IP Performance Metrics (ippm)
|WG||Name||IP Performance Metrics|
|Area||Transport Area (tsv)|
|Status Update||(last changed 2016-04-15) Show|
|Dependencies||Document dependency graph (SVG)|
|Jabber chat||Room address||xmpp:firstname.lastname@example.org?join|
Charter for Working Group
The IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group develops and maintains
standard metrics that can be applied to the quality, performance, and
reliability of Internet data delivery services and applications running
over transport layer protocols (e.g. TCP, UDP) over IP. Specifying network
or lower layer OAM mechanisms is out of scope of the IPPM charter. It also
develops and maintains protocols for the measurement of these metrics.
These metrics are designed such that they can be used by network operators,
end users, or independent testing groups. Metrics developed by the IPPM WG
are intended to provide unbiased quantitative performance measurements and
not a value judgement.
The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and
procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The
working group will continue advancing the most useful of these metrics
along the standards track, using the guidelines stated in RFC 6576. To the
extent possible, these metrics will be used as the basis for future work on
metrics in the WG.
The WG will seek to develop new metrics and models to more accurately
characterize the network paths under test and/or the performance of
transport and application layer protocols on these paths. The WG will
balance the need for new metrics with the desire to minimize the
introduction of new metrics, and will require that new metric definitions
state how the definition improves on an existing metric definition, or
assesses a property of network performance not previously covered by a
defined metric. Metric definitions will follow the template given in RFC
6390. It is possible that new measurement protocols will be needed to
support new metrics; if this is the case, the working group will be
rechartered to develop these protocols.
Additional methods will be defined for the composition and calibration of
IPPM-defined metrics, as well as active, passive and hybrid measurement
methods for these metrics. In addition, the WG encourages work which
describes the applicability of metrics and measurement methods, especially
to improve understanding of the tradeoffs involved among active, passive,
and hybrid methods.
The WG may update its core framework RFC 2330 as necessary to accommodate
The WG has produced protocols for communication among test equipment to
enable the measurement of the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectively). These protocols will be advanced along the standards track.
The work of the WG will take into account the suitability of measurements
for automation, in order to support large-scale measurement efforts. This
may result in further developments in protocols such as OWAMP and TWAMP.
Agreement about the definitions of metrics and methods of measurement
enables accurate, reproducible, and equivalent results across different
implementations. To this end, the WG will define and maintain a registry of
metric definitions. The WG encourages work which assesses the comparability
of measurements of IPPM metrics with metrics developed elsewhere. The WG
also encourages work which improves the availability of information about
the context in which measurements were taken.
The IPPM WG seeks cooperation with other appropriate standards bodies and
forums to promote consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF
process, IPPM metric definitions and measurement protocols will be subject
to as rigorous a scrutiny for usefulness, clarity, and accuracy as other
protocol standards. The IPPM WG will interact with other areas of IETF
activity whose scope intersects with the requirement of these specific
metrics. The WG will, on request, provide input to other IETF working
groups on the use and implementation of these metrics.
Specific near-term milestones include:
1. Advancement of protocols for one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectively) along the standards track.
2. Update of the IPPM framework document (RFC 2330) to reflect experience
with the framework, and to cover planned future metric development.
3. Definition of a registry of metric definitions to improve the
equivalency of metric results across multiple implementations.
4. Publication of a rate measurement problem statement.
5. Publication of documents supporting the use of IPSec to protect OWAMP /
6. Publication of documents related to model-based TCP bulk transfer
|Jul 2017||submit a Standards Track document to the IESG updating RFC2330 to cover IPv6|
|Nov 2016||submit a Standards Track document to the IESG adding support for IEEE-1588 timestamps to TWAMP|
|Nov 2016||Submit an Experimental draft on coloring-based hybrid measurement methodologies for loss and delay to the IESG|
|Nov 2016||submit a Standards Track document to the IESG defining initial contents of performance metric registry|
|Nov 2016||submit a Standards Track document to the IESG for a YANG model for managing TWAMP clients and servers|
Submit draft on core registry for performance metrics to IESG as Proposed Standard
Submit a draft on the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option as Proposed Standard
Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity metrics to IESG as Experimental
|Done||Submit a draft defining terminology for the continuum of passive and active measurement to the IESG as Informational|
Submit draft on the UDP Checksum Trailer in OWAMP and TWAMP to the IESG as Informational
Submit draft on DSCP and ECN monitoring in TWAMP to IESG as Proposed Standard
Submit draft on "A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM" (RFC 2680 bis) as Internet Standard
Submit draft on "A One-Way Delay Metric for IPPM" (RFC 2679 bis) as Internet Standard
Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed Standard
Submit draft on access rate measurement protocol problem statement to IESG as Informational
Submit draft on reference path for measurement location to IESG as Informational
Submit draft updating the IPPM Framework (2330-update) to IESG as Proposed Standard
Submit draft on RFC 2680 standards-track advancement testing to IESG as Informational