draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-03.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04.txt
	Network Working Group G. Almes		Network Working Group G. Almes
	Internet-Draft Texas A&M		Internet-Draft Texas A&M
	Obsoletes: 2680 (if approved) S. Kalidindi		Obsoletes: 2680 (if approved) S. Kalidindi
	Intended status: Standards Track Ixia		Intended status: Standards Track Ixia
	Expires: January 25, 2016 M. Zekauskas		Expires: February 13, 2016 M. Zekauskas
	Internet2		Internet2
	A. Morton, Ed.		A. Morton, Ed.
	AT&T Labs		AT&T Labs
	July 24, 2015		August 12, 2015
	A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM		A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM
	draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-03		draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets		This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets
	across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed		across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed
	in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be		in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be
	familiar with that document. This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete.		familiar with that document. This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38		skipping to change at page 1, line 38
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 27		skipping to change at page 2, line 27
	2.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		2.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		2.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	2.8.1. Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.8.1. Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.8.2. Loss Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.8.2. Loss Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.8.3. Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.8.3. Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.8.4. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.8.4. Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	3. A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss . . . . . . . 10		3. A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss . . . . . . . 11
	3.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.1. Metric Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	3.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	3.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	3.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		3.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	3.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		3.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	3.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		3.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	3.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		3.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss . . . . . 14		4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss . . . . . 14
	4.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		4.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	7. Changes from RFC 2680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		7. Changes from RFC 2680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This memo defines a metric for one-way packet loss across Internet		This memo defines a metric for one-way packet loss across Internet
	paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM		paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM
	Framework document, [RFC2330]; the reader is assumed to be familiar		Framework document, [RFC2330]; the reader is assumed to be familiar
	with that document, and its recent update [RFC7312].		with that document, and its recent update [RFC7312].
	skipping to change at page 7, line 21		skipping to change at page 7, line 21
	lost. {Comment: one is tempted to count the packet as received since		lost. {Comment: one is tempted to count the packet as received since
	corruption and packet loss are related but distinct phenomena. If		corruption and packet loss are related but distinct phenomena. If
	the IP header is corrupted, however, one cannot be sure about the		the IP header is corrupted, however, one cannot be sure about the
	source or destination IP addresses and is thus on shaky grounds about		source or destination IP addresses and is thus on shaky grounds about
	knowing that the corrupted received packet corresponds to a given		knowing that the corrupted received packet corresponds to a given
	sent test packet. Similarly, if other parts of the packet needed by		sent test packet. Similarly, if other parts of the packet needed by
	the methodology to know that the corrupted received packet		the methodology to know that the corrupted received packet
	corresponds to a given sent test packet, then such a packet would		corresponds to a given sent test packet, then such a packet would
	have to be counted as lost. Counting these packets as lost but		have to be counted as lost. Counting these packets as lost but
	packet with corruption in other parts of the packet as not lost would		packet with corruption in other parts of the packet as not lost would
	be inconsistent.}		be inconsistent.} Section 15 of [RFC2330] defines the "standard-
			formed" packet which is applicable to all metrics. Note: At this
			time, the definition of standard-formed packets only applies to IPv4,
			but also see [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep].
	+ If the packet is duplicated along the path (or paths) so that		+ If the packet is duplicated along the path (or paths) so that
	multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the		multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the
	packet is counted as received.		packet is counted as received.
	+ If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly		+ If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly
	does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost.		does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost.
	2.6. Methodologies:		2.6. Methodologies:
	skipping to change at page 10, line 7		skipping to change at page 10, line 7
	results. We now present four items to consider: Type-P of the test		results. We now present four items to consider: Type-P of the test
	packets, the loss threshold, instrument calibration, and the path		packets, the loss threshold, instrument calibration, and the path
	traversed by the test packets. This list is not exhaustive; any		traversed by the test packets. This list is not exhaustive; any
	additional information that could be useful in interpreting		additional information that could be useful in interpreting
	applications of the metrics should also be reported (see [RFC6703]		applications of the metrics should also be reported (see [RFC6703]
	for extensive discussion of reporting considerations for different		for extensive discussion of reporting considerations for different
	audiences).		audiences).
	2.8.1. Type-P		2.8.1. Type-P
	As noted in the Framework document [RFC2330], the value of the metric		As noted in the Framework document, section 13 of [RFC2330], the
	may depend on the type of IP packets used to make the measurement, or		value of the metric may depend on the type of IP packets used to make
	"Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the		the measurement, or "Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay
	protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special		could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or
	treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780]) or RSVP) changes. The exact		arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780], ECN
			[RFC3168], or RSVP) changes. Additional packet distinctions included
			in future extensions of the Type-P definition will apply. The exact
	Type-P used to make the measurements MUST be accurately reported.		Type-P used to make the measurements MUST be accurately reported.
	2.8.2. Loss Threshold		2.8.2. Loss Threshold
	The threshold, Tmax, (or methodology to distinguish) between a large		The threshold, Tmax, (or methodology to distinguish) between a large
	finite delay and loss MUST be reported.		finite delay and loss MUST be reported.
	2.8.3. Calibration Results		2.8.3. Calibration Results
	The degree of synchronization between the Src and Dst clocks MUST be		The degree of synchronization between the Src and Dst clocks MUST be
	skipping to change at page 16, line 7		skipping to change at page 16, line 7
	6. Acknowledgements		6. Acknowledgements
	For [RFC2680], thanks are due to Matt Mathis for encouraging this		For [RFC2680], thanks are due to Matt Mathis for encouraging this
	work and for calling attention on so many occasions to the		work and for calling attention on so many occasions to the
	significance of packet loss. Thanks are due also to Vern Paxson for		significance of packet loss. Thanks are due also to Vern Paxson for
	his valuable comments on early drafts, and to Garry Couch and Will		his valuable comments on early drafts, and to Garry Couch and Will
	Leland for several useful suggestions.		Leland for several useful suggestions.
	For RFC 2680 bis, thanks to Joachim Fabini, Ruediger Geib, Nalini		For RFC 2680 bis, thanks to Joachim Fabini, Ruediger Geib, Nalini
	Elkins, and Barry Constantine for sharing their measurement		Elkins, and Barry Constantine for sharing their measurement
	experience as part of their careful reviews.		experience as part of their careful reviews. Brian Carpenter and
			Scott Bradner provided useful feedback at IETF Last Call.
	7. Changes from RFC 2680		7. Changes from RFC 2680
	Note: This section's placement currently preserves minimal		Note: This section's placement currently preserves minimal
	differencer between this memo and RFC 2680. The RFC Editor should		differences between this memo and RFC 2680. The RFC Editor should
	place this section in an appropriate place.		place this section in an appropriate place.
	The text above constitutes RFC 2680 bis proposed for advancement on		The text above constitutes RFC 2680 bis proposed for advancement on
	the IETF Standards Track.		the IETF Standards Track.
	[RFC7290] provides the test plan and results supporting [RFC2680]		[RFC7290] provides the test plan and results supporting [RFC2680]
	advancement along the standards track, according to the process in		advancement along the standards track, according to the process in
	[RFC6576]. The conclusions of [RFC7290] list four minor		[RFC6576]. The conclusions of [RFC7290] list four minor
	modifications for inclusion:		modifications for inclusion:
	1. Section 6.2.3 of [RFC7290] asserts that the assumption of post-		1. Section 6.2.3 of [RFC7290] asserts that the assumption of post-
	processing to enforce a constant waiting time threshold is		processing to enforce a constant waiting time threshold is
	compliant, and that the text of the RFC should be revised		compliant, and that the text of the RFC should be revised
	slightly to include this point (see the last list item of section		slightly to include this point. The applicability of post-
	2.6, above).		processing was added in the last list item of section 2.6, above.
	2. Section 6.5 of [RFC7290] indicates that Type-P-One-way-Packet-		2. Section 6.5 of [RFC7290] indicates that Type-P-One-way-Packet-
	Loss-Average statistic is more commonly called Packet Loss Ratio,		Loss-Average statistic is more commonly called Packet Loss Ratio,
	so it is re-named in RFC2680bis (this small discrepancy does not		so it is re-named in RFC2680bis (this small discrepancy does not
	affect candidacy for advancement) (see section 4.1, above).		affect candidacy for advancement) The re-naming was implemented
			in section 4.1, above.
	3. The IETF has reached consensus on guidance for reporting metrics		3. The IETF has reached consensus on guidance for reporting metrics
	in [RFC6703], and this memo should be referenced in RFC2680bis to		in [RFC6703], and this memo should be referenced in RFC2680bis to
	incorporate recent experience where appropriate (see the last		incorporate recent experience where appropriate. This reference
	list item of section 2.6, section 2.8, and section 4 above).		was added in the last list item of section 2.6, in section 2.8,
			and in section 4 above.
	4. There are currently two errata with status "Verified" and "Held		4. There are currently two errata with status "Verified" and "Held
	for document update" for [RFC2680], and it appears these minor		for document update" for [RFC2680], and these minor revisions
	revisions should be incorporated in RFC2680bis (see section 1 and		were incorporated in section 1 and section 2.7.
	section 2.7).
	A number of updates to the [RFC2680] text have been implemented in		A number of updates to the [RFC2680] text have been implemented in
	the text, to reference key IPPM RFCs that were approved after		the text, to reference key IPPM RFCs that were approved after
	[RFC2680] (see sections 3 and 3.6, above), and to address comments on		[RFC2680] (see sections 3 and 3.6, above), and to address comments on
	the IPPM mailing list describing current conditions and experience.		the IPPM mailing list describing current conditions and experience.
	1. Near the end of section 1.1, update of a network example using		1. Near the end of section 1.1, update of a network example using
	ATM and clarification of TCP's affect on queue occupation and		ATM and clarification of TCP's affect on queue occupation and
	importance of one-way delay measurement.		importance of one-way delay measurement.
	skipping to change at page 18, line 38		skipping to change at page 18, line 41
	[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way		[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
	Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,		Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2680>.
	[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For		[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
	Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",		Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
	BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000,		BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>.
			[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
			of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
			RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
	[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network		[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
	performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,		performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3432>.
	[RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,		[RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz,
	"IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement		"IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement
	Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March		Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March
	2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.		2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6576>.
	[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling		[RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling
	Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,		Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7312>.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
			[I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep]
			Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V.
			Hegde, "Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework:
			Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets", draft-
			morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00 (work in progress),
			August 2015.
	[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,		[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
	S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,		S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4737>.
	[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New		[RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
	Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,		Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6390>.
End of changes. 16 change blocks.
	22 lines changed or deleted		41 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/