Network Working Group L. Ciavattone
Internet-Draft A. Morton
Intended status: Standards Track AT&T Labs
Expires: January 13, 2022 July 12, 2021
Test Protocol for One-way IP Capacity Measurement
draft-morton-ippm-capacity-metric-protocol-01
Abstract
This memo addresses the problem of protocol support for measuring
Network Capacity metrics in RFC xxxx: draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-
metric-method, where the method deploys a feedback channel from the
receiver to control the sender's transmission rate in near-real-time.
It supplies a simple protocol to perform the measurements.
See Section 10: The authors seek feedback to determine what
additional features will be necessary for an IETF Standards Track
Protocol, beyond what is present in the running code available now.
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 January 13, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope, Goals, and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. General Parameters and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Setup Request and Response Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Setup Response Processing at the Client . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Test Activation Request and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. nTest Activation Request at the client . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Test Activation Request - server response . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Test Activation Response action at the client . . . . . . 13
7. Test Stream Transmission and Measurement Feedback Messages . 13
7.1. Test Packet PDU and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Status PDU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Stopping the Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. Running Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction
The IETF's efforts to define Network and Bulk Transport Capacity have
been chartered and finally progressed after over twenty years.
Over that time, the performance community has seen development of
Informative definitions in [RFC3148] for Framework for Bulk Transport
Capacity (BTC), RFC 5136 for Network Capacity and Maximum IP-layer
Capacity, and the Experimental metric definitions and methods in
[RFC8337], Model-Based Metrics for BTC.
This memo looks at the problem of measuring Network Capacity metrics
defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method] where the method
deploys a feedback channel from the receiver to control the sender's
transmission rate in near-real-time.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Scope, Goals, and Applicability
The scope of this memo is to define a protocol to measure the Maximum
IP-Layer Capacity metric and according to the standardized method.
The continued goal is to harmonize the specified metric and method
across the industry, and this protocol supports the specifications of
IETF and other Standards Development Organizations.
All active testing protocols currently defined by the IPPM WG are
UDP-based, but this protocol specifies both control and test
protocols using UDP transport. Also, the control protocol continues
operating during testing to convey results and dynamic
configurations.
The primary application of the protocol described here is the same as
in Section 2 of [RFC7479] where:
o The access portion of the network is the focus of this problem
statement. The user typically subscribes to a service with
bidirectional access partly described by rates in bits per second.
3. Protocol Overview
The test protocol memo describes the communication between two test
end-points. One end-point takes the role of server, awaiting
connection requests on a well-known port from the other end-point,
the client.
The client, requires specification of a test direction parameter
(upstream or downstream test) as well as the hostname or IP address
of the server in order to begin the setup and configuration
exchanges.
The protocol uses UDP transport and has four phases:
1. Setup Request and Response Exchange: client and server confirm
matching protocol versions, authentication mode, and jumbo
datagram support, or reject the connection. The server also
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
communicates the ephemeral port for further communication when
accepting the request.
2. Test Activation Request and Response: the client composes a
request conveying parameters such as the testing direction, the
duration of the test interval and test sub-intervals, and various
thresholds. The server then chooses to accept, ignore or modify
any of the test parameters, and communicates the set that will be
used unless the client rejects the modifications. Note that the
Test Activiation echange has opened any firewalls and network
address/port translators for the test connection and the traffic
that follows.
3. Test Stream Transmission and Measurement Feedback Messages:
Testing proceeds with one end-point sending load PDUs and the
other end-point receiving the load PDUs and sending frequent
status messages to communicate status and transmission conditions
there. The feedback messsages are input to a load-control
algorithm at the server, which controls future sending rates at
either end-point as needed. The choice to locate the load-
control algorithm at the server, regardlesss of transmiision
direction, means that the algorithm can be updated more easily at
a host within the network, and at a fewer number of hosts than
the number of clients.
4. Stopping the Test: The server initiates the phase to stop the
test by setting the STOP1 indication in load PDUs or sstatus
feedback messages. The client acknowledges by setting the STOP2
in further load PDUs or messages, and a graceful connection
termination at each end-point follows. (Since the load PDUs and
feedback messages are used, this phase is kind of a sub-phase of
3.)
4. General Parameters and Definitions
This section lists the REQUIRED input factors to specify a Sender or
Receiver metric.
o Src, the address of a host (such as the globally routable IP
address).
o Dst, the address of a host (such as the globally routable IP
address).
o MaxHops, the limit on the number of Hops a specific packet may
visit as it traverses from the host at Src to the host at Dst
(implemented in the TTL or Hop Limit).
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
o T0, the time at the start of measurement interval, when packets
are first transmitted from the Source.
o I, the nominal duration of a measurement interval at the
destination (default 10 sec)
o dt, the nominal duration of m equal sub-intervals in I at the
destination (default 1 sec)
o dtn, the beginning boundary of a specific sub-interval, n, one of
m sub-intervals in I
o FT, the feedback time interval between status feedback messages
communicating measurement results, sent from the receiver to
control the sender. The results are evaluated to determine how to
adjust the current offered load rate at the sender (default 50ms)
o Tmax, a maximum waiting time for test packets to arrive at the
destination, set sufficiently long to disambiguate packets with
long delays from packets that are discarded (lost), such that the
distribution of one-way delay is not truncated.
o F, the number of different flows synthesized by the method
(default 1 flow)
o flow, the stream of packets with the same n-tuple of designated
header fields that (when held constant) result in identical
treatment in a multi-path decision (such as the decision taken in
load balancing). Note: The IPv6 flow label MAY be included in the
flow definition when routers have complied with [RFC6438]
guidelines.
o Type-P, the complete description of the test packets for which
this assessment applies (including the flow-defining fields).
Note that the UDP transport layer is one requirement for test
packets specified below. Type-P is a parallel concept to
"population of interest" defined in clause 6.1.1 of[Y.1540].
o PM, a list of fundamental metrics, such as loss, delay, and
reordering, and corresponding target performance threshold. At
least one fundamental metric and target performance threshold MUST
be supplied (such as One-way IP Packet Loss [RFC7680] equal to
zero).
A non-Parameter which is required for several metrics is defined
below:
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
o T, the host time of the *first* test packet's *arrival* as
measured at the destination Measurement Point, or MP(Dst). There
may be other packets sent between source and destination hosts
that are excluded, so this is the time of arrival of the first
packet used for measurement of the metric.
Note that time stamp format and resolution, sequence numbers, etc.
will be established by the chosen test protocol standard or
implementation.
5. Setup Request and Response Exchange
The client SHALL begin the Control protocol connection by sending a
Setup Request message to the server's control port.
The client SHALL simultaneously start a test initiation timer so that
if the control protocol fails to complete all exchanges in the
allocated time, the client software SHALL exit (close the UDP socket
and indicate an error message to the user).
(Note: in version 8, the watchdog time is configured, in udpst.h, as
#define WARNING_NOTRAFFIC 1 // Receive traffic stopped warning
threshold (sec) #define TIMEOUT_NOTRAFFIC (WARNING_NOTRAFFIC + 4) or
5 seconds)
The Setup Request message PDU SHALL be organized as follows:
uint16_t controlId; // Control ID = 0xACE1
uint16_t protocolVer; // Protocol version = 0x08
uint8_t cmdRequest; // Command request = 1 (request)
uint8_t cmdResponse; // Command response = 0
uint16_t reserved1; // Reserved (alignment)
uint16_t testPort; // Test port on server (=0 for Request)
uint8_t jumboStatus; // Jumbo datagram support status (BOOL)
uint8_t authMode; // Authentication mode
uint32_t authUnixTime;// Authentication time stamp
unsigned char authDigest[AUTH_DIGEST_LENGTH] // SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH = 32 oct
The UDP PDU format layout SHALL be as follows (big-endian AB):
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| controlId | protocolVer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| cmdRequest | cmdResponse | reserved1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| testPort | jumboStatus | authMode |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| authUnixTime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| |
| |
| |
| authDigest[AUTH_DIGEST_LENGTH](256 bits) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When the server receives the Setup Request it SHALL validate the
request by checking the protocol version, the jumbo datagram support
indicator, and the authentication data if utilized. If the client
has selected options for:
o Jumbo datagram support status (BOOL),
o Authentication mode, and
o Authentication time stamp
that do not match the server configuration, the server MUST reject
the Setup Request.
(Note: in version 8, the watchdog time is configured, in udpst.h, as
#define WARNING_NOTRAFFIC 1 // Receive traffic stopped warning
threshold (sec) #define TIMEOUT_NOTRAFFIC (WARNING_NOTRAFFIC + 4) or
5 seconds)
If the Setup Request must be rejected (due to any of the reasons in
the Command response codes listed below), a Setup Response SHALL be
sent back to the client with a corresponding command response value
indicating the reason for the rejection.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
uint16_t controlId; // Control ID = 0xACE1
uint16_t protocolVer; // Protocol version = 0x08
uint8_t cmdRequest; // Command request = 2 (reply)
uint8_t cmdResponse; // Command response = <see table below>
uint16_t reserved1; // Reserved (alignment)
uint16_t testPort; // Test port on server (available port in Response)
uint8_t jumboStatus; // Jumbo datagram support status (BOOL)
uint8_t authMode; // Authentication mode
uint32_t authUnixTime;// Authentication time stamp
unsigned char authDigest[AUTH_DIGEST_LENGTH] // 32 octets, MBZ
Command Response Codes
Control Header Setup Request Code CHSR_CRSP_NONE 0 = None
Control Header Setup Request Code CHSR_CRSP_ACKOK 1 = Acknowledgement
Control Header Setup Request Code CHSR_CRSP_BADVER 2 = Bad Protocol Version
Control Header Setup Request Code CHSR_CRSP_BADJS 3 = Invalid Jumbo datagram option
Control Header Setup Request Code CHSR_CRSP_AUTHNC 4 = Unexpected Authentication in Setup Request
Control Header Setup Request Code CHSR_CRSP_AUTHREQ 5 = Authentication missing in Setup Request
Control Header Setup Request Code CHSR_CRSP_AUTHINV 6 = Invalid authentication method
Control Header Setup Request Code CHSR_CRSP_AUTHFAIL 7 = Authentication failure
Control Header Setup Request Code CHSR_CRSP_AUTHTIME 8 = Authentication time is invalid in Setup Request
If the server finds that the Setup Request matches its configuration
and is otherwise acceptable, the server SHALL initiate a new
connection for the client, using a new UDP socket allocated from the
UDP ephemeral port range. Then, the server SHALL start a watchdog
timer (to terminate the connection in case the client goes silent),
and sends the Setup Response back to the client (see below for
composition).
If the Setup Request is accepted by the server, a Setup Response
SHALL be sent back to the client with a corresponding command
response value indicating 1 = Acknowledgement.
uint16_t controlId; // Control ID = 0xACE1
uint16_t protocolVer; // Protocol version = 0x08
uint8_t cmdRequest; // Command request = 2 (reply)
uint8_t cmdResponse; // Command response = 1 (Acknowledgement)
uint16_t reserved1; // Reserved (alignment)
uint16_t testPort; // Test port on server (available port in Response)
uint8_t jumboStatus; // Jumbo datagram support status (BOOL)
uint8_t authMode; // Authentication mode
uint32_t authUnixTime;// Authentication time stamp
unsigned char authDigest[AUTH_DIGEST_LENGTH] // 32 octets, MBZ
...
The new connection is associated with a new UDP socket allocated from
the UDP ephemeral port range at the server. The server SHALL set a
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
timer for the new connection as a watchdog (in case the client goes
quiet) and send the Setup response back to the client.
(Note: in version 8, the watchdog time-out is configured at 5
seconds)
The Setup Response SHALL include the port number at the server for
the new socket, and this UDP port-pair SHALL be used for all
subsequent communication. The server SHALL also include the values
of:
o Jumbo datagram support status (BOOL),
o Authentication mode, and
o Authentication time stamp
for the client's use on the new connection in its Setup Response, and
the remaining 32 octets MUST Be Zero (MBZ).
Finally, the new UDP connection associated with the new socket and
port number is opened, and the server awaits communication there.
If a Test Activation request is not subsequently received from the
client on this new port number before the watchdog timer expires, the
server SHALL close the socket and deallocate the port.
5.1. Setup Response Processing at the Client
When the client receives the Setup response from the server it first
checks the cmdResponse value. If this value indicates an error the
client SHALL display/report a relevant message to the user or
management process and exit. If the client receives a Command
Response code (CRSP) that is not equal to one of the codes defined
above, then the client MUST terminate the connection and terminate
operation of the current Setup Request. If the Command Response code
(CRSP) value indicates success the client SHALL compose a Test
Activation Request with all the test parameters it desires such as
the test direction, the test duration, etc.
6. Test Activation Request and Response
This section is divided accrding to the sending and processing of the
client, server, and again at the client.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
6.1. nTest Activation Request at the client
Upon a successful setup, the client SHALL then send the Test
Activation Request to the UDP port number the server communicated in
the Setup Response.
The client SHALL compose Test Activation Request as follows:
uint16_t controlId; // Control ID
uint16_t protocolVer; // Protocol version
uint8_t cmdRequest; // Command request, 1 = upstream, 2 = downstream
uint8_t cmdResponse; // Command response (set to 0)
uint16_t lowThresh; // Low delay variation threshold
uint16_t upperThresh; // Upper delay variation threshold
uint16_t trialInt; // Status feedback/trial interval (ms)
uint16_t testIntTime; // Test interval time (sec)
uint8_t subIntPeriod; // Sub-interval period (sec)
uint8_t ipTosByte; // IP ToS byte for testing
uint16_t srIndexConf; // Configured sending rate index (see Note below)
uint8_t useOwDelVar; // Use one-way delay instead of RTT
uint8_t highSpeedDelta; // High-speed row adjustment delta
uint16_t slowAdjThresh; // Slow rate adjustment threshold
uint16_t seqErrThresh; // Sequence error threshold
uint8_t ignoreOooDup; // Ignore Out-of-Order/Duplicate datagrams
uint8_t reserved1; // (Alignment)
uint16_t reserved2; // (Alignment)
Control Header Test Activation Command Request Values:
CHTA_CREQ_NONE 0 = No Request
CHTA_CREQ_TESTACTUS 1 = Request test in Upstream direction (client to server, client takes the role of sending test packets)
CHTA_CREQ_TESTACTDS 2 = Request test in Downstream direction (server to client, client takes the role of receiving test packets)
Control Header Test Activation Command Response Values:
CHTA_CRSP_NONE 0 = Used by client when making a Request
CHTA_CRSP_ACKOK 1 = Used by Server in affirmative Response
CHTA_CRSP_BADPARAM 2 = Used by Server to indicate an error; bad parameter; reject;
Note: uint16_t srIndexConf is the table index of the configured
*fixed* sending rate index to use. The client can request the
specified rate, or the server can use this field to coerce a maximum
rate in its response. If the server sets to 0 in its response,
client SHALL not use fixed rate.
The UDP PDU format of the Test Activation Request is as follows (big-
endian AB):
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| controlId | protocolVer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| cmdRequest | cmdResponse | lowThresh |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| upperThresh | trialInt |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| testIntTime | subIntPeriod | ipTosByte |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| srIndexConf | useOwDelVar |highSpeedDelta |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| slowAdjThresh | seqErrThresh |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ignoreOooDup | reserved1 | reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note: This is only 28 octets of the 56 octet PDU sent, the rest are MBZ
for a Test Activation Request.
The client SHALL use the configuration for
o Jumbo datagram support status (BOOL),
o Authentication mode, and
o Authentication time stamp
requested and confirmed by the server.
6.2. Test Activation Request - server response
After the server receives the Test Activation request on the new
connection, it MUST choose to accept, ignore or modify any of the
test parameters.
When the server sends the Test Activation response back, it SHALL set
the cmd Response field to:
uint8_t cmdResponse;// Command response (set to 1, ACK, or 2 error)
The server SHALL include all the test parameters again to make the
client aware of any changes.
If the client has requested an upstream test, the server SHALL
include the transmission parameters from the first row of the sending
rate table.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
The remaining 28 octets of the Test Activation Request (normally read
from the first row of the sending rate table) are called the Sending
Rate Structure, and SHALL be organized as follows:
uint32_t txInterval1; // Transmit interval (us)
uint32_t udpPayload1; // UDP payload (bytes)
uint32_t burstSize1; // UDP burst size per interval
uint32_t txInterval2; // Transmit interval (us)
uint32_t udpPayload2; // UDP payload (bytes)
uint32_t burstSize2; // UDP burst size per interval
uint32_t udpAddon2; // UDP add-on (bytes)
with
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| txInterval1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| udpPayload1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| burstSize1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| txInterval2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| udpPayload2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| burstSize2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| udpAdddon2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note that the server additionally has the option of completely
rejecting the request and sending back an appropriate command
response value:
uint8_t cmdResponse; // Command response (set to 2, error)
If activation continues, the new connection is prepared for an
upstream OR downstream test.
In the case of a downstream test, the server prepares to send with
either a single timer to send status PDUs at the specified interval
OR dual timers to send load PDUs based on the first row of the
sending rate table.
The server SHALL then send a Test Activation response back to the
client, update the watchdog timer with a new time-out value, and set
a test duration timer to eventually stop the test.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
The new connection is now ready for testing.
6.3. Test Activation Response action at the client
When the client receives the Test Activation response, it first
checks the command response value.
If the client receives a Test Activation command response value that
indicates an error, the client SHALL display/report a relevant
message to the user or management process and exit.
If the client receives a Test Activation command response value that
is not equal to one of the codes defined above, then the client MUST
terminate the connection and terminate operation of the current Setup
Request.
If the client receives a Test Activation command response value that
indicates success (CHTA_CRSP_ACKOK) the client SHALL update its
configuration to use any test parameters modified by the server.
Next, the client SHALL prepare its connection for either an upstream
test with dual timers set to send load PDUs (based on the starting
transmission parameters sent by the server), OR a downstream test
with a single timer to send status PDUs at the specified interval.
Then, the client SHALL stop the test initiation timer, set a new
time-out value for the watchdog timer, and start the timer (in case
the server goes quiet).
The connection is now ready for testing.
7. Test Stream Transmission and Measurement Feedback Messages
This section describes the testing phase of the protocol. The roles
of sender and receiver vary depending whether the direction of
testing is from server to client, or the reverse.
7.1. Test Packet PDU and Roles
Testing proceeds with one end point sending load PDUs, based on
transmission parameters from the sending rate table, and the other
end point receiving the load PDUs and sending status messages to
communicate the traffic conditions at the receiver.
The watchdog timer at the receiver SHALL be reset each time a test
PDU is received.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
When the server is sending Load PDUs in the role of sender, it SHALL
use the transmission parameters directly from the sending rate table
via the index that is currently selected (which was based on the
feedback in its received status messages).
However, when the client is sending load PDUs in the role of sender,
it SHALL use the discreet transmission parameters that were
communicated by the server in its periodic status messages (and not
referencing a sending rate table). This approach allows the server
to control the individual sending rates as well as the algorithm used
to decide when and how to adjust the rate.
The server uses a load adjustment algorithm which evaluates
measurements, either it's own or the contents of received feedback
messages. This algorithm is unique to udpst; it provides the ability
to search for the Maximum IP Capacity that is absent from other
testing tools. Although the algorithm depends on the protocol, it is
not part of the protocol per se.
The current algorithm has three paths to its decision on the next
sending rate:
1. When there are no impairments present (no sequence errors, low
delay variation), resulting in sending rate increase.
2. When there are low impairments present (no sequence errors but
higher levels of delay variation), so the same sending rate is
retained.
3. When the impairment levels are above the thresholds set for this
purpose and "congestion" is inferred, resulting in sending rate
decrease.
The algorithm also has two modes for increasing/decreasing the
sending rate:
o A high-speed mode to achieve high sending rates quickly, but also
back-off quickly when "congestion" is inferred from the
measurements. Any two consecutive feedback intervals that have a
sequence number anomaly and/or contain an upper delay variation
threshold exception in both of the two consecutive intervals,
count as the two consecutive feedback measurements required to
declare "congestion" within a test.
o A single-step mode where all rate adjustments use the minimum
increase or decrease of one step in the sending rate table. The
single step mode continues after the first inference of
"congestion" from measured impairments.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
On the other hand, the test configuration MAY use a fixed sending
rate requested by the client, using the field below:
uint16_t srIndexConf; // Configured sending rate index
The client MAY communicate the desired fixed rate in it's activation
request.
The Load PDU SHALL have the following format and field definitions:
uint16_t loadId; // Load ID (=0xBEEF for the LOad PDU)
uint8_t testAction; // Test action (= 0x00 normally, until test stop)
uint8_t rxStopped; // Receive traffic stopped indicator (BOOL)
uint32_t lpduSeqNo; // Load PDU sequence number (starts at 1)
uint16_t udpPayload; // UDP payload LENGTH(bytes)
uint16_t spduSeqErr; // Status PDU sequence error count
//
uint32_t spduTime_sec; // Send time in last received status PDU
uint32_t spduTime_nsec; // Send time in last received status PDU
uint32_t lpduTime_sec; // Send time of this load PDU
uint32_t lpduTime_nsec; // Send time of this load PDU
Test Action Codes
TEST_ACT_TEST 0 // normal
TEST_ACT_STOP1 1 // normal stop at end of test: server sends in STATUS or Test PDU
TEST_ACT_STOP2 2 // ACK of STOP1: sent by client in STATUS or Test PDU
The Test Load UDP PDU format is as follows (big-endian AB):
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| loadId | testAction | rxStopped |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| lpduSeqNo |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| udpPayload | spduSeqErr |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| spduTime_sec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| spduTime_nsec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| lpduTime_sec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| lpduTime_nsec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. MBZ = udpPayload - 28 octets .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
7.2. Status PDU
The receiver SHALL send a Status PDU to the sender during a test at
the configured feedback interval.
The Status Header PDU SHALL have the following format and field
definitions:
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
// Status feedback header for UDP payload of status PDUs
//
uint16_t statusId; // Status ID = 0xFEED
uint8_t testAction; // Test action
uint8_t rxStopped; // Receive traffic stopped indicator (BOOL)
uint32_t spduSeqNo; // Status PDU sequence number (starts at 1)
//
struct sendingRate srStruct; // Sending Rate Structure (28 octets)
//
uint32_t subIntSeqNo; // Sub-interval sequence number
struct subIntStats sisSav; // Sub-interval Saved Stats Structure (52 octets)
//
uint32_t seqErrLoss; // Loss sum
uint32_t seqErrOoo; // Out-of-Order sum
uint32_t seqErrDup; // Duplicate sum
//
uint32_t clockDeltaMin; // Clock delta minimum (either RTT or 1-way delay)
uint32_t delayVarMin; // Delay variation minimum
uint32_t delayVarMax; // Delay variation maximum
uint32_t delayVarSum; // Delay variation sum
uint32_t delayVarCnt; // Delay variation count
uint32_t rttMinimum; // Minimum round-trip time sampled
uint32_t rttSample; // Last round-trip time sample
uint8_t delayMinUpd; // Delay minimum(s) updated observed, communicated in both directions.
uint8_t reserved2; // (alignment)
uint16_t reserved3; // (alignment)
//
uint32_t tiDeltaTime; // Trial interval delta time
uint32_t tiRxDatagrams; // Trial interval receive datagrams
uint32_t tiRxBytes; // Trial interval receive bytes
//
uint32_t spduTime_sec; // Send time of this status PDU
uint32_t spduTime_nsec; // Send time of this status PDU
The Status feedback UDP payload PDUs format is as follows (big-endian
AB):
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| statusId | testAction | rxStopped |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| spduSeqNo |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. Sending Rate Structure (28 octets) .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| subIntSeqNo |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. Sub-interval Saved Stats Structure (52 octets) .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| seqErrLoss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| seqErrOoo |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| seqErrDup |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| clockDeltaMin |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| delayVarMin |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| delayVarMax |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| delayVarSum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| delayVarCnt |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rttMinimum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rttSample |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| delayMinUpd | reserved2 | reserved3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| tiDeltaTime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| tiRxDatagrams |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| tiRxBytes |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| spduTime_sec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| spduTime_nsec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note that the Sending Rate Structure (28 octets) is defined in the
Test Activation section.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
Also note that the Sub-interval Saved Stats Structure (52 octets)
SHALL be included (and populated as required when the server is in
the receiver role) as defined below.
The Sub-interval saved statistics structure for received traffic
measurements SHALL be organized and formatted as follows:
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
uint32_t rxDatagrams; // Received datagrams
uint32_t rxBytes; // Received bytes
uint32_t deltaTime; // Time delta
uint32_t seqErrLoss; // Loss sum
uint32_t seqErrOoo; // Out-of-Order sum
uint32_t seqErrDup; // Duplicate sum
uint32_t delayVarMin; // Delay variation minimum
uint32_t delayVarMax; // Delay variation maximum
uint32_t delayVarSum; // Delay variation sum
uint32_t delayVarCnt; // Delay variation count
uint32_t rttMinimum; // Minimum round-trip time
uint32_t rttMaximum; // Maximum round-trip time
uint32_t accumTime; // Accumulated time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rxDatagrams |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rxBytes |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| deltaTime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| seqErrLoss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| seqErrOoo |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| seqErrDup |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| delayVarMin |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| delayVarMax |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| delayVarSum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| delayVarCnt |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rttMinimum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rttMaximum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| accumTime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note that the 52 octet saved statistics structure above has slight
differences from the 40 octets that follow in the status feedback
PDU, particularly the time-related fields.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
Upon receiving the Status Feedback PDU or expiration of the feedback
interval, the server SHALL perform calculations required by the Load
adjustment algorithm and adjust its sending rate, or signal that the
client do so in its role as as sender.
8. Stopping the Test
When the test duration timer on the server expires, it SHALL set the
connection test action to STOP and also starts marking all outgoing
load or status PDUs with a test action of STOP1.
uint8_t testAction; // Test action (server sets STOP1)
This is simply a non-reversible state for all future messages sent
from the server.
When the client receives a load or status PDU with the STOP1
indication, it SHALL finalize testing, display the test results, and
also mark its connection with a test action of STOP (so that any PDUs
received subsequent to the STOP1 are ignored).
With the test action of the client's connection set to STOP, the very
next expiry of a send timer for either a load or status PDU SHALL
cause the client to schedule an immediate end time to exit.
The client SHALL then send all subsequent load or status PDUs with a
test action of STOP2
uint8_t testAction; // Test action (client sets STOP2)
as confirmation to the server, and a graceful termination of the test
can begin.
When the server receives the STOP2 confirmation in the load or status
PDU, the server SHALL schedule an immediate end time for the
connection which closes the socket and deallocates it.
In a non-graceful test stop, the watchdog/quiet timers at each end-
point will expire, notifications SHALL be made and the test action of
each end-point's connection SHALL be set to STOP.
9. Method of Measurement
The architecture of the method REQUIRES two cooperating hosts
operating in the roles of Src (test packet sender) and Dst
(receiver), with a measured path and return path between them.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
The duration of a test duration, parameter I, MUST be constrained in
a production network, since this is an active test method and it will
likely cause congestion on the Src to Dst host path during a test.
9.1. Running Code
This section is for the benefit of the Document Shepherd's form, and
will be deleted prior to final review.
Much of the development of the method and comparisons with existing
methods conducted at IETF Hackathons and elsewhere have been based on
the example udpst Linux measurement tool (which is a working
reference for further development) [udpst]. The current project:
o is a utility that can function as a client or server daemon
o requires a successful client-initiated setup handshake between
cooperating hosts and allows firewalls to control inbound
unsolicited UDP which either go to a control port [expected and w/
authentication] or to ephemeral ports that are only created as
needed. Firewalls protecting each host can both continue to do
their job normally. This aspect is similar to many other test
utilities available.
o is written in C, and built with gcc (release 9.3) and its standard
run-time libraries
o allows configuration of most of the parameters described in
Sections 4 and 7.
o supports IPv4 and IPv6 address families.
o supports IP-layer packet marking.
10. Security Considerations
Active metrics and measurements have a long history of security
considerations. The security considerations that apply to any active
measurement of live paths are relevant here. See [RFC4656] and
[RFC5357].
When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those
whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to
potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques
which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user
traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer
the reader to the privacy considerations described in the Large Scale
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework [RFC7594],
which covers active and passive techniques.
There are some new considerations for Capacity measurement as
described in this memo.
1. Cooperating source and destination hosts and agreements to test
the path between the hosts are REQUIRED. Hosts perform in either
the Src or Dst roles.
2. It is REQUIRED to have a user client-initiated setup handshake
between cooperating hosts that allows firewalls to control
inbound unsolicited UDP traffic which either goes to a control
port [expected and w/authentication] or to ephemeral ports that
are only created as needed. Firewalls protecting each host can
both continue to do their job normally.
3. Client-server authentication and integrity protection for
feedback messages conveying measurements is RECOMMENDED. To
accomodate different host limitations and testing circumstances,
different modes of operation are recommended:
A. Unathenticated mode (for all phases)
AND
B. OPTIONAL Authenticated set-up only
SHA-256 HMAC time-window verification (5 min time stamp verification)
(could add silent failure option)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
C. Encrypted setup and test-activation
(currently using OpenSSL Library, so KISS, but may be too slow for
test packets)
-=-=-=-=--=- Old/lowpower host performance impacts -=-=-=-=-=-=-
D. Encrypted feedback messages
E. Integrity protection for test packets SHA-256 HMAC
F. Encrypted test packets (maybe also valuable to defeat compression on links)
4. Hosts MUST limit the number of simultaneous tests to avoid
resource exhaustion and inaccurate results.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
5. Senders MUST be rate-limited. This can be accomplished using a
pre-built table defining all the offered load rates that will be
supported (Section 8.1). The recommended load-control search
algorithm results in "ramp up" from the lowest rate in the table.
6. Service subscribers with limited data volumes who conduct
extensive capacity testing might experience the effects of
Service Provider controls on their service. Testing with the
Service Provider's measurement hosts SHOULD be limited in
frequency and/or overall volume of test traffic (for example, the
range of I duration values SHOULD be limited).
The exact specification of these features was hopefully accomplished
during this protocol development.
11. IANA Considerations
This memo requests IANA to assign a UDP port.
12. Acknowledgments
Thanks to <folks who review the memo>.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method]
Morton, A., Geib, R., and L. Ciavattone, "Metrics and
Methods for One-way IP Capacity", draft-ietf-ippm-
capacity-metric-method-10 (work in progress), April 2021.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2330>.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, DOI 10.17487/RFC2681,
September 1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2681>.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.
[RFC7479] Moonesamy, S., "Using Ed25519 in SSHFP Resource Records",
RFC 7479, DOI 10.17487/RFC7479, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7479>.
[RFC7680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics
(IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8468] Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V.
Hegde, "IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence: Updates for
the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework", RFC 8468,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8468, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8468>.
13.2. Informative References
[copycat] Edleine, K., Kuhlewind, K., Trammell, B., and B. Donnet,
"copycat: Testing Differential Treatment of New Transport
Protocols in the Wild (ANRW '17)", July 2017,
<https://irtf.org/anrw/2017/anrw17-final5.pdf>.
[LS-SG12-A]
12, I. S., "LS - Harmonization of IP Capacity and Latency
Parameters: Revision of Draft Rec. Y.1540 on IP packet
transfer performance parameters and New Annex A with Lab
Evaluation Plan", May 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1632/>.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
[LS-SG12-B]
12, I. S., "LS on harmonization of IP Capacity and Latency
Parameters: Consent of Draft Rec. Y.1540 on IP packet
transfer performance parameters and New Annex A with Lab &
Field Evaluation Plans", March 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1645/>.
[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2544>.
[RFC3148] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining
Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3148, July 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3148>.
[RFC5136] Chimento, P. and J. Ishac, "Defining Network Capacity",
RFC 5136, DOI 10.17487/RFC5136, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5136>.
[RFC6815] Bradner, S., Dubray, K., McQuaid, J., and A. Morton,
"Applicability Statement for RFC 2544: Use on Production
Networks Considered Harmful", RFC 6815,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6815, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6815>.
[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
[RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7594>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8337] Mathis, M. and A. Morton, "Model-Based Metrics for Bulk
Transport Capacity", RFC 8337, DOI 10.17487/RFC8337, March
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8337>.
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Test Protocol for IP Capacity Measurement July 2021
[TR-471] Morton, A., "Broadband Forum TR-471: IP Layer Capacity
Metrics and Measurement", July 2020,
<https://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-
471.pdf>.
[udpst] udpst Project Collaborators, "UDP Speed Test Open
Broadband project", December 2020,
<https://github.com/BroadbandForum/obudpst>.
[Y.1540] Y.1540, I. R., "Internet protocol data communication
service - IP packet transfer and availability performance
parameters", December 2019,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1540-201912-I/en>.
[Y.Sup60] Morton, A., "Recommendation Y.Sup60, (09/20) Interpreting
ITU-T Y.1540 maximum IP-layer capacity measurements",
September 2020,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.Sup60/en>.
Authors' Addresses
Len Ciavattone
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Email: lencia@att.com
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue South
Middletown,, NJ 07748
USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Fax: +1 732 368 1192
Email: acm@research.att.com
Ciavattone & Morton Expires January 13, 2022 [Page 27]