--- 1/draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-03.txt 2015-08-12 12:15:00.340134167 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04.txt 2015-08-12 12:15:00.380135132 -0700 @@ -1,23 +1,23 @@ Network Working Group G. Almes Internet-Draft Texas A&M Obsoletes: 2680 (if approved) S. Kalidindi Intended status: Standards Track Ixia -Expires: January 25, 2016 M. Zekauskas +Expires: February 13, 2016 M. Zekauskas Internet2 A. Morton, Ed. AT&T Labs - July 24, 2015 + August 12, 2015 A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM - draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-03 + draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04 Abstract This memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document. This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete. Status of This Memo @@ -27,21 +27,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -62,36 +62,36 @@ 2.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.8.1. Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.8.2. Loss Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.8.3. Calibration Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 3.2. Metric Parameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. Metric Units: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4. Definition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5. Discussion: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.6. Methodologies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.7. Errors and Uncertainties: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.8. Reporting the metric: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss . . . . . 14 4.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet Loss-Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. Changes from RFC 2680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1. Introduction This memo defines a metric for one-way packet loss across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, [RFC2330]; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document, and its recent update [RFC7312]. @@ -293,21 +293,24 @@ lost. {Comment: one is tempted to count the packet as received since corruption and packet loss are related but distinct phenomena. If the IP header is corrupted, however, one cannot be sure about the source or destination IP addresses and is thus on shaky grounds about knowing that the corrupted received packet corresponds to a given sent test packet. Similarly, if other parts of the packet needed by the methodology to know that the corrupted received packet corresponds to a given sent test packet, then such a packet would 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 - 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 multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the packet is counted as received. + If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost. 2.6. Methodologies: @@ -421,25 +424,27 @@ results. We now present four items to consider: Type-P of the test packets, the loss threshold, instrument calibration, and the path traversed by the test packets. This list is not exhaustive; any additional information that could be useful in interpreting applications of the metrics should also be reported (see [RFC6703] for extensive discussion of reporting considerations for different audiences). 2.8.1. Type-P - As noted in the Framework document [RFC2330], the value of the metric - may depend on the type of IP packets used to make the measurement, or - "Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the - protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special - treatment (e.g., IP DS Field [RFC2780]) or RSVP) changes. The exact + As noted in the Framework document, section 13 of [RFC2330], the + value of the metric may depend on the type of IP packets used to make + the measurement, or "Type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay + could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or + 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. 2.8.2. Loss Threshold The threshold, Tmax, (or methodology to distinguish) between a large finite delay and loss MUST be reported. 2.8.3. Calibration Results The degree of synchronization between the Src and Dst clocks MUST be @@ -701,56 +705,58 @@ 6. Acknowledgements For [RFC2680], thanks are due to Matt Mathis for encouraging this work and for calling attention on so many occasions to the significance of packet loss. Thanks are due also to Vern Paxson for his valuable comments on early drafts, and to Garry Couch and Will Leland for several useful suggestions. For RFC 2680 bis, thanks to Joachim Fabini, Ruediger Geib, Nalini 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 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. The text above constitutes RFC 2680 bis proposed for advancement on the IETF Standards Track. [RFC7290] provides the test plan and results supporting [RFC2680] advancement along the standards track, according to the process in [RFC6576]. The conclusions of [RFC7290] list four minor modifications for inclusion: 1. Section 6.2.3 of [RFC7290] asserts that the assumption of post- processing to enforce a constant waiting time threshold is compliant, and that the text of the RFC should be revised - slightly to include this point (see the last list item of section - 2.6, above). + slightly to include this point. The applicability of post- + 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- Loss-Average statistic is more commonly called Packet Loss Ratio, 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 in [RFC6703], and this memo should be referenced in RFC2680bis to - incorporate recent experience where appropriate (see the last - list item of section 2.6, section 2.8, and section 4 above). + incorporate recent experience where appropriate. This reference + 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 - for document update" for [RFC2680], and it appears these minor - revisions should be incorporated in RFC2680bis (see section 1 and - section 2.7). + for document update" for [RFC2680], and these minor revisions + were incorporated in section 1 and section 2.7. A number of updates to the [RFC2680] text have been implemented in the text, to reference key IPPM RFCs that were approved after [RFC2680] (see sections 3 and 3.6, above), and to address comments on the IPPM mailing list describing current conditions and experience. 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 importance of one-way delay measurement. @@ -824,37 +831,49 @@ [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, DOI 10.17487/RFC2680, September 1999, . [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000, . + [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, + . + [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, . [RFC6576] Geib, R., Ed., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing", BCP 176, RFC 6576, DOI 10.17487/RFC6576, March 2012, . [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, . 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, S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737, DOI 10.17487/RFC4737, November 2006, . [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, .