| TOC |
|
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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.”
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2009.
The IETF has standardized IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) for measuring end-to-end performance between two points. This memo defines two new categories of metrics that extend the coverage to multiple measurement points. It defines spatial metrics for measuring the performance of segments of a source to destination path, and metrics for measuring the performance between a source and many destinations in multiparty communications (e.g., a multicast tree).
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119].
1.
Introduction and Scope
2.
Terminology
3.
Brief Metric Descriptions
4.
Motivations
5.
Spatial vector metrics definitions
6.
Spatial Segment Metrics Definitions
7.
One-to-group metrics definitions
8.
One-to-group Sample Statistics
9.
Measurement Methods: Scalability and Reporting
10.
Manageability Considerations
11.
Security Considerations
12.
Acknowledgments
13.
IANA Considerations
14.
References
14.1.
Normative References
14.2.
Informative References
§
Authors' Addresses
§
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
| TOC |
IETF has standardized IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) for measuring end-to-end performance between two points. This memo defines two new categories of metrics that extend the coverage to multiple measurement points. It defines spatial metrics for measuring the performance of segments of a source to destination path, and metrics for measuring the performance between a source and many destinations in multiparty communications (e.g., a multicast tree).
The purpose of the memo is to define metrics to fulfill the new requirements of measurement involving multiple measurement points. Spatial metrics measure the performance of each segment along a path. One-to-group metrics measure the performance for a group of users. These metrics are derived from one-way end-to-end metrics, all of which follow the IPPM framework [RFC2330] (Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, “Framework for IP Performance Metrics,” May 1998.).
This memo is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces new terms that extend the original IPPM framework [RFC2330] (Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, “Framework for IP Performance Metrics,” May 1998.). Section 3 motivates each metric category and briefly introduces the new metrics. Sections 4 through 7 develop each category of metrics with definitions and statistics. Then the memo discusses the impact of the measurement methods on the scaleability and proposes an information model for reporting the measurements. Finally, the memo discusses security aspects related to measurement and registers the metrics in the IANA IP Performance Metrics Registry [RFC4148] (Stephan, E., “IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry,” August 2005.).
The scope of this memo is limited to metrics using a single source packet or stream, and observations of corresponding packets along the path (spatial), at one or more destinations (one-to-group), or both. Note that all the metrics defined herein are based on observations of packets dedicated to testing, a process which is called active measurement. Passive measurement (for example, a spatial metric based on the observation of user traffic) is beyond the scope of this memo.
| TOC |
| TOC |
The names of the metrics, including capitalization letters, are as close as possible of the names of the one-way end-to-end metrics they are derived from.
| TOC |
host: section 5 of RFC 2330
loss threshold: section 2.8.2 of RFC 2680
path: section 5 of RFC 2330
path digest: section 5 of RFC 2330
sample: section 11 of RFC 2330
singleton: section 11 of RFC 2330
| TOC |
The list of the hosts on a path from the source to the destination, also referred to as the host path digest.
| TOC |
A metric is said to be multiparty if the topology involves more than one measurement collection point. All multiparty metrics designate a set of hosts as "points of interest", where one host is the source and other hosts are the measurement collection points. For example, if the set of points of interest is < ha, hb, hc, ..., hn >, where ha is the source and < hb, hc, ..., hn > are the destinations, then measurements may be conducted between < ha, hb>, < ha, hc>, ..., <ha, hn >.
For the purposes of this memo (reflecting the scope of a single source), the only multiparty metrics are one-to-group metrics.
| TOC |
A metric is said to be spatial if one of the hosts (measurement collection points) involved is neither the source nor a destination of the measured packet(s). Such measurement hosts will usually be members of the path digest.
| TOC |
A metric is said to be one-to-group if the measured packet is sent by one source and (potentially) received by more than one destination. Thus, the topology of the communication group can be viewed as a center-distributed or server-client topology with the source as the center/server in the topology.
| TOC |
Points of interest are the hosts (as per the RFC 2330 definition, "hosts" include routing nodes) that are measurement collection points, a sub-set of the set of hosts involved in the delivery of the packets (in addition to the source itself).
For spatial metrics, points of interest are a (possibly arbitrary) sub-set of all the hosts involved in the path.
Points of interest of one-to-group metrics are the intended destination hosts for packets from the source (in addition to the source itself).
Src Dst
`. ,-.
`. ,' `...... 1
`. ; :
`. ; :
; :... 2
| |
: ;
: ;.... 3
: ;
`. ,'
`-'....... I
| Figure 1: One-to-group points of interest |
A candidate point of interest for spatial metrics is a host from the set of hosts involved in the delivery of the packets from source to destination.
Src ------. Hosts
\
`---X ... 1
\
x
/
.---------X .... 2
/
x
\
`---X .... 3
\
\
\
X .... J
\
\
\
`---- Dst
Note: 'x' are nodes which are not points of interest
| Figure 2: Spatial points of interest |
| TOC |
A reference point is defined as the server where the statistical calculations will be carried out. It is usually a centralized server in the measurement architecture that is controlled by a network operator, where measurement data can be collected for further processing. The reference point is distinctly different from hosts at measurement collection points, where the actual measurements are carried out (e.g., points of interest).
| TOC |
A vector is a set of singletons (single atomic results) comprised of observations corresponding to a single source packet at different hosts in a network. For instance, if the one-way delay singletons observed at N receivers for Packet P sent by the source Src are dT1, dT2,..., dTN, then a vector V with N elements can be organized as {dT1, dT2,…, dTN}. The element dT1 is distinct from all others as the singleton at receiver 1 in response to a packet sent from the source at a specific time. The complete vector gives information over the dimension of space; a set of N receivers in this example.
The singleton elements of any vector are distinctly different from each other in terms of their measurement collection point. Different vectors for common measurement points of interest are distinguished by the source packet sending time.
| TOC |
Several vectors form a matrix, which contains results observed over a sampling interval at different places in a network at different times. For example, the One-way delay vectors V1={dT11, dT12,..., dT1N}, V2={dT21, dT22,…, dT2N},…, Vm={dTm1, dTm2,…, dTmN} for Packet P1, P2,…,Pm, form a One-way delay Matrix {V1, V2,…,Vm}. The matrix organizes the vector information to present network performance in both space and time.
A one-dimensional matrix (row) corresponds to a sample in simple point-to-point measurement.
The relationship among singleton, sample, vector and matrix is illustrated in the following Figure 3 (Relationship between singletons, samples, vectors and matrix).
points of singleton
interest / samples(time)
,----. ^ /
/ R1.....| / R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R3dTk \
/ \ | | |
; R2........| | R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 ... R3dTk |
Src | || | |
| R3....| | R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 ... R3dTk |
| || | |
: ;| | |
\ / | | |
\ Rn......| \ RndT1 RndT2 RndT3 ... RndTk /
`-----' +-------------------------------------> time
vector matrix
(space) (time and space)
| Figure 3: Relationship between singletons, samples, vectors and matrix |
| TOC |
The metrics for spatial and one-to-group measurement are based on the source-to-destination, or end-to-end metrics defined by IETF in [[RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.), [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.), [RFC3393] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.), [RFC3432] (Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, “Network performance measurement with periodic streams,” November 2002.).
This memo defines seven new spatial metrics using the [RFC2330] (Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, “Framework for IP Performance Metrics,” May 1998.) framework of parameters, units of measure, and measurement methodologies. Each definition includes a section that describes measurements constraints and issues, and provides guidance to increase the accuracy of the results.
The spatial metrics are:
The memo also defines three one-to-group metrics to measure the one-way performance between a source and a group of receivers. They are:
Finally, based on the one-to-group vector metrics listed above, statistics are defined to capture single receiver performance, group performance and the relative performance for a multiparty communication:
| TOC |
All existing IPPM metrics are defined for end-to-end (source to destination) measurement of point-to-point paths. It is logical to extend them to multiparty situations such as one to one trajectory metrics and one to multipoint metrics.
| TOC |
Spatial metrics are needed for:
| TOC |
While the node-to-node based spatial measures can provide very useful data in the view of each connection, we also need measures to present the performance of a multiparty communication topology. A simple point-to-point metric cannot completely describe the multiparty situation. New one-to-group metrics assess performance of the multiple paths for further statistical analysis. The new metrics are named one-to-group performance metrics, and they are based on the unicast metrics defined in IPPM RFCs. One-to-group metrics are one-way metrics from one source to a group of destinations, or receivers. The metrics are helpful for judging the overall performance of a multiparty communications network, and for describing the performance variation across a group of destinations.
One-to-group performance metrics are needed for:
To understand the packet transfer performance between one source and any one receiver in the multiparty communication group, we need to collect instantaneous end-to-end metrics, or singletons. This gives a very detailed view into the performance of each branch of the multicast tree, and can provide clear and helpful information for engineers to identify the branch with problems in a complex multiparty routing tree.
The one-to-group metrics described in this memo introduce the multiparty topology into the IPPM framework, and describe the performance delivered to a group receiving packets from the same source. The concept extends the "path" of the point-to-point measurement to "path tree" to cover one-to-many topologies. If applied to one-to-one topology, the one-to-group metrics provide exactly the same results as the corresponding one-to-one metrics.
| TOC |
We note that points of interest can also be selected to define measurements on group-to-one and group-to-group topologies. These topologies are beyond the scope of this memo, because they would involve multiple packets launched from different sources. However, this section gives some insights on these two cases.
The measurements for group-to-one topology can be easily derived from the one-to-group measurement. The measurement point is the host that is acting as a receiver while all other hosts act as sources in this case.
The group-to-group communication topology has no obvious focal point: the sources and the measurement collection points can be anywhere. However, it is possible to organize the problem by applying measurements in one-to-group or group-to-one topologies for each host in a uniform way (without taking account of how the real communication might be carried out). For example, one group of hosts < ha, hb, hc, ..., hn > might act as sources to send data to another group of hosts < Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, and they can be organized into n sets of points of interest for one-to-group communications:
< ha, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, < hb, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, <hc, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, ..., < hn, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >.
| TOC |
This section defines vectors for the spatial decomposition of end-to-end singleton metrics over a path.
Spatial vector metrics are based on the decomposition of standard end-to-end metrics defined by the IPPM WG in [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.), [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.), [RFC3393] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.) and [RFC3432] (Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, “Network performance measurement with periodic streams,” November 2002.).
The spatial vector definitions are coupled with the corresponding end-to-end metrics. Measurement methodology aspects are common to all the vectors defined and are consequently discussed in a common section.
| TOC |
This section is coupled with the definition of Type-P-One-way-Delay of the section 3 of [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.). When a parameter from the definition in [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) is re-used in this section, the first instance will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.
Sections 3.5 to 3.8 of [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) give requirements and applicability statements for end-to-end one-way-delay measurements. They are applicable to each point of interest, Hi, involved in the measure. Spatial one-way-delay measurement MUST respect them, especially those related to methodology, clock, uncertainties and reporting.
| TOC |
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector is a sequence of times (a real number in the dimension of seconds with sufficient resolution to convey the results).
| TOC |
Given a Type-P packet sent by the Src at wire-time (first bit) T to the receiver Dst on the path <H1, H2,..., Hn>. There is a sequence of values <T+dT1,T+dT2,...,T+dTn,T+dT> such that dT is the Type-P-One-way-Delay from Src to Dst, and for each Hi of the path, T+dTi is either a real number corresponding to the wire-time the packet passes (last bit received) Hi, or undefined if the packet does not pass Hi within a specified loss threshold* time.
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector metric is defined for the path <Src, H1, H2,..., Hn, Dst> as the sequence of values <T,dT1,dT2,...,dTn,dT>.
| TOC |
Some specific issues that may occur are as follows:
| TOC |
This section is coupled with the definition of Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss. When a parameter from the section 2 of [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) is used in this section, the first instance will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.
Sections 2.5 to 2.8 of [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) give requirements and applicability statements for end-to-end one-way packet loss measurements. They are applicable to each point of interest, Hi, involved in the measure. Spatial packet loss measurement MUST respect them, especially those related to methodology, clock, uncertainties and reporting.
The following sections define the spatial loss vector, adapt some of the points above, and introduce points specific to spatial loss measurement.
| TOC |
Type-P-Spatial-Packet-Loss-Vector
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of Type-P-Spatial-Packet-Loss-Vector is a sequence of Boolean values.
| TOC |
Given a Type-P packet sent by the Src at time T to the receiver Dst on the path <H1, H2, ..., Hn>. For the sequence of times <T+dT1,T+dT2,..., T+dTi, ...,T+dTn> the packet passes in <H1, H2, ..., Hi, ..., Hn>, define the Type-P-Packet-Loss-Vector metric as the sequence of values <T, L1, L2, ..., Ln> such that for each Hi of the path, a value of 0 for Li means that dTi is a finite value, and a value of 1 means that dTi is undefined.
| TOC |
Some specific issues that may occur are as follows:
| TOC |
When a parameter from section 2 of [RFC3393] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.) (the definition of Type-P-One-way-ipdv) is used in this section, the first instance will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.
The following sections define the spatial ipdv vector, adapt some of the points above, and introduce points specific to spatial ipdv measurement.
| TOC |
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of Type-P-Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector is a sequence of times (a real number in the dimension of seconds with sufficient resolution to convey the results).
| TOC |
Given P1 the Type-P packet sent by the sender Src at wire-time (first bit) T1 to the receiver Dst and <T1, dT1.1, dT1.2,..., dT1.n, dT1> its Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector over the path <H1, H2,..., Hn>.
Given P2 the Type-P packet sent by the sender Src at wire-time (first bit) T2 to the receiver Dst and <T2, dT2.1, dT2.2,..., dT2.n, dT2> its Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector over the same path.
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector metric is defined as the sequence of values <T1, T2, dT2.1-dT1.1, dT2.2-dT1.2 ,..., dT2.n-dT1.n, dT2-dT1> such that for each Hi of the path <H1, H2,..., Hn>, dT2.i-dT1.i is either a real number if the packets P1 and P2 pass Hi at wire-time (last bit) dT1.i and dT2.i respectively, or undefined if at least one of them never passes Hi (and the respective one-way delay is undefined). The T1,T2* pair indicates the inter-packet emission interval and dT2-dT1 is ddT* the Type-P-One-way-ipdv.
| TOC |
The methodology, reporting specifications, and uncertainties specified in section 3 of [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) apply to each point of interest (or measurement collection point), Hi, measuring an element of a spatial delay vector.
Likewise, the methodology, reporting specifications, and uncertainties specified in section 2 of [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) apply to each point of interest, Hi, measuring an element of a spatial packet loss vector.
Sections 3.5 to 3.7 of [RFC3393] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.) give requirements and applicability statements for end-to-end One-way ipdv measurements. They are applicable to each point of interest, Hi, involved in the measure. Spatial One-way ipdv measurement MUST respect the methodology, clock, uncertainties and reporting aspects given there.
Generally, for a given Type-P packet of length L at a specific Hi, the methodology for spatial vector metrics may proceed as follows:
| TOC |
In a pure end-to-end measurement, packet losses are detected by the receiver only. A packet is lost when Type-P-One-way-Delay is undefined or very large (See section 2.4 ans 2.5 of [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) and section 3.5 of [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.)). A packet is deemed lost by the receiver after a duration which starts at the time the packet is sent. This timeout value is chosen by a measurement process. It determines the threshold between recording a long packet transfer time as a finite value or an undefined value.
In a spatial measurement, packet losses may be detected at several measurement collection points. Depending on the consistency of the packet loss detections among the points of interest, a packet may be considered as lost at one point despite having a finite delay at another one, or may be observed by the last measurement collection point of the path but considered lost by Dst.
There is a risk of misinterpreting such results: Has the path changed? Did the packet arrive at the destination or was it lost on the very last link?
The same concern applies to one-way-delay measures: a delay measured may be computed as infinite by one observation point but as a real value by another one, or may be measured as a real value by the last observation point of the path but designated as undefined by Dst.
The observation/measurement collection points and the destination SHOULD use consistent methods to detect packets losses. The methods and parameters must be systematically reported to permit careful comparison and to avoid introducing any confounding factors in the analysis.
| TOC |
The methodology given above relies on knowing the order of the hosts/measurement collection points on the path [RFC2330] (Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, “Framework for IP Performance Metrics,” May 1998.).
Path instability might cause a test packet to be observed more than once by the same host, resulting in the repetition of one or more hosts in the Path Digest.
For example, repeated observations may occur during rerouting phases which introduce temporary micro loops. During such an event the host path digest for a packet crossing Ha and Hb may include the pattern <Hb, Ha, Hb, Ha, Hb> meaning that Ha ended the computation of the new path before Hb and that the initial path was from Ha to Hb and that the new path is from Hb to Ha.
Consequently, duplication of hosts in the path digest of a vector MUST be identified before computation of statistics to avoid producing corrupted information.
| TOC |
This section defines samples to measure the performance of a segment of a path over time. The definitions rely on the matrix of the spatial vector metrics defined above.
Firstly this section defines a sample of one-way delay, Type-P-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream, and a sample of packet loss, Type-P-segment-Packet-Loss-Stream.
Then it defines 2 different samples of ipdv: Type-P-Segment-ipdv-prev-Stream uses the current and previous packets as the selection function, and Type-P-Segment-ipdv-min-Stream, uses the minimum delay as one of the selected packets in every pair.
| TOC |
This metric defines a sample of One-way delays over time between a pair of hosts on a path. Since it is very close semantically to the metric Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream defined in section 4 of [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.), sections 4.5 to 4.8 of [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) are integral parts of the definition text below.
| TOC |
Type-P-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of a Type-P-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream is a pair of:
A list of times <T1, T2, ..., Tm>;
A sequence of delays.
| TOC |
Given 2 hosts, Ha and Hb, of the path <H1, H2,..., Ha, ..., Hb, ..., Hn>, and the matrix of Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector for the packets sent from Src to Dst at times <T1, T2, ..., Tm-1, Tm> :
<T1, dT1.1, dT1.2, ..., dT1.a, ..., dT1.b,..., dT1.n, dT1>;
<T2, dT2.1, dT2.2, ..., dT2.a, ..., dT2.b,..., dT2.n, dT2>;
...
<Tm, dTm.1, dTm.2, ..., dTm.a, ..., dTm.b,..., dTm.n, dTm>.
We define the sample Type-P-segment-One-way-Delay-Stream as the sequence <dT1.ab, dT2.ab, ..., dTk.ab, ..., dTm.ab> such that for each time Tk, 'dTk.ab' is either the real number 'dTk.b - dTk.a' if the packet sent at time Tk passes Ha and Hb or undefined if this packet never passes Ha or (inclusive) never passes Hb.
| TOC |
Some specific issues that may occur are as follows:
The metric SHALL be invalid for times < T1 , T2, ..., Tm-1, Tm> if the following conditions occur:
| TOC |
This metric defines a sample of packet loss over time between a pair of hosts of a path. Since it is very close semantically to the metric Type-P-Packet-loss-Stream defined in section 3 of [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.), sections 3.5 to 3.8 of [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) are integral parts of the definition text below.
| TOC |
Type-P-segment-Packet-Loss-Stream
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of a Type-P-segment-Packet-Loss-Stream is a pair of:
A The list of times <T1, T2, ..., Tm>;
A sequence of Boolean values.
| TOC |
Given two hosts, Ha and Hb, of the path <H1, H2,..., Ha, ..., Hb, ..., Hn>, and the matrix of Type-P-Spatial-Packet-Loss-Vector for the packets sent from Src to Dst at times <T1, T2, ..., Tm-1, Tm> :
<T1, L1.1, L1.2,..., L1.a, ..., L1.b, ..., L1.n, L>,
<T2, L2.1, L2.2,..., L2.a, ..., L2.b, ..., L2.n, L>,
...,
<Tm, Lm.1, Lm.2,..., Lma, ..., Lm.b, ..., Lm.n, L>.
We define the value of the sample Type-P-segment-Packet-Lost-Stream from Ha to Hb as the sequence of Booleans <L1.ab, L2.ab,..., Lk.ab, ..., Lm.ab> such that for each Tk:
| TOC |
Unlike Type-P-Packet-loss-Stream, Type-P-Segment-Packet-Loss-Stream relies on the stability of the host path digest. The metric SHALL be invalid for times < T1 , T2, ..., Tm-1, Tm> if the following conditions occur:
| TOC |
This metric defines a sample of ipdv [RFC3393] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.) over time between a pair of hosts using the previous packet as the selection function.
| TOC |
Type-P-Segment-ipdv-prev-Stream
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of a Type-P-Segment-ipdv-prev-Stream is a pair of:
The list of <T1, T2, ..., Tm-1, Tm>;
A list of pairs of interval of times and delays;
| TOC |
Given two hosts, Ha and Hb, of the path <H1, H2,..., Ha, ..., Hb, ..., Hn>, and the matrix of Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector for the packets sent from Src to Dst at times <T1, T2, ..., Tm-1, Tm> :
<T1, dT1.1, dT1.2, ..., dT1.a, ..., dT1.b,..., dT1.n, dT1>,
<T2, dT2.1, dT2.2, ..., dT2.a, ..., dT2.b,..., dT2.n, dT2>,
...
<Tm, dTm.1, dTm.2, ..., dTm.a, ..., dTm.b,..., dTm.n, dTm>.
We define the Type-P-Segment-ipdv-prev-Stream as the sequence of packet time pairs and delay variations
<(T1, T2 , dT2.ab - dT1.ab) ,...,
(Tk-1, Tk, dTk.ab - dTk-1.ab), ...,
(Tm-1, Tm, dTm.ab - dTm-1.ab)>
For any pair, Tk, Tk-1 in k=1 through m, the difference dTk.ab - dTk-1.ab is undefined if:
| TOC |
This metric belongs to the family of inter packet delay variation metrics (IPDV in upper case) whose results are extremely sensitive to the inter-packet interval in practice.
The inter-packet interval of an end-to-end IPDV metric is under the control of the source (ingress point of interest). In contrast, the inter-packet interval of a segment IPDV metric is not under the control the ingress point of interest of the measure, Ha. The interval will certainly vary if there is delay variation between the Source and Ha. Therefore, the ingress inter-packet interval must be known at Ha in order to fully comprehend the delay variation between Ha and Hb.
| TOC |
This metric defines a sample of ipdv [RFC3393] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.) over time between a pair of hosts on a path using the minimum delay as one of the selected packets in every pair.
| TOC |
Type-P-Segment-One-way-ipdv-min-Stream
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of a Type-P-Segment-One-way-ipdv-min-Stream is a pair of:
The list of <T1, T2, ..., Tm-1, Tm>;
A list of times.
| TOC |
Given two hosts, Ha and Hb, of the path <H1, H2,..., Ha, ..., Hb, ..., Hn>, and the matrix of Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector for the packets sent from Src to Dst at times <T1, T2, ..., Tm-1, Tm> :
<T1, dT1.1, dT1.2, ..., dT1.a, ..., dT1.b,..., dT1.n, dT1>,
<T2, dT2.1, dT2.2, ..., dT2.a, ..., dT2.b,..., dT2.n, dT2>,
...
<Tm, dTm.1, dTm.2, ..., dTm.a, ..., dTm.b,..., dTm.n, dTm>.
We define the Type-P-Segment-One-way-ipdv-min-Stream as the sequence of times <dT1.ab - min(dTi.ab) ,..., dTk.ab - min(dTi.ab), ..., dTm.ab - min(dTi.ab)> where:
| TOC |
This metric belongs to the family of packet delay variation metrics (PDV). PDV distributions have less sensitivity to inter-packet interval variations than IPDV values, as discussed above.
In principle, the PDV distribution reflects the variation over many different inter-packet intervals, from the smallest inter-packet interval, up to the length of the evaluation interval, Tm - T1. Therefore, when delay variation occurs and disturbs the packet spacing observed at Ha, the PDV results will likely compare favorably to a PDV measurement where the source is Ha and the destination is Hb, because a wide range of spacings are reflected in any PDV distribution.
| TOC |
This section defines performance metrics between a source and a group of receivers.
| TOC |
This section defines a metric for one-way delay between a source and a group of receivers.
| TOC |
Type-P-One-to-group-Delay-Vector
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of a Type-P-One-to-group-Delay-Vector is a set of Type-P-One-way-Delay singletons [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.), which is a sequence of times (a real number in the dimension of seconds with sufficient resolution to convey the results).
| TOC |
Given a Type-P packet sent by the source Src at time T, and the N hosts { Recv1,...,RecvN } which receive the packet at the time { T+dT1,...,T+dTn }, or the packet does not pass a receiver within a specified loss threshold time, then the Type-P-One-to-group-Delay-Vector is defined as the set of the Type-P-One-way-Delay singletons between Src and each receiver with value of { dT1, dT2,...,dTn }, where any of the singletons may be undefined if the packet did not pass the corresponding receiver within a specified loss threshold time.
| TOC |
| TOC |
Type-P-One-to-group-Packet-Loss-Vector
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of a Type-P-One-to-group-Packet-Loss-Vector is a set of Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss singletons [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.).
| TOC |
Given a Type P packet sent by the source Src at T and the N hosts, Recv1,...,RecvN, the Type-P-One-to-group-Packet-Loss-Vector is defined as a set of the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss singletons between Src and each of the receivers
{T, <L1=0|1>,<L2=0|1>,..., <LN=0|1>},
where the boolean value 0|1 depends on receiving the packet at a particular receiver within a loss threshold time.
| TOC |
| TOC |
Type-P-One-to-group-ipdv-Vector
| TOC |
| TOC |
The value of a Type-P-One-to-group-ipdv-Vector is a set of Type-P-One-way-ipdv singletons [RFC3393] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.).
| TOC |
Given a Type-P packet stream, Type-P-One-to-group-ipdv-Vector is defined for two packets transferred from the source Src to the N hosts {Recv1,...,RecvN }, which are selected by the selection function F as the difference between the value of the Type-P-One-to-group-Delay-Vector from Src to { Recv1,..., RecvN } at time T1 and the value of the Type-P-One-to-group-Delay-Vector from Src to { Recv1,...,RecvN } at time T2. T1 is the wire-time at which Src sent the first bit of the first packet, and T2 is the wire-time at which Src sent the first bit of the second packet. This metric is derived from the Type-P-One-to-group-Delay-Vector metric.
For a set of real numbers {ddT1,...,ddTn}, the Type-P-One-to-group-ipdv-Vector from Src to { Recv1,...,RecvN } at T1, T2 is {ddT1,...,ddTn} means that Src sent two packets, the first at wire-time T1 (first bit), and the second at wire-time T2 (first bit) and the packets were received by { Recv1,...,RecvN } at wire-time {dT1+T1,...,dTn+T1}(last bit of the first packet), and at wire-time {dT'1+T2,...,dT'n+T2} (last bit of the second packet), and that {dT'1-dT1,...,dT'n-dTn} ={ddT1,...,ddTn}.
For any pair of selected packets, the difference dT'n-dTn is undefined if:
| TOC |
The one-to-group metrics defined above are directly achieved by collecting relevant unicast one-way metrics measurements results and by gathering them per group of receivers. They produce network performance information which guides engineers toward potential problems which may have happened on any branch of a multicast routing tree.
The results of these metrics are not directly usable to present the performance of a group because each result is made of a huge number of singletons which are difficult to read and analyze. As an example, delay are not comparable because the distance between receiver and sender differs. Furthermore they don't capture relative performance situation a multiparty communication.
From the performance point of view, the multiparty communication services not only require the support of absolute performance information but also information on "relative performance". The relative performance means the difference between absolute performance of all users. Directly using the one-way metrics cannot present the relative performance situation. However, if we use the variations of all users one-way parameters, we can have new metrics to measure the difference of the absolute performance and hence provide the threshold value of relative performance that a multiparty service might demand. A very good example of the high relative performance requirement is the online gaming. A very light difference in delay might result in failure in the game. We have to use multicast specific statistic metrics to define the relative delay required by online gaming. There are many other services, e.g. online biding, online stock market, etc., that require multicast metrics in order to evaluate the network against their requirements. Therefore, we can see the importance of new, multicast specific, statistic metrics to feed this need.
We might also use some one-to-group statistic conceptions to present and report the group performance and relative performance to save the report transmission bandwidth. Statistics have been defined for One- way metrics in corresponding RFCs. They provide the foundation of definition for performance statistics. For instance, there are definitions for minimum and maximum One-way delay in [RFC2679]. However, there is a dramatic difference between the statistics for one-to-one communications and for one-to-many communications. The former one only has statistics over the time dimension while the later one can have statistics over both time and space dimensions. This space dimension is introduced by the Matrix concept as illustrated in Figure 4 (Matrix M (n*m)). For a Matrix M each row is a set of One-way singletons spreading over the time dimension and each column is another set of One-way singletons spreading over the space dimension.
Receivers
Space
^
1 | / R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R3dTk \
| | |
2 | | R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 ... R3dTk |
| | |
3 | | R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 ... R3dTk |
. | | |
. | | |
. | | |
n | \ RndT1 RndT2 RndT3 ... RndTk /
+--------------------------------------------> time
T0
| Figure 4: Matrix M (n*m) |
In Matrix M, each element is a one-way delay singleton. Each column is a delay vector contains the One-way delays of the same packet observed at M points of interest. It implies the geographical factor of the performance within a group. Each row is a set of One-way delays observed during a sampling interval at one of the points of interest. It presents the delay performance at a receiver over the time dimension.
Therefore, one can either calculate statistics by rows over the space dimension or by columns over the time dimension. It's up to the operators or service provides which dimension they are interested in. For example, a TV broadcast service provider might want to know the statistical performance of each user in a long term run to make sure their services are acceptable and stable. While for an online gaming service provider, he might be more interested to know if all users are served fairly by calculating the statistics over the space dimension. This memo does not intend to recommend which of the statistics are better than the other.
To save the report transmission bandwidth, each point of interest can send statistics in a pre-defined time interval to the reference point rather than sending every one-way singleton it observed. As long as an appropriate time interval is decided, appropriate statistics can represent the performance in a certain accurate scale. How to decide the time interval and how to bootstrap all points of interest and the reference point depend on applications. For instance, applications with lower transmission rate can have the time interval longer and ones with higher transmission rate can have the time interval shorter. However, this is out of the scope of this memo.
Moreover, after knowing the statistics over the time dimension, one might want to know how this statistics distributed over the space dimension. For instance, a TV broadcast service provider had the performance Matrix M and calculated the One-way delay mean over the time dimension to obtain a delay Vector as {V1,V2,..., VN}. He then calculated the mean of all the elements in the Vector to see what level of delay he has served to all N users. This new delay mean gives information on how good the service has been delivered to a group of users during a sampling interval in terms of delay. It needs twice calculation to have this statistic over both time and space dimensions. We name this kind of statistics 2-level statistics to distinct with those 1-level statistics calculated over either space or time dimension. It can be easily proven that no matter over which dimension a 2-level statistic is calculated first, the results are the same. I.e. one can calculate the 2-level delay mean using the Matrix M by having the 1-level delay mean over the time dimension first and then calculate the mean of the obtained vector to find out the 2-level delay mean. Or, he can do the 1-level statistic calculation over the space dimension first and then have the 2-level delay mean. Both two results will be exactly the same. Therefore, when defining a 2-level statistic there is no need to specify the order in which the calculation is executed.
Many statistics can be defined for the proposed one-to-group metrics over either the space dimension or the time dimension or both. This memo treats the case where a stream of packets from the Source results in a sample at each of the Receivers in the Group, and these samples are each summarized with the usual statistics employed in one-to-one communication. New statistic definitions are presented, which summarize the one-to-one statistics over all the Receivers in the Group.
| TOC |
The packet loss does have effects on one-way metrics and their statistics. For example, the lost packet can result in an infinite one-way delay. It is easy to handle the problem by simply ignoring the infinite value in the metrics and in the calculation of the corresponding statistics. However, the packet loss has so strong impact on the statistics calculation for the one-to-group metrics that it can not be solved by the same method used for one-way metrics. This is due to the complexity of building a matrix, which is needed for calculation of the statistics proposed in this memo.
The situation is that measurement results obtained by different end users might have different packet loss pattern. For example, for User1, packet A was observed lost. And for User2, packet A was successfully received but packet B was lost. If the method to overcome the packet loss for one-way metrics is applied, the two singleton sets reported by User1 and User2 will be different in terms of the transmitted packets. Moreover, if User1 and User2 have different number of lost packets, the size of the results will be different. Therefore, for the centralized calculation, the reference point will not be able to use these two results to build up the group Matrix and can not calculate the statistics. In an extreme situation, no single packet arrives all users in the measurement and the Matrix will be empty. One of the possible solutions is to replace the infinite/undefined delay value by the average of the two adjacent values. For example, if the result reported by user1 is { R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 … R1dTK-1 UNDEF R1dTK+1… R1DM } where “UNDEF” is an undefined value, the reference point can replace it by R1dTK = {(R1dTK-1)+( R1dTK+1)}/2. Therefore, this result can be used to build up the group Matrix with an estimated value R1dTK. There are other possible solutions such as using the overall mean of the whole result to replace the infinite/undefined value, and so on. However this is out of the scope of this memo.
For the distributed calculation, the reported statistics might have different “weight” to present the group performance, which is especially true for delay and ipdv relevant metrics. For example, User1 calculates the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean R1DM as shown in Figure. 8 without any packet loss and User2 calculates the R2DM with N-2 packet loss. The R1DM and R2DM should not be treated with equal weight because R2DM was calculated only based on 2 delay values in the whole sample interval. One possible solution is to use a weight factor to mark every statistic value sent by users and use this factor for further statistic calculation.
| TOC |
| TOC |
This section defines the overall one-way delay statistics for a receiver and for an entire group as illustrated by the matrix below.
Recv /----------- Sample -------------\ Stats Group Stat
1 R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R1dTk R1MD \
|
2 R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 ... R2dTk R2MD |
|
3 R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 ... R3dTk R3MD > Group delay
. |
. |
. |
n RndT1 RndT2 RndT3 ... RndTk RnMD /
Receiver-n
delay
| Figure 5: One-to-group Mean Delay |
Statistics are computed on the finite One-way delays of the matrix above.
All One-to-group delay statistics are expressed in seconds with sufficient resolution to convey 3 significant digits.
| TOC |
This section defines Type-P-One-to-group-Receiver-n-Mean-Delay the Delay Mean at each Receiver N, also named RnDM.
We obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-Delay singleton for all packets sent during the test interval at each Receiver (Destination), as per [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.). For each packet that arrives within Tmax of its sending time, TstampSrc, the one-way delay singleton (dT) will be the finite value TstampRecv[i] - TstampSrc[i] in units of seconds. Otherwise, the value of the singleton is Undefined.
J[n]
---
1 \
RnMD = --- * > TstampRecv[i] - TstampSrc[i]
J[n] /
---
i = 1
| Figure 6: Type-P-One-to-group-Receiver-N-Mean-Delay |
where all packets i= 1 through J[n] have finite singleton delays.
| TOC |
This section defines Type-P-One-to-group-Mean-Delay, the Mean One-way delay calculated over the entire Group, also named GMD.
N
---
1 \
GMD = - * > RnDM
N /
---
n = 1
| Figure 7: Type-P-One-to-group-Mean-Delay |
Note that the Group Mean Delay can also be calculated by summing the Finite one-way Delay singletons in the Matrix, and dividing by the number of Finite One-way Delay singletons.
| TOC |
This section defines a metric for the range of mean delays over all N receivers in the group (R1DM, R2DM,...RnDM).
Type-P-One-to-group-Range-Mean-Delay = GRMD = max(RnDM) - min(RnDM)
| TOC |
This section defines a metric for the maximum of mean delays over all N receivers in the group (R1DM, R2DM,...RnDM).
Type-P-One-to-group-Max-Mean-Delay = GMMD = max(RnDM)
| TOC |
This section defines the overall one-way loss statistics for a receiver and for an entire group as illustrated by the matrix below.
Recv /----------- Sample ----------\ Stats Group Stat
1 R1L1 R1L2 R1L3 ... R1Lk R1LR \
|
2 R2L1 R2L2 R2L3 ... R2Lk R2LR |
|
3 R3L1 R3L2 R3L3 ... R3Lk R3LR > Group Loss Ratio
. |
. |
. |
n RnL1 RnL2 RnL3 ... RnLk RnLR /
Receiver-n
Loss Ratio
| Figure 8: One-to-group Loss Ratio |
Statistics are computed on the sample of Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) of the matrix above.
All loss ratios are expressed in units of packets lost to total packets sent.
| TOC |
Given a Matrix of loss singletons as illustrated above, determine
the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Average for the sample at each
receiver, according to the definitions and method of [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.). The Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Average and
the Type-P-One-to-group-Receiver-n-Loss-Ratio, also named RnLR, are
equivalent metrics. In terms of the parameters used here, these
metrics definitions can be expressed as
K
---
1 \
RnLR = - * > RnLk
K /
---
k = 1
| Figure 9: Type-P-One-to-group-Receiver-n-Loss-Ratio |
| TOC |
Usually, the number of packets sent is used in the denominator of packet loss ratio metrics. For the comparative metrics defined here, the denominator is the maximum number of packets received at any receiver for the sample and test interval of interest.
The Comparative Loss Ratio, also named, RnCLR, is defined
as
K
---
\
> Ln(k)
/
---
k=1
RnCLR = -----------------------------
/ K \
| --- |
| \ |
K - Min | > Ln(k) |
| / |
| --- |
\ k=1 / N
| Figure 10: Type-P-One-to-group-Receiver-n-Comp-Loss-Ratio |
| TOC |
Type-P-One-to-group-Loss-Ratio, the overall Group loss ratio, also named GLR, is defined as
K,N
---
1 \
GLR = --- * > L(k,n)
K*N /
---
k,n = 1
| Figure 11: Type-P-One-to-group-Loss-Ratio |
| TOC |
The One-to-group Loss Ratio Range is defined as:
Type-P-One-to-group-Range-Loss-Ratio = max(RnLR) - min(RnLR)
It is most effective to indicate the range by giving both the max and minimum loss ratios for the Group, rather than only reporting the difference between them.
| TOC |
This section defines one-way delay variation (DV) statistics for an entire group as illustrated by the matrix below.
Recv /------------- Sample --------------\ Stats
1 R1ddT1 R1ddT2 R1ddT3 ... R1ddTk R1DV \
|
2 R2ddT1 R2ddT2 R2ddT3 ... R2ddTk R2DV |
|
3 R3ddT1 R3ddT2 R3ddT3 ... R3ddTk R3DV > Group Stat
. |
. |
. |
n RnddT1 RnddT2 RnddT3 ... RnddTk RnDV /
| Figure 12: One-to-group Delay Variation Matrix (DVMa) |
Statistics are computed on the sample of Type-P-One-way-Delay-Variation singletons of the group delay variation matrix above where RnddTk is the Type-P-One-way-Delay-Variation singleton evaluated at Receiver n for the packet k and where RnDV is the point-to-point one-way packet delay variation for Receiver n.
All One-to-group delay variation statistics are expressed in seconds with sufficient resolution to convey 3 significant digits.
| TOC |
This section defines a metric for the range of delays variation over all N receivers in the Group.
Maximum DV and minimum DV over all receivers summarize the performance over the Group (where DV is a point-to-point metric). For each receiver, the DV is usually expressed as the 1-10^(-3) quantile of one-way delay minus the minimum one-way delay.
Type-P-One-to-group-Range-Delay-Variation = GRDV =
= max(RnDV) – min(RnDV) for all n receivers
This range is determined from the minimum and maximum values of the point-to-point one-way IP Packet Delay Variation for the set of Destinations in the group and a population of interest, using the Packet Delay Variation expressed as the 1-10^-3 quantile of one-way delay minus the minimum one-way delay. If a more demanding service is considered, one alternative is to use the 1-10^-5 quantile, and in either case the quantile used should be recorded with the results. Both the minimum and the maximum delay variation are recorded, and both values are given to indicate the location of the range.
| TOC |
Virtually all the guidance on measurement processes supplied by the earlier IPPM RFCs (such as [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) and [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.)) for one-to-one scenarios is applicable here in the spatial and multiparty measurement scenario. The main difference is that the spatial and multiparty configurations require multiple points of interest where a stream of singletons will be collected. The amount of information requiring storage grows with both the number of metrics and the points of interest, so the scale of the measurement architecture multiplies the number of singleton results that must be collected and processed.
It is possible that the architecture for results collection involves a single reference point with connectivity to all the points of interest. In this case, the number of points of interest determines both storage capacity and packet transfer capacity of the host acting as the reference point. However, both the storage and transfer capacity can be reduced if the points of interest are capable of computing the summary statistics that describe each measurement interval. This is consistent with many operational monitoring architectures today, where even the individual singletons may not be stored at each point of interest.
In recognition of the likely need to minimize the form of the results for storage and communication, the Group metrics above have been constructed to allow some computations on a per-Receiver basis. This means that each Receiver's statistics would normally have an equal weight with all other Receivers in the Group (regardless of the number of packets received).
| TOC |
The scalability issue can be raised when there are thousands of points of interest in a group who are trying to send back the measurement results to the reference point for further processing and analysis. The points of interest can send either the whole measured sample or only the calculated statistics. The former one is a centralized statistic calculation method and the latter one is a distributed statistic calculation method. The sample should include all metrics parameters, the values and the corresponding sequence numbers. The transmission of the whole sample can cost much more bandwidth than the transmission of the statistics that should include all statistic parameters specified by policies and the additional information about the whole sample, such as the size of the sample, the group address, the address of the point of interest, the ID of the sample session, and so on. Apparently, the centralized calculation method can require much more bandwidth than the distributed calculation method when the sample size is big. This is especially true when the measurement has huge number of the points of interest. It can lead to a scalability issue at the reference point by over load the network resources. The distributed calculation method can save much more bandwidth and release the pressure of the scalability issue at the reference point side. However, it can result in the lack of information because not all measured singletons are obtained for building up the group matrix. The performance over time can be hidden from the analysis. For example, the loss pattern can be missed by simply accepting the loss ratio as well as the delay pattern. This tradeoff between the bandwidth consuming and the information acquiring has to be taken into account when design the measurement campaign to optimize the measurement results delivery. The possible solution could be to transit the statistic parameters to the reference point first to obtain the general information of the group performance. If the detail results are required, the reference point should send the requests to the points of interest, which could be particular ones or the whole group. This procedure can happen in the off peak time and can be well scheduled to avoid delivery of too many points of interest at the same time. Compression techniques can also be used to minimize the bandwidth required by the transmission. This could be a measurement protocol to report the measurement results. However, this is out of the scope of this memo.
| TOC |
To prevent any bias in the result, the configuration of a one-to-many measure must take in consideration that implicitly more packets will to be routed than send and selects a test packets rate that will not impact the network performance.
| TOC |
This section presents the impact of the aggregation order on the scalability of the reporting and of the computation. It makes the hypothesis that receivers are not co-located and that results are gathered in a point of reference for further usages.
Multimetrics samples are represented in a matrix as illustrated below
Point of
interest
1 R1S1 R1S1 R1S1 ... R1Sk \
|
2 R2S1 R2S2 R2S3 ... R2Sk |
|
3 R3S1 R3S2 R3S3 ... R3Sk > sample over space
. |
. |
. |
n RnS1 RnS2 RnS3 ... RnSk /
S1M S2M S3M ... SnM Stats over space
\------------- ------------/
\/
Stat over space and time
| Figure 13: Impact of space aggregation on multimetrics Stat |
2 methods are available to compute statistics on a matrix:
These 2 methods differ only by the order of the aggregation. The order does not impact the computation resources required. It does not change the value of the result. However, it impacts severely the minimal volume of data to report:
Method 2 has severe drawbacks in terms of security and dimensioning:
The computation period over time period (commonly named aggregation period) provides the reporting side with a control of various collecting aspects such as bandwidth, computation and storage capacities. So this draft defines metrics based on method 1.
| TOC |
2 methods are available to compute spatial statistics:
| TOC |
2 methods are available to compute group statistics:
| TOC |
Usually IPPM WG documents defines each metric reporting within its definition. This document defines the reporting of all the metrics introduced in a single section to provide consistent information, to avoid repetitions and to conform to IESG recommendation of gathering manageability considerations in a dedicated section.
Information models of spatial metrics and of one-to-group metrics are similar excepted that points of interests of spatial vectors must be ordered.
The complexity of the reporting relies on the number of points of interests.
| TOC |
The reporting of spatial metrics shares a lot of aspects with RFC2679-80. New ones are common to all the definitions and are mostly related to the reporting of the path and of methodology parameters that may bias raw results analysis. This section presents these specific parameters and then lists exhaustively the parameters that shall be reported.
| TOC |
End-to-end metrics can't determine the path of the measure despite IPPM RFCs recommend it to be reported (See Section 3.8.4 of [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.)). Spatial metrics vectors provide this path. The report of a spatial vector must include the points of interests involved: the sub set of the hosts of the path participating to the instantaneous measure.
| TOC |
A spatial vector must order the points of interest according to their order in the path. It is highly suggested to use the TTL in IPv4, the Hop Limit in IPv6 or the corresponding information in MPLS.
The report of a spatial vector must include the ordered list of the hosts involved in the instantaneous measure.
| TOC |
The location of the point of interest inside a node influences the timestamping skew and accuracy. As an example, consider that some internal machinery delays the timestamping up to 3 milliseconds then the minimal uncertainty reported be 3 ms if the internal delay is unknown at the time of the timestamping.
The report of a spatial vector must include the uncertainty of the timestamping compared to wire time.
| TOC |
The reporting includes information to report for one-way-delay as the Section 3.6 of [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.). The same apply for packet loss and ipdv.
| TOC |
All reporting rules described in [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) and [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) apply to the corresponding One-to-group metrics. Following are specific parameters that should be reported.
| TOC |
As suggested by the [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) and [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) , the path traversed by the packet SHOULD be reported, if possible. For One-to-group metrics, there is a path tree SHOULD be reported rather than A path. This is even more impractical. If, by anyway, partial information is available to report, it might not be as valuable as it is in the one-to-one case because the incomplete path might be difficult to identify its position in the path tree. For example, how many points of interest are reached by the packet travelled through this incomplete path?
| TOC |
The group size should be reported as one of the critical management parameters. Unlike the spatial metrics, there is no need of order of points of interests.
| TOC |
It is the same as described in section 10.1.3.
| TOC |
It is the same as described in section 10.1.4.
| TOC |
As explained in section 9, the measurement method will have impact on the analysis of the measurement result. Therefore, it should be reported.
| TOC |
IANA assigns each metric defined by the IPPM WG with a unique identifier as per [RFC4148] (Stephan, E., “IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry,” August 2005.) in the IANA-IPPM-METRICS-REGISTRY-MIB.
| TOC |
This section presents the elements of information and the usage of the information reported for network performance analysis. It is out of the scope of this section to define how the information is reported.
The information model is build with pieces of information introduced and explained in one-way delay definitions [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.), in packet loss definitions [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) and in IPDV definitions of [RFC3393] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.) and [RFC3432] (Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, “Network performance measurement with periodic streams,” November 2002.). It includes not only information given by "Reporting the metric" sections but by sections "Methodology" and "Errors and Uncertainties" sections.
Following are the elements of information taken from end-to-end definitions referred in this memo and from spatial and multicast metrics it defines:
Following is the information of each vector that should be available to compute samples:
A spatial or a one-to-group sample is a collection of singletons giving the performance from the sender to a single point of interest. Following is the information that should be available for each sample to compute statistics:
Following is the information of each statistic that should be reported:
| TOC |
Spatial and one-to-group metrics are defined on the top of end-to-end metrics. Security considerations discussed in One-way delay metrics definitions of [RFC2679] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) , in packet loss metrics definitions of [RFC2680] (Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” September 1999.) and in IPDV metrics definitions of[RFC3393] (Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” November 2002.) and [RFC3432] (Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, “Network performance measurement with periodic streams,” November 2002.) apply to metrics defined in this memo.
| TOC |
Malicious generation of packets with spoofing addresses may corrupt the results without any possibility to detect the spoofing.
Malicious generation of packets which match systematically the hash function used to detect the packets may lead to a DoS attack toward the point of reference.
| TOC |
Reporting of measurement results from a huge number of probes may overload reference point resources (network, network interfaces, computation capacities ...).
The configuration of a measurement must take in consideration that implicitly more packets will to be routed than send and selects a test packets rate accordingly. Collecting statistics from a huge number of probes may overload any combination of the network where the measurement controller is attached to, measurement controller network interfaces and measurement controller computation capacities.
One-to-group metrics measurement should consider using source authentication protocols, standardized in the MSEC group, to avoid fraud packet in the sampling interval. The test packet rate could be negotiated before any measurement session to avoid deny of service attacks.
| TOC |
Lei would like to acknowledge Prof. Zhili Sun from CCSR, University of Surrey, for his instruction and helpful comments on this work.
| TOC |
Metrics defined in this memo Metrics defined in this memo are designed to be registered in the IANA IPPM METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry [RFC4148] (Stephan, E., “IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry,” August 2005.) :
IANA is asked to register the following metrics in the IANA-IPPM-METRICS-REGISTRY-MIB :
ietfSpatialOneWayDelayVector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfSpatialPacketLossVector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-Packet-Loss-Vector"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfSpatialOneWayIpdvVector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfSegmentOneWayDelayStream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Segment-One-way-Delay-Stream"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfSegmentPacketLossStream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Segment-Packet-Loss-Stream"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfSegmentIpdvPrevStream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Segment-ipdv-prev-Stream"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfSegmentIpdvMinStream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Segment-ipdv-min-Stream"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.4."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
-- One-to-group metrics
ietfOneToGroupDelayVector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Delay-Vector"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 7.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfOneToGroupPacketLossVector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Packet-Loss-Vector"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 7.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfOneToGroupIpdvVector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-ipdv-Vector"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 7.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
-- One to group statistics
--
ietfOnetoGroupReceiverNMeanDelay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Receiver-n-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 8.3.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfOneToGroupMeanDelay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 8.3.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfOneToGroupRangeMeanDelay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Range-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 8.3.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfOneToGroupMaxMeanDelay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Max-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 8.3.4."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfOneToGroupReceiverNLossRatio OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Receiver-n-Loss-Ratio"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 8.4.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
--
ietfOneToGroupReceiverNCompLossRatio OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Receiver-n-Comp-Loss-Ratio"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 8.4.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfOneToGroupLossRatio OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Loss-Ratio"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 8.4.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
--
ietfOneToGroupRangeLossRatio OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Range-Loss-Ratio"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 8.4.4."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
ietfOneToGroupRangeDelayVariation OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-group-Range-Delay-Variation"
REFERENCE
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 8.5.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note
--
| TOC |
| TOC |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
| [RFC2679] | Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM,” RFC 2679, September 1999 (TXT). |
| [RFC2680] | Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, “A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM,” RFC 2680, September 1999 (TXT). |
| [RFC3393] | Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, “IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM),” RFC 3393, November 2002 (TXT). |
| [RFC4148] | Stephan, E., “IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry,” BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005 (TXT). |
| TOC |
| [I-D.ietf-ippm-spatial-composition] | Morton, A. and E. Stephan, “Spatial Composition of Metrics,” draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-11 (work in progress), April 2010 (TXT). |
| [RFC2330] | Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, “Framework for IP Performance Metrics,” RFC 2330, May 1998 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
| [RFC3432] | Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, “Network performance measurement with periodic streams,” RFC 3432, November 2002 (TXT). |
| TOC |
| Stephan Emile | |
| France Telecom Division R&D | |
| 2 avenue Pierre Marzin | |
| Lannion, F-22307 | |
| Fax: | +33 2 96 05 18 52 |
| Email: | emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com |
| Lei Liang | |
| CCSR, University of Surrey | |
| Guildford | |
| Surrey, GU2 7XH | |
| Fax: | +44 1483 683641 |
| Email: | L.Liang@surrey.ac.uk |
| Al Morton | |
| 200 Laurel Ave. South | |
| Middletown, NJ 07748 | |
| USA | |
| Phone: | +1 732 420 1571 |
| Email: | acmorton@att.com |
| TOC |
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.