Network Working Group                                           G. Almes
Internet-Draft                                                 Texas A&M
Obsoletes: 2680 (if approved)                               S. Kalidindi
Intended status: Standards Track                                    Ixia
Expires: August 17, 2014                                    M. Zekauskas
                                                          A. Morton, Ed.
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                       February 13, 2014

                     A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM


   This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets
   across Internet paths.  It builds on notions introduced and discussed
   in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be
   familiar with that document.

Requirements Language

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

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

   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 August 17, 2014.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  General Issues Regarding Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  A Singleton Definition for One-way Packet Loss  . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Metric Name:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Metric Parameters:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.6.  Methodologies:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.7.  Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.8.  Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.8.1.  Type-P  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.8.2.  Loss Threshold  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.8.3.  Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.8.4.  Path  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss . . . . . . .  10
     3.1.  Metric Name:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.2.  Metric Parameters:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.3.  Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.4.  Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.5.  Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.6.  Methodologies:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.7.  Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.8.  Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss . . . . .  13
     4.1.  Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Average  . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  RFC 2680 bis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. References (temporary)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

1.  Introduction

   This memo defines a metric for one-way packet loss across Internet
   paths.  It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM
   Framework document, RFC 2330 [1]; the reader is assumed to be
   familiar with that document.

   This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a companion
   document for One-way Delay ("A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM") [2];
   the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [5].
   Although RFC 2119 was written with protocols in mind, the key words
   are used in this document for similar reasons.  They are used to
   ensure the results of measurements from two different implementations
   are comparable, and to note instances when an implementation could
   perturb the network.

   The structure of the memo is as follows:

   + A 'singleton' analytic metric, called Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss,
   is introduced to measure a single observation of packet transmission
   or loss.

   + Using this singleton metric, a 'sample', called Type-P-One-way-
   Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream, is introduced to measure a sequence of
   singleton transmissions and/or losses measured at times taken from a
   Poisson process.

   + Using this sample, several 'statistics' of the sample are defined
   and discussed.

   This progression from singleton to sample to statistics, with clear
   separation among them, is important.

   Whenever a technical term from the IPPM Framework document is first
   used in this memo, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.  For
   example, "term*" indicates that "term" is defined in the Framework.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

1.1.  Motivation

   Understanding one-way packet loss of Type-P* packets from a source
   host* to a destination host is useful for several reasons:

   + Some applications do not perform well (or at all) if end-to-end
   loss between hosts is large relative to some threshold value.

   + Excessive packet loss may make it difficult to support certain
   real-time applications (where the precise threshold of "excessive"
   depends on the application).

   + The larger the value of packet loss, the more difficult it is for
   transport-layer protocols to sustain high bandwidths.

   + The sensitivity of real-time applications and of transport-layer
   protocols to loss become especially important when very large delay-
   bandwidth products must be supported.

   The measurement of one-way loss instead of round-trip loss is
   motivated by the following factors:

   + In today's Internet, the path from a source to a destination may be
   different than the path from the destination back to the source
   ("asymmetric paths"), such that different sequences of routers are
   used for the forward and reverse paths.  Therefore round-trip
   measurements actually measure the performance of two distinct paths
   together.  Measuring each path independently highlights the
   performance difference between the two paths which may traverse
   different Internet service providers, and even radically different
   types of networks (for example, research versus commodity networks,
   or ATM versus packet-over-SONET).

   + Even when the two paths are symmetric, they may have radically
   different performance characteristics due to asymmetric queueing.

   + Performance of an application may depend mostly on the performance
   in one direction.  For example, a file transfer using TCP may depend
   more on the performance in the direction that data flows, rather than
   the direction in which acknowledgements travel.

   + In quality-of-service (QoS) enabled networks, provisioning in one
   direction may be radically different than provisioning in the reverse
   direction, and thus the QoS guarantees differ.  Measuring the paths
   independently allows the verification of both guarantees.

   It is outside the scope of this document to say precisely how loss
   metrics would be applied to specific problems.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

1.2.  General Issues Regarding Time

   {Comment: the terminology below differs from that defined by ITU-T
   documents (e.g., G.810, "Definitions and terminology for
   synchronization networks" and I.356, "B-ISDN ATM layer cell transfer
   performance"), but is consistent with the IPPM Framework document.
   In general, these differences derive from the different backgrounds;
   the ITU-T documents historically have a telephony origin, while the
   authors of this document (and the Framework) have a computer systems
   background.  Although the terms defined below have no direct
   equivalent in the ITU-T definitions, after our definitions we will
   provide a rough mapping.  However, note one potential confusion: our
   definition of "clock" is the computer operating systems definition
   denoting a time-of-day clock, while the ITU-T definition of clock
   denotes a frequency reference.}

   Whenever a time (i.e., a moment in history) is mentioned here, it is
   understood to be measured in seconds (and fractions) relative to UTC.

   As described more fully in the Framework document, there are four
   distinct, but related notions of clock uncertainty:


   measures the extent to which two clocks agree on what time it is.
   For example, the clock on one host might be 5.4 msec ahead of the
   clock on a second host. {Comment: A rough ITU-T equivalent is "time


   measures the extent to which a given clock agrees with UTC.  For
   example, the clock on a host might be 27.1 msec behind UTC. {Comment:
   A rough ITU-T equivalent is "time error from UTC".}


   measures the precision of a given clock.  For example, the clock on
   an old Unix host might tick only once every 10 msec, and thus have a
   resolution of only 10 msec. {Comment: A very rough ITU-T equivalent
   is "sampling period".}


   measures the change of accuracy, or of synchronization, with time.
   For example, the clock on a given host might gain 1.3 msec per hour
   and thus be 27.1 msec behind UTC at one time and only 25.8 msec an
   hour later.  In this case, we say that the clock of the given host

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   has a skew of 1.3 msec per hour relative to UTC, which threatens
   accuracy.  We might also speak of the skew of one clock relative to
   another clock, which threatens synchronization. {Comment: A rough
   ITU-T equivalent is "time drift".}

2.  A Singleton Definition for One-way Packet Loss

2.1.  Metric Name:


2.2.  Metric Parameters:

   + Src, the IP address of a host

   + Dst, the IP address of a host

   + T, a time

2.3.  Metric Units:

   The value of a Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss is either a zero
   (signifying successful transmission of the packet) or a one
   (signifying loss).

2.4.  Definition:

   >>The *Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss* from Src to Dst at T is 0<< means
   that Src sent the first bit of a Type-P packet to Dst at wire-time* T
   and that Dst received that packet.

   >>The *Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss* from Src to Dst at T is 1<< means
   that Src sent the first bit of a type-P packet to Dst at wire-time T
   and that Dst did not receive that packet.

2.5.  Discussion:

   Thus, Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss is 0 exactly when Type-P-One-way-
   Delay is a finite value, and it is 1 exactly when Type-P-One-way-
   Delay is undefined.

   The following issues are likely to come up in practice:

   + A given methodology will have to include a way to distinguish
   between a packet loss and a very large (but finite) delay.  As noted
   by Mahdavi and Paxson [3], simple upper bounds (such as the 255
   seconds theoretical upper bound on the lifetimes of IP packets [4])
   could be used, but good engineering, including an understanding of

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   packet lifetimes, will be needed in practice. {Comment: Note that,
   for many applications of these metrics, there may be no harm in
   treating a large delay as packet loss.  An audio playback packet, for
   example, that arrives only after the playback point may as well have
   been lost.}

   + If the packet arrives, but is corrupted, then it is counted as
   lost. {Comment: one is tempted to count the packet as received since
   corruption and packet loss are related but distinct phenomena.  If
   the IP header is corrupted, however, one cannot be sure about the
   source or destination IP addresses and is thus on shaky grounds about
   knowing that the corrupted received packet corresponds to a given
   sent test packet.  Similarly, if other parts of the packet needed by
   the methodology to know that the corrupted received packet
   corresponds to a given sent test packet, then such a packet would
   have to be counted as lost.  Counting these packets as lost but
   packet with corruption in other parts of the packet as not lost would
   be inconsistent.}

   + If the packet is duplicated along the path (or paths) so that
   multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the
   packet is counted as received.

   + If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly
   does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost.

2.6.  Methodologies:

   As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend
   on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size,

   Generally, for a given Type-P, one possible methodology would proceed
   as follows:

   + Arrange that Src and Dst have clocks that are synchronized with
   each other.  The degree of synchronization is a parameter of the
   methodology, and depends on the threshold used to determine loss (see

   + At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test
   packet of Type-P with these addresses.

   + At the Dst host, arrange to receive the packet.

   + At the Src host, place a timestamp in the prepared Type-P packet,
   and send it towards Dst.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   + If the packet arrives within a reasonable period of time, the one-
   way packet-loss is taken to be zero.

   + If the packet fails to arrive within a reasonable period of time,
   the one-way packet-loss is taken to be one.  Note that the threshold
   of "reasonable" here is a parameter of the methodology.

   {Comment: The definition of reasonable is intentionally vague, and is
   intended to indicate a value "Th" so large that any value in the
   closed interval [Th-delta, Th+delta] is an equivalent threshold for
   loss.  Here, delta encompasses all error in clock synchronization
   along the measured path.  If there is a single value after which the
   packet must be counted as lost, then we reintroduce the need for a
   degree of clock synchronization similar to that needed for one-way
   delay.  Therefore, if a measure of packet loss parameterized by a
   specific non-huge "reasonable" time-out value is needed, one can
   always measure one-way delay and see what percentage of packets from
   a given stream exceed a given time-out value.  This point is examined
   in detail in [RFC6703], including analysis preferences to assign
   undefined delay to packets that fail to arrive with the difficulties
   emerging from the informal "infinite delay" assignment, and an
   estimation of an upper bound on waiting time for packets in transit.
   Further, enforcing a specific constant waiting time on stored
   singletons of one-way delay is compliant with this specification and
   may allow the results to serve more than one reporting audience.}

   Issues such as the packet format, the means by which Dst knows when
   to expect the test packet, and the means by which Src and Dst are
   synchronized are outside the scope of this document. {Comment: We
   plan to document elsewhere our own work in describing such more
   detailed implementation techniques and we encourage others to as

2.7.  Errors and Uncertainties:

   The description of any specific measurement method should include an
   accounting and analysis of various sources of error or uncertainty.
   The Framework document provides general guidance on this point.

   For loss, there are three sources of error:

   + Synchronization between clocks on Src and Dst.

   + The packet-loss threshold (which is related to the synchronization
   between clocks).

   + Resource limits in the network interface or software on the
   receiving instrument.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   The first two sources are interrelated and could result in a test
   packet with finite delay being reported as lost.  Type-P-One-way-
   Packet-Loss is 1 if the test packet does not arrive, or if it does
   arrive and the difference between Src timestamp and Dst timestamp is
   greater than the "reasonable period of time", or loss threshold.  If
   the clocks are not sufficiently synchronized, the loss threshold may
   not be "reasonable" - the packet may take much less time to arrive
   than its Src timestamp indicates.  Similarly, if the loss threshold
   is set too low, then many packets may be counted as lost.  The loss
   threshold must be high enough, and the clocks synchronized well
   enough so that a packet that arrives is rarely counted as lost.  (See
   the discussions in the previous two sections.)

   Since the sensitivity of packet loss measurement to lack of clock
   synchronization is less than for delay, we refer the reader to the
   treatment of synchronization errors in the One-way Delay metric [2]
   for more details.

   The last source of error, resource limits, cause the packet to be
   dropped by the measurement instrument, and counted as lost when in
   fact the network delivered the packet in reasonable time.

   The measurement instruments should be calibrated such that the loss
   threshold is reasonable for application of the metrics and the clocks
   are synchronized enough so the loss threshold remains reasonable.

   In addition, the instruments should be checked to ensure the that the
   possibility a packet arrives at the network interface, but is lost
   due to congestion on the interface or to other resource exhaustion
   (e.g., buffers) on the instrument is low.

2.8.  Reporting the metric:

   The calibration and context in which the metric is measured MUST be
   carefully considered, and SHOULD always be reported along with metric
   results.  We now present four items to consider: Type-P of the test
   packets, the loss threshold, instrument calibration, and the path
   traversed by the test packets.  This list is not exhaustive; any
   additional information that could be useful in interpreting
   applications of the metrics should also be reported (see [RFC6703]
   for extensive discussion of reporting considerations for different

2.8.1.  Type-P

   As noted in the Framework document [1], the value of the metric may
   depend on the type of IP packets used to make the measurement, or
   "Type-P".  The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special
   treatment (e.g., IP precedence or RSVP) changes.  The exact Type-P
   used to make the measurements MUST be accurately reported.

2.8.2.  Loss Threshold

   The threshold (or methodology to distinguish) between a large finite
   delay and loss MUST be reported.

2.8.3.  Calibration Results

   The degree of synchronization between the Src and Dst clocks MUST be
   reported.  If possible, possibility that a test packet that arrives
   at the Dst network interface is reported as lost due to resource
   exhaustion on Dst SHOULD be reported.

2.8.4.  Path

   Finally, the path traversed by the packet SHOULD be reported, if
   possible.  In general it is impractical to know the precise path a
   given packet takes through the network.  The precise path may be
   known for certain Type-P on short or stable paths.  If Type-P
   includes the record route (or loose-source route) option in the IP
   header, and the path is short enough, and all routers* on the path
   support record (or loose-source) route, then the path will be
   precisely recorded.  This is impractical because the route must be
   short enough, many routers do not support (or are not configured for)
   record route, and use of this feature would often artificially worsen
   the performance observed by removing the packet from common-case
   processing.  However, partial information is still valuable context.
   For example, if a host can choose between two links* (and hence two
   separate routes from Src to Dst), then the initial link used is
   valuable context. {Comment: For example, with Merit's NetNow setup, a
   Src on one NAP can reach a Dst on another NAP by either of several
   different backbone networks.}

3.  A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss

   Given the singleton metric Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss, we now define
   one particular sample of such singletons.  The idea of the sample is
   to select a particular binding of the parameters Src, Dst, and Type-
   P, then define a sample of values of parameter T. The means for
   defining the values of T is to select a beginning time T0, a final
   time Tf, and an average rate lambda, then define a pseudo-random
   Poisson process of rate lambda, whose values fall between T0 and Tf.
   The time interval between successive values of T will then average 1/

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   {Comment: Note that Poisson sampling is only one way of defining a
   sample.  Poisson has the advantage of limiting bias, but other
   methods of sampling might be appropriate for different situations.
   We encourage others who find such appropriate cases to use this
   general framework and submit their sampling method for

   >>> Editor proposal: Add ref to RFC 3432 Periodic sampling above.

3.1.  Metric Name:


3.2.  Metric Parameters:

   + Src, the IP address of a host

   + Dst, the IP address of a host

   + T0, a time

   + Tf, a time

   + lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds

3.3.  Metric Units:

   A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:

   + T, a time, and

   + L, either a zero or a one

   The values of T in the sequence are monotonic increasing.  Note that
   T would be a valid parameter to Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss, and that
   L would be a valid value of Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss.

3.4.  Definition:

   Given T0, Tf, and lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
   beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and
   ending at or after Tf.  Those time values greater than or equal to T0
   and less than or equal to Tf are then selected.  At each of the times
   in this process, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss at
   this time.  The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the
   resulting <time, loss> pairs.  If there are no such pairs, the
   sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

3.5.  Discussion:

   The reader should be familiar with the in-depth discussion of Poisson
   sampling in the Framework document [1], which includes methods to
   compute and verify the pseudo-random Poisson process.

   We specifically do not constrain the value of lambda, except to note
   the extremes.  If the rate is too large, then the measurement traffic
   will perturb the network, and itself cause congestion.  If the rate
   is too small, then you might not capture interesting network
   behavior. {Comment: We expect to document our experiences with, and
   suggestions for, lambda elsewhere, culminating in a "best current
   practices" document.}

   Since a pseudo-random number sequence is employed, the sequence of
   times, and hence the value of the sample, is not fully specified.
   Pseudo-random number generators of good quality will be needed to
   achieve the desired qualities.

   The sample is defined in terms of a Poisson process both to avoid the
   effects of self-synchronization and also capture a sample that is
   statistically as unbiased as possible.  The Poisson process is used
   to schedule the delay measurements.  The test packets will generally
   not arrive at Dst according to a Poisson distribution, since they are
   influenced by the network.

   {Comment: there is, of course, no claim that real Internet traffic
   arrives according to a Poisson arrival process.

   It is important to note that, in contrast to this metric, loss rates
   observed by transport connections do not reflect unbiased samples.
   For example, TCP transmissions both (1) occur in bursts, which can
   induce loss due to the burst volume that would not otherwise have
   been observed, and (2) adapt their transmission rate in an attempt to
   minimize the loss rate observed by the connection.}

   All the singleton Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss metrics in the sequence
   will have the same values of Src, Dst, and Type-P.

   Note also that, given one sample that runs from T0 to Tf, and given
   new time values T0' and Tf' such that T0 <= T0' <= Tf' <= Tf, the
   subsequence of the given sample whose time values fall between T0'
   and Tf' are also a valid Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

3.6.  Methodologies:

   The methodologies follow directly from:

   + the selection of specific times, using the specified Poisson
   arrival process, and

   + the methodologies discussion already given for the singleton Type-
   P-One-way-Packet-Loss metric.

   Care must be given to correctly handle out-of-order arrival of test
   packets; it is possible that the Src could send one test packet at
   TS[i], then send a second one (later) at TS[i+1], while the Dst could
   receive the second test packet at TR[i+1], and then receive the first
   one (later) at TR[i].

   >>> Editor proposal: Add ref to RFC 4737 Reordering metric above.

3.7.  Errors and Uncertainties:

   In addition to sources of errors and uncertainties associated with
   methods employed to measure the singleton values that make up the
   sample, care must be given to analyze the accuracy of the Poisson
   arrival process of the wire-times of the sending of the test packets.
   Problems with this process could be caused by several things,
   including problems with the pseudo-random number techniques used to
   generate the Poisson arrival process.  The Framework document shows
   how to use the Anderson-Darling test verify the accuracy of the
   Poisson process over small time frames. {Comment: The goal is to
   ensure that the test packets are sent "close enough" to a Poisson
   schedule, and avoid periodic behavior.}

3.8.  Reporting the metric:

   The calibration and context for the underlying singletons MUST be
   reported along with the stream.  (See "Reporting the metric" for

4.  Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss

   Given the sample metric Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream, we
   now offer several statistics of that sample.  These statistics are
   offered mostly to be illustrative of what could be done.  See
   [RFC6703] for additional discussion of statistics that are relevant
   to different audiences.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

4.1.  Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Average

   Given a Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Poisson-Stream, the average of all
   the L values in the Stream.  In addition, the Type-P-One-way-Packet-
   Loss-Average is undefined if the sample is empty.

   Example: suppose we take a sample and the results are:

   Stream1 = <

   <T1, 0>

   <T2, 0>

   <T3, 1>

   <T4, 0>

   <T5, 0>


   Then the average would be 0.2.

   Note that, since healthy Internet paths should be operating at loss
   rates below 1% (particularly if high delay-bandwidth products are to
   be sustained), the sample sizes needed might be larger than one would
   like.  Thus, for example, if one wants to discriminate between
   various fractions of 1% over one-minute periods, then several hundred
   samples per minute might be needed.  This would result in larger
   values of lambda than one would ordinarily want.

   Note that although the loss threshold should be set such that any
   errors in loss are not significant, if the possibility that a packet
   which arrived is counted as lost due to resource exhaustion is
   significant compared to the loss rate of interest, Type-P-One-way-
   Packet-Loss-Average will be meaningless.

5.  Security Considerations

   Conducting Internet measurements raises both security and privacy
   concerns.  This memo does not specify an implementation of the
   metrics, so it does not directly affect the security of the Internet
   nor of applications which run on the Internet.  However,
   implementations of these metrics must be mindful of security and
   privacy concerns.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by
   the measurements, and potential harm to the measurements.  The
   measurements could cause harm because they are active, and inject
   packets into the network.  The measurement parameters MUST be
   carefully selected so that the measurements inject trivial amounts of
   additional traffic into the networks they measure.  If they inject
   "too much" traffic, they can skew the results of the measurement, and
   in extreme cases cause congestion and denial of service.

   The measurements themselves could be harmed by routers giving
   measurement traffic a different priority than "normal" traffic, or by
   an attacker injecting artificial measurement traffic.  If routers can
   recognize measurement traffic and treat it separately, the
   measurements will not reflect actual user traffic.  If an attacker
   injects artificial traffic that is accepted as legitimate, the loss
   rate will be artificially lowered.  Therefore, the measurement
   methodologies SHOULD include appropriate techniques to reduce the
   probability measurement traffic can be distinguished from "normal"
   traffic.  Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may
   be used where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks.

   The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active
   measurements described in this memo.  Unlike passive measurements,
   there can be no release of existing user data.

6.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks are due to Matt Mathis for encouraging this work and for
   calling attention on so many occasions to the significance of packet

   Thanks are due also to Vern Paxson for his valuable comments on early
   drafts, and to Garry Couch and Will Leland for several useful

7.  RFC 2680 bis

   The text above constitutes RFC 2680 bis proposed for advancement on
   the IETF Standards Track.

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680] provides the test plan and results
   supporting [RFC2680] advancement along the standards track, according
   to the process in [RFC6576].  The conclusions of
   [I-D.ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680] list four minor modifications for

   1.  Section 6.2.3 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680] asserts that
       the assumption of post-processing to enforce a constant waiting

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

       time threshold is compliant, and that the text of the RFC should
       be revised slightly to include this point (see the last list item
       of section 2.6, above).

   2.  Section 6.5 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680] indicates that
       Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Average statistic is more commonly
       called Packet Loss Ratio, so it is re-named in RFC2680bis (this
       small discrepancy does not affect candidacy for advancement) (see
       section 4.1, above).

   3.  The IETF has reached consensus on guidance for reporting metrics
       in [RFC6703], and this memo should be referenced in RFC2680bis to
       incorporate recent experience where appropriate (see the last
       list item of section 2.6, section 2.8, and section 4 above).

   4.  There are currently two errata with status "Verified" and "Held
       for document update" for [RFC2680], and it appears these minor
       revisions should be incorporated in RFC2680bis (see section 1 and
       section 2.7).

   A small number of updates to the [RFC2680] text have been proposed
   (by the current Editor) in the text, principally to reference key
   IPPM RFCs that were approved after [RFC2680] (see sections 3 and 3.6,

   Section 5.4.4 of [RFC6390] suggests a common template for performance
   metrics partially derived from previous IPPM and BMWG RFCs, but also
   some new items.  All of the RFC 6390 Normative points are covered,
   but not quite in the same section names or orientation.  Several of
   the Informative points are covered.  It is proposed to "grandfather-
   in" bis RFCs w.r.t. RFC 6390 (keeping the familiar outline and
   minimizing unnecessary differences), and consider applying the
   template with new metric memos instead.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo makes no requests of IANA.

9.  Acknowledgements

   Special thanks are due to Vern Paxson of Lawrence Berkeley Labs for
   his helpful comments on issues of clock uncertainty and statistics.
   Thanks also to Garry Couch, Will Leland, Andy Scherrer, Sean Shapira,
   and Roland Wittig for several useful suggestions.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

10.  References (temporary)

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

   [2] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Delay
   Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.

   [3] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
   Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.

   [4] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.

   [5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
   Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [6] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
   9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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

   [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.

   [RFC3432]  Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
              performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
              November 2002.

   [RFC4656]  Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
              Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
              (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
              Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
              RFC 5357, October 2008.

   [RFC5657]  Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
              and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
              Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.

   [RFC5835]  Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for Metric
              Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010.

   [RFC6049]  Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
              Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.

   [RFC6576]  Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP
              Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",
              BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.

   [RFC6703]  Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, "Reporting
              IP Network Performance Metrics: Different Points of View",
              RFC 6703, August 2012.

11.2.  Informative References

   [ADK]      Scholz, F. and M. Stephens, "K-sample Anderson-Darling
              Tests of fit, for continuous and discrete cases",
              University of Washington, Technical Report No. 81, May

              Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test
              Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards
              Track", draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 (work in
              progress), October 2013.

   [RFC3931]  Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
              Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005.

   [RFC6390]  Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
              Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
              October 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Guy Almes
   Texas A&M

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft       A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM        February 2014

   Sunil Kalidindi

   Matt Zekauskas


   Al Morton (editor)
   AT&T Labs
   200 Laurel Avenue South
   Middletown, NJ  07748

   Phone: +1 732 420 1571
   Fax:   +1 732 368 1192

Almes, et al.            Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 19]