Skip to main content

Defining Network Capacity
RFC 5136

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
05 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Ward
2012-08-22
05 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko
2008-02-29
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2008-02-29
05 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5136
' added by Amy Vezza
2008-02-12
05 (System) RFC published
2007-11-28
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2007-11-28
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2007-11-28
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2007-11-28
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2007-11-28
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2007-11-28
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-11-27
05 Lars Eggert State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert
2007-11-27
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2007-11-27
05 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
> 2.3.4.  Definition: IP-type-P Link Usage
>
> The average usage of a link L, Used(L,T,I), is the actual number of
> ... …
[Ballot comment]
> 2.3.4.  Definition: IP-type-P Link Usage
>
> The average usage of a link L, Used(L,T,I), is the actual number of
> ...
> The information
> transmitted across the link can be generated by any source, including
> those who may not be directly attached to either side of the link.
> In addition, each information flow from these sources may share any
> number (from one to n) of links in the overall path between S and D.

Why is the last sentence included? For measuring usage of L, it does
not matter.
2007-11-27
05 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
This is a great document, I enjoyed reading it, and will probably employ it in my own work.

I do have a few …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a great document, I enjoyed reading it, and will probably employ it in my own work.

I do have a few issues, however:

> 2.3.3.  Definition: IP-type-P Path Capacity
>
> Using our definition for link capacity, we can then extend this
> notion to an entire path, such that the IP layer path capacity simply
> becomes that of the link with the smallest capacity along that path.
>
> C(P,T,I) = min {1..n} {C(Ln,T,I)}
>
> The previous definitions specify the number of IP layer bits that can
> be transmitted across a link or path should the resource be free of
> any congestion.  It represents the full capacity available for
> traffic between the source and destination.  Determining how much
> capacity is available for use on a congested link is potentially much
> more useful.  However, in order to define the available capacity we
> must first specify how much is being used.
>
> ...
> 2.3.7.  Definition: IP-type-P Available Path Capacity
>
> Using our definition for IP layer available link capacity, we can
> then extend this notion to an entire path, such that the IP layer
> available path capacity simply becomes that of the link with the
> smallest available capacity along that path.
>
> AvailCap(P,T,I) = min {1..n} {AvailCap(Ln,T,I)}

These definitions assume that the path capacity is only related to the capacity over each link. However, forwarding capacity of the routers in between will also have a significant impact, unless the routers are capable of forwarding at full line rate under all conditions (packet size, filters applied, IP version, going out from same or different line
card, etc)

Note that you could simply rule this out of scope, but if so, at least the document should be explicit about this limitation.
2007-11-26
05 David Ward
[Ballot discuss]
The authors clarify that IP options and all forms of IP packets are to be included in the calculations but, don't discuss the …
[Ballot discuss]
The authors clarify that IP options and all forms of IP packets are to be included in the calculations but, don't discuss the fact that frequently option packets and other "probing"  application packets (ICMP, traceroute) actually traverse a different forwarding path than other IP packets. Thus, by lumping them all together and counting them as if they are the same data may be erroneous. More text would be advised.

NOTE: given new text to be added by authors, I am clearing my discuss
2007-11-26
05 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Ward has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Ward
2007-10-19
05 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-10-18
2007-10-18
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2007-10-18
05 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2007-10-18
05 David Ward
[Ballot discuss]
The authors clarify that IP options and all forms of IP packets are to be included in the calculations but, don't discuss the …
[Ballot discuss]
The authors clarify that IP options and all forms of IP packets are to be included in the calculations but, don't discuss the fact that frequently option packets and other "probing"  application packets (ICMP, traceroute) actually traverse a different forwarding path than other IP packets. Thus, by lumping them all together and counting them as if they are the same data may be erroneous. More text would be advised.
2007-10-18
05 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by David Ward
2007-10-18
05 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2007-10-18
05 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2007-10-18
05 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2007-10-18
05 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-10-18
05 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2007-10-17
05 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2007-10-17
05 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2007-10-17
05 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
This is a great document, I enjoyed reading it, and will probably employ it in my own work.

I do have a few …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a great document, I enjoyed reading it, and will probably employ it in my own work.

I do have a few issues, however:

> 2.3.3.  Definition: IP-type-P Path Capacity
>
> Using our definition for link capacity, we can then extend this
> notion to an entire path, such that the IP layer path capacity simply
> becomes that of the link with the smallest capacity along that path.
>
> C(P,T,I) = min {1..n} {C(Ln,T,I)}
>
> The previous definitions specify the number of IP layer bits that can
> be transmitted across a link or path should the resource be free of
> any congestion.  It represents the full capacity available for
> traffic between the source and destination.  Determining how much
> capacity is available for use on a congested link is potentially much
> more useful.  However, in order to define the available capacity we
> must first specify how much is being used.
>
> ...
> 2.3.7.  Definition: IP-type-P Available Path Capacity
>
> Using our definition for IP layer available link capacity, we can
> then extend this notion to an entire path, such that the IP layer
> available path capacity simply becomes that of the link with the
> smallest available capacity along that path.
>
> AvailCap(P,T,I) = min {1..n} {AvailCap(Ln,T,I)}

These definitions assume that the path capacity is only related to the capacity over each link. However, forwarding capacity of the routers in between will also have a significant impact, unless the routers are capable of forwarding at full line rate under all conditions (packet size, filters applied, IP version, going out from same or different line
card, etc)

Note that you could simply rule this out of scope, but if so, at least the document should be explicit about this limitation.

> 2.3.4.  Definition: IP-type-P Link Usage
>
> The average usage of a link L, Used(L,T,I), is the actual number of
> ...
> The information
> transmitted across the link can be generated by any source, including
> those who may not be directly attached to either side of the link.
> In addition, each information flow from these sources may share any
> number (from one to n) of links in the overall path between S and D.

Why is the last sentence included? For measuring usage of L, it does
not matter.
2007-10-17
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2007-10-15
05 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2007-10-15
05 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
The IPPM acronym should also be expanded on its first use in the
  body of the document.
2007-10-15
05 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-10-12
05 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2007-10-12
05 Lars Eggert Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert
2007-10-12
05 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2007-10-09
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen.
2007-10-09
05 Lars Eggert State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert
2007-10-08
05 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2007-10-08
05 Amanda Baber IANA Last Call comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document
to have NO IANA Actions.
2007-09-27
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen
2007-09-27
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen
2007-09-26
05 Lars Eggert [Note]: 'Document Shepherd: Matt Zekauskas (matt@internet2.edu)
' added by Lars Eggert
2007-09-26
05 Lars Eggert Putting this tentatively on the agenda for Oct 18.
2007-09-26
05 Lars Eggert Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-10-18 by Lars Eggert
2007-09-24
05 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2007-09-24
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2007-09-24
05 Lars Eggert State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert
2007-09-24
05 Lars Eggert Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert
2007-09-24
05 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-09-24
05 (System) Last call text was added
2007-09-24
05 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-09-24
05 Lars Eggert State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert
2007-09-24
05 Lars Eggert AD review performed during WGLC.
2007-09-24
05 Lars Eggert State Change Notice email list have been change to draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity@tools.ietf.org, ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org from ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org
2007-09-24
05 Dinara Suleymanova
PROTO Write-up

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, …
PROTO Write-up

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Matt Zekauskas  is the document shepherd.
I have personally reviewed this version of the document, and feel
this version is ready to forward to the IESG for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes. We have even have comments from another AD.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization, or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

I have no specific concerns or issues with this document that the
responsible AD or IESG should be aware of.
No IPR disclosure related to this document has been filed.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

I believe the WG members as a whole understand and agree with it.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

I have verified the document satisfies all ID nits. It needs no
additional formal review. The document is intended to be Informational.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

This document has split its references. There are no "downward
references", nor references to documents that are not stable.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

This document requests nothing of IANA, and says so.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There are no formal language fragments in this document.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up. [detail elided--mjz]

Technical Summary

Measuring network capacity is a task that sounds simple, but in
reality can be quite complex. In addition, the lack of a unified
nomenclature on this subject makes it increasingly difficult to
properly build, test, and use techniques and tools built around
these constructs. This document provides definitions for the terms
'Capacity' and 'Available Capacity' related to IP traffic traveling
between a source and destination in an IP network, to provide a
common framework for the discussion and analysis of a diverse set
of current and future measurement and estimation techniques.


Working Group Summary

The working group has supported the document through the last
five revisions, and it has been uncontroversial.

Document Quality
The document has been given thorough review by the group over its
revisions, and in particular Joseph Kopena and Dan Romanescu have
given thorough reviews improving document quality.

Personnel
Document Shepherd: Matt Zekauskas
Responsible Area Director: Lars Eggert
2007-09-24
05 Dinara Suleymanova State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Dinara Suleymanova
2007-09-24
05 Dinara Suleymanova Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None
2007-05-31
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt
2006-11-30
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-04.txt
2006-06-23
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-03.txt
2006-06-12
05 Lars Eggert Draft Added by Lars Eggert in state AD is watching
2006-05-18
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-02.txt
2005-11-11
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-01.txt
2005-06-21
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-00.txt