic.
One-Way Delay: The one-way delay is the delay between a node sending
a packet and another node on the same path receiving the packet.
This property is analogous to the one-way delay defined in
[RFC7679] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic.
One-Way Delay Variation: The variation of the one-way delays within
a flow. This property is similar to the one-way delay variation
defined in [RFC3393] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic and
defined for packets on the same flow instead of packets sent
between a source and destination IP address.
One-Way Packet Loss: Packets sent by a node but not received by
another node on the same path after a certain time interval are
considered lost. This property is analogous to the one-way loss
defined in [RFC7680] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic.
Metrics such as loss patterns [RFC3357] and loss episodes
[RFC6534] can be expressed as aggregated properties.
5. Security Considerations
If entities are basing policy or path selection decisions on path
properties, they need to rely on the accuracy of path properties that
other devices communicate to them. In order to be able to trust such
path properties, entities may need to establish a trust relationship
or be able to verify the authenticity, integrity, and correctness of
path properties received from another entity.
Security related properties such as confidentiality and integrity
protection of payloads are difficult to characterize since they are
only meaningful with respect to a threat model which depends on the
use case, application, environment, and other factors. Likewise,
properties for trust relations between entities cannot be
meaningfully defined without a concrete threat model, and defining a
threat model is out of scope for this draft. Properties related to
confidentiality, integrity, and trust are orthogonal to the path
terminology and path properties defined in this document. Such
properties are tied to the communicating nodes and the protocols they
use (e.g., client and server using HTTPS, or client and remote
network node using VPN) while the path is typically oblivious to
them. Intuitively, the path describes what function the network
applies to packets, while confidentiality, integrity, and trust
describe what function the communicating parties apply to packets.
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
7. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector]
Gao, K., Lee, Y., Randriamasy, S., Yang, Y. R., and J. J.
Zhang, "An ALTO Extension: Path Vector", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-24, 7 March
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
alto-path-vector-24>.
[I-D.ietf-alto-performance-metrics]
Wu, Q., Yang, Y. R., Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Randriamasy, S.,
and L. M. C. Murillo, "ALTO Performance Cost Metrics",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-alto-
performance-metrics-26, 2 March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-
performance-metrics-26>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-performance-routing]
Xu, X., Hegde, S., Talaulikar, K., Boucadair, M., and C.
Jacquenet, "Performance-based BGP Routing Mechanism", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-performance-
routing-03, 22 December 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
performance-routing-03>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-quic-transport-34, 14 January 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
transport-34>.
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-converters]
Bonaventure, O., Boucadair, M., Gundavelli, S., Seo, S.,
and B. Hesmans, "0-RTT TCP Convert Protocol", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tcpm-converters-19,
22 March 2020, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-tcpm-converters-19>.
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
[I-D.irtf-panrg-questions]
Trammell, B., "Current Open Questions in Path Aware
Networking", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-
panrg-questions-12, 25 January 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-panrg-
questions-12>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1122>.
[RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation,
selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)",
BCP 6, RFC 1930, DOI 10.17487/RFC1930, March 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1930>.
[RFC1940] Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., and D.
Zappala, "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and
Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", RFC 1940,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1940, May 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1940>.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2616>.
[RFC3357] Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, "One-way Loss Pattern Sample
Metrics", RFC 3357, DOI 10.17487/RFC3357, August 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3357>.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3393>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4271>.
[RFC5136] Chimento, P. and J. Ishac, "Defining Network Capacity",
RFC 5136, DOI 10.17487/RFC5136, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5136>.
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
[RFC5693] Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5693, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5693>.
[RFC6534] Duffield, N., Morton, A., and J. Sommers, "Loss Episode
Metrics for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 6534,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6534, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6534>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7665>.
[RFC7679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7679>.
[RFC7680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7680>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8175>.
[RFC8558] Hardie, T., Ed., "Transport Protocol Path Signals",
RFC 8558, DOI 10.17487/RFC8558, April 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8558>.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the Path-Aware Networking Research Group for the discussion
and feedback. Specifically, thanks to Mohamed Boudacair for the
detailed review and various text suggestions, thanks to Brian
Trammell for suggesting the flow definition, thanks to Adrian Perrig
and Matthias Rost for the detailed feedback, thanks to Paul Hoffman
for the editorial changes, thanks to Luis M. Contreras and Jake
Holland for the reviews, and thanks to Spencer Dawkins for the
comments and suggestions.
Authors' Addresses
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Path Properties March 2022
Theresa Enghardt
Netflix
Email: ietf@tenghardt.net
Cyrill Krähenbühl
ETH Zürich
Email: cyrill.kraehenbuehl@inf.ethz.ch
Enghardt & Krähenbühl Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 15]