draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-08.txt | draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-09.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
IP Performance Working Group M. Mathis | IP Performance Working Group M. Mathis | |||
Internet-Draft Google, Inc | Internet-Draft Google, Inc | |||
Intended status: Experimental A. Morton | Intended status: Experimental A. Morton | |||
Expires: January 9, 2017 AT&T Labs | Expires: August 31, 2017 AT&T Labs | |||
July 8, 2016 | February 27, 2017 | |||
Model Based Metrics for Bulk Transport Capacity | Model Based Metrics for Bulk Transport Capacity | |||
draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-08.txt | draft-ietf-ippm-model-based-metrics-09.txt | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
We introduce a new class of Model Based Metrics designed to assess if | We introduce a new class of Model Based Metrics designed to assess if | |||
a complete Internet path can be expected to meet a predefined Target | a complete Internet path can be expected to meet a predefined Target | |||
Transport Performance by applying a suite of IP diagnostic tests to | Transport Performance by applying a suite of IP diagnostic tests to | |||
successive subpaths. The subpath-at-a-time tests can be robustly | successive subpaths. The subpath-at-a-time tests can be robustly | |||
applied to key infrastructure, such as interconnects or even | applied to critical infrastructure, such as network interconnections | |||
individual devices, to accurately detect if any part of the | or even individual devices, to accurately detect if any part of the | |||
infrastructure will prevent paths traversing it from meeting the | infrastructure will prevent paths traversing it from meeting the | |||
Target Transport Performance. | Target Transport Performance. | |||
Model Based Metrics rely on peer-reviewed mathematical models to | ||||
specify a Targeted Suite of IP Diagnostic tests, designed to assess | ||||
whether common transport protocols can be expected to meet a | ||||
predetermined Target Transport Performance over an Internet path. | ||||
For Bulk Transport Capacity, the IP diagnostics are built on test | For Bulk Transport Capacity, the IP diagnostics are built on test | |||
streams that mimic TCP over the complete path and statistical | streams that mimic TCP over the complete path and statistical | |||
criteria for evaluating the packet transfer statistics of those | criteria for evaluating the packet transfer statistics of those | |||
streams. The temporal structure of the test stream (bursts, etc) | streams. The temporal structure of the test stream (bursts, etc) | |||
mimic TCP or other transport protocol carrying bulk data over a long | mimic TCP or other transport protocol carrying bulk data over a long | |||
path but are constructed to be independent of the details of the | path. However they are constructed to be independent of the details | |||
subpath under test, end systems or applications. Likewise the | of the subpath under test, end systems or applications. Likewise the | |||
success criteria evaluates the packet transfer statistics of the | success criteria evaluates the packet transfer statistics of the | |||
subpath against criteria determined by protocol performance models | subpath against criteria determined by protocol performance models | |||
applied to the Target Transport Performance of the complete path. | applied to the Target Transport Performance of the complete path. | |||
The success criteria also does not depend on the details of the | The success criteria also does not depend on the details of the | |||
subpath, end systems or application. | subpath, end systems or application. | |||
Model Based Metrics exhibit several important new properties not | Model Based Metrics exhibit several important new properties not | |||
present in other Bulk Transport Capacity Metrics, including the | present in other Bulk Transport Capacity Metrics, including the | |||
ability to reason about concatenated or overlapping subpaths. The | ability to reason about concatenated or overlapping subpaths. The | |||
results are vantage independent which is critical for supporting | results are vantage independent which is critical for supporting | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 22 ¶ | |||
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 9, 2017. | This Internet-Draft will expire on August 31, 2017. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2017 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 | |||
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
1.1. Version Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 1.1. Version Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
4. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
4.1. TCP properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 4.1. TCP properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
4.2. Diagnostic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 4.2. Diagnostic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
4.3. New requirements relative to RFC 2330 . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 4.3. New requirements relative to RFC 2330 . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
5. Common Models and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 5. Common Models and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
5.1. Target End-to-end parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 5.1. Target End-to-end parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
5.2. Common Model Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 5.2. Common Model Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
5.3. Parameter Derating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 5.3. Parameter Derating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
5.4. Test Preconditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 5.4. Test Preconditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
6. Generating test streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 6. Generating test streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
6.1. Mimicking slowstart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 6.1. Mimicking slowstart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
6.2. Constant window pseudo CBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 6.2. Constant window pseudo CBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
6.3. Scanned window pseudo CBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 6.3. Scanned window pseudo CBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
6.4. Concurrent or channelized testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 6.4. Concurrent or channelized testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
7. Interpreting the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 7. Interpreting the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
7.1. Test outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 7.1. Test outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
7.2. Statistical criteria for estimating run_length . . . . . 29 | 7.2. Statistical criteria for estimating run_length . . . . . 30 | |||
7.3. Reordering Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 7.3. Reordering Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
8. IP Diagnostic Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 8. IP Diagnostic Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
8.1. Basic Data Rate and Packet Transfer Tests . . . . . . . . 32 | 8.1. Basic Data Rate and Packet Transfer Tests . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
8.1.1. Delivery Statistics at Paced Full Data Rate . . . . . 33 | 8.1.1. Delivery Statistics at Paced Full Data Rate . . . . . 34 | |||
8.1.2. Delivery Statistics at Full Data Windowed Rate . . . 33 | 8.1.2. Delivery Statistics at Full Data Windowed Rate . . . 34 | |||
8.1.3. Background Packet Transfer Statistics Tests . . . . . 33 | 8.1.3. Background Packet Transfer Statistics Tests . . . . . 35 | |||
8.2. Standing Queue Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 8.2. Standing Queue Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | |||
8.2.1. Congestion Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | 8.2.1. Congestion Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | |||
8.2.2. Bufferbloat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | 8.2.2. Bufferbloat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | |||
8.2.3. Non excessive loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | 8.2.3. Non excessive loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | |||
8.2.4. Duplex Self Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | 8.2.4. Duplex Self Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | |||
8.3. Slowstart tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | 8.3. Slowstart tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | |||
8.3.1. Full Window slowstart test . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | 8.3.1. Full Window slowstart test . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | |||
8.3.2. Slowstart AQM test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | 8.3.2. Slowstart AQM test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | |||
8.4. Sender Rate Burst tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 | 8.4. Sender Rate Burst tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | |||
8.5. Combined and Implicit Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | 8.5. Combined and Implicit Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
8.5.1. Sustained Bursts Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | 8.5.1. Sustained Bursts Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
8.5.2. Streaming Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | 8.5.2. Passive Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
9. An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | 9. An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 | |||
9.1. Observations about applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 | 9.1. Observations about applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 | |||
10. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 | 10. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | |||
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 | 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 | |||
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | 12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 | |||
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 | |||
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 | |||
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 | |||
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 | |||
Appendix A. Model Derivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 | Appendix A. Model Derivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 | |||
A.1. Queueless Reno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 | A.1. Queueless Reno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 | |||
Appendix B. The effects of ACK scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . 49 | Appendix B. The effects of ACK scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . 51 | |||
Appendix C. Version Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 | Appendix C. Version Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
Model Based Metrics (MBM) rely on peer-reviewed mathematical models | Model Based Metrics (MBM) rely on peer-reviewed mathematical models | |||
to specify a Targeted Suite of IP Diagnostic tests, designed to | to specify a Targeted Suite of IP Diagnostic tests, designed to | |||
assess whether common transport protocols can be expected to meet a | assess whether common transport protocols can be expected to meet a | |||
predetermined Target Transport Performance over an Internet path. | predetermined Target Transport Performance over an Internet path. | |||
This note describes the modeling framework to derive the test | This note describes the modeling framework to derive the test | |||
parameters for assessing an Internet path's ability to support a | parameters for assessing an Internet path's ability to support a | |||
predetermined Bulk Transport Capacity. | predetermined Bulk Transport Capacity. | |||
skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 28 ¶ | |||
yield pass/fail evaluations of the ability of standard transport | yield pass/fail evaluations of the ability of standard transport | |||
protocols to meet the specific performance objective over some | protocols to meet the specific performance objective over some | |||
network path. | network path. | |||
In most cases, the IP diagnostic tests can be implemented by | In most cases, the IP diagnostic tests can be implemented by | |||
combining existing IPPM metrics with additional controls for | combining existing IPPM metrics with additional controls for | |||
generating test streams having a specified temporal structure (bursts | generating test streams having a specified temporal structure (bursts | |||
or standing queues caused by constant bit rate streams, etc.) and | or standing queues caused by constant bit rate streams, etc.) and | |||
statistical criteria for evaluating packet transfer. The temporal | statistical criteria for evaluating packet transfer. The temporal | |||
structure of the test streams mimic transport protocol behavior over | structure of the test streams mimic transport protocol behavior over | |||
the complete path, the statistical criteria models the transport | the complete path; the statistical criteria models the transport | |||
protocol's response to less than ideal IP packet transfer. | protocol's response to less than ideal IP packet transfer. | |||
This note addresses Bulk Transport Capacity. It describes an | This note addresses Bulk Transport Capacity. It describes an | |||
alternative to the approach presented in "A Framework for Defining | alternative to the approach presented in "A Framework for Defining | |||
Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics" [RFC3148]. In the future, | Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics" [RFC3148]. Other Model | |||
other Model Based Metrics may cover other applications and | Based Metrics may cover other applications and transports, such as | |||
transports, such as VoIP over UDP and RTP, and new transport | VoIP over UDP and RTP, and new transport protocols. | |||
protocols. | ||||
The MBM approach, mapping Target Transport Performance to a Targeted | The MBM approach, mapping Target Transport Performance to a Targeted | |||
IP Diagnostic Suite (TIDS) of IP tests, solves some intrinsic | IP Diagnostic Suite (TIDS) of IP tests, solves some intrinsic | |||
problems with using TCP or other throughput maximizing protocols for | problems with using TCP or other throughput maximizing protocols for | |||
measurement. In particular all throughput maximizing protocols (and | measurement. In particular all throughput maximizing protocols (and | |||
TCP congestion control in particular) cause some level of congestion | TCP congestion control in particular) cause some level of congestion | |||
in order to detect when they have reached the available capacity | in order to detect when they have reached the available capacity | |||
limitation of the network. This self inflicted congestion obscures | limitation of the network. This self inflicted congestion obscures | |||
the network properties of interest and introduces non-linear dynamic | the network properties of interest and introduces non-linear dynamic | |||
equilibrium behaviors that make any resulting measurements useless as | equilibrium behaviors that make any resulting measurements useless as | |||
metrics because they have no predictive value for conditions or paths | metrics because they have no predictive value for conditions or paths | |||
different than that of the measurement itself. In order to prevent | different than that of the measurement itself. In order to prevent | |||
these effects it is necessary to suppress the effects of TCP | these effects it is necessary to suppress the effects of TCP | |||
congestion control in the measurement method. These issues are | congestion control in the measurement method. These issues are | |||
discussed at length in Section 4. | discussed at length in Section 4. Readers whom are unfamiliar with | |||
basic properties of TCP and TCP-like congestion control may find it | ||||
easier to start at Section 4 or Section 4.1. | ||||
A Targeted IP Diagnostic Suite does not have such difficulties. IP | A Targeted IP Diagnostic Suite does not have such difficulties. IP | |||
diagnostics can be constructed such that they make strong statistical | diagnostics can be constructed such that they make strong statistical | |||
statements about path properties that are independent of the | statements about path properties that are independent of the | |||
measurement details, such as vantage and choice of measurement | measurement details, such as vantage and choice of measurement | |||
points. Model Based Metrics are designed to bridge the gap between | points. Model Based Metrics are designed to bridge the gap between | |||
empirical IP measurements and expected TCP performance for multiple | empirical IP measurements and expected TCP performance for multiple | |||
standardized versions of TCP. | standardized versions of TCP. | |||
1.1. Version Control | 1.1. Version Control | |||
RFC Editor: Please remove this entire subsection prior to | RFC Editor: Please remove this entire subsection prior to | |||
publication. | publication. | |||
Please send comments about this draft to ippm@ietf.org. See | Please send comments about this draft to ippm@ietf.org. See | |||
http://goo.gl/02tkD for more information including: interim drafts, | http://goo.gl/02tkD for more information including: interim drafts, | |||
an up to date todo list and information on contributing. | an up to date todo list and information on contributing. | |||
Formatted: Fri Jul 8 16:00:10 PDT 2016 | Formatted: Mon Feb 27 13:49:06 PST 2017 | |||
Changes since -08 draft: | ||||
o Language, spelling and usage nits. | ||||
o Expanded the abstract describe the models. | ||||
o Remove superfluous standards like language | ||||
o Remove superfluous "future technology" language. | ||||
o Interconnects -> network interconnections. | ||||
o Added more labels to Figure 1. | ||||
o Defined Bulk Transport. | ||||
o Clarified "implied bottleneck IP capacity" | ||||
o Clarified the history of the BTC metrics. | ||||
o Clarified stochastic vs non-stochastic test traffic generation. | ||||
o Reworked Fig 2 and 6.1 "Mimicking slowstart" | ||||
o Described the unsynchronized parallel stream failure case. | ||||
o Discussed how to measure devices that use virtual queues. | ||||
o Changed section 8.5.2 (Streaming Media) to be Passive | ||||
Measurements. | ||||
Changes since -07 draft: | Changes since -07 draft: | |||
o Sharpened the use of "statistical criteria" | o Sharpened the use of "statistical criteria" | |||
o Sharpened the definition of test_window, and removed related | o Sharpened the definition of test_window, and removed related | |||
redundant text in several places | redundant text in several places | |||
o Clarified "equilibrium" as "dynamic equilibrium, similar to | o Clarified "equilibrium" as "dynamic equilibrium, similar to | |||
processes observed in chemistry" | processes observed in chemistry" | |||
o Properly explained "Heisenberg" as "observer effect" | o Properly explained "Heisenberg" as "observer effect" | |||
o Added the observation from RFC 6576 that HW and SW congestion | o Added the observation from RFC 6576 that HW and SW congestion | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 47 ¶ | |||
scope for this document. This terminology is defined in Section 3. | scope for this document. This terminology is defined in Section 3. | |||
Section 4 describes some key aspects of TCP behavior and what they | Section 4 describes some key aspects of TCP behavior and what they | |||
imply about the requirements for IP packet transfer. Most of the IP | imply about the requirements for IP packet transfer. Most of the IP | |||
diagnostic tests needed to confirm that the path meets these | diagnostic tests needed to confirm that the path meets these | |||
properties can be built on existing IPPM metrics, with the addition | properties can be built on existing IPPM metrics, with the addition | |||
of statistical criteria for evaluating packet transfer and in a few | of statistical criteria for evaluating packet transfer and in a few | |||
cases, new mechanisms to implement the required temporal structure. | cases, new mechanisms to implement the required temporal structure. | |||
(One group of tests, the standing queue tests described in | (One group of tests, the standing queue tests described in | |||
Section 8.2, don't correspond to existing IPPM metrics, but suitable | Section 8.2, don't correspond to existing IPPM metrics, but suitable | |||
metrics can be patterned after the existing definitions.) | new IPPM metrics can be patterned after the existing definitions.) | |||
Figure 1 shows the MBM modeling and measurement framework. The | Figure 1 shows the MBM modeling and measurement framework. The | |||
Target Transport Performance, at the top of the figure, is determined | Target Transport Performance, at the top of the figure, is determined | |||
by the needs of the user or application, outside the scope of this | by the needs of the user or application, outside the scope of this | |||
document. For Bulk Transport Capacity, the main performance | document. For Bulk Transport Capacity, the main performance | |||
parameter of interest is the Target Data Rate. However, since TCP's | parameter of interest is the Target Data Rate. However, since TCP's | |||
ability to compensate for less than ideal network conditions is | ability to compensate for less than ideal network conditions is | |||
fundamentally affected by the Round Trip Time (RTT) and the Maximum | fundamentally affected by the Round Trip Time (RTT) and the Maximum | |||
Transmission Unit (MTU) of the complete path, these parameters must | Transmission Unit (MTU) of the complete path, these parameters must | |||
also be specified in advance based on knowledge about the intended | also be specified in advance based on knowledge about the intended | |||
skipping to change at page 8, line 33 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 43 ¶ | |||
| | pattern | | Evaluation | | | | | | | pattern | | Evaluation | | | | | |||
| | generation | | | | | | | | | generation | | | | | | | |||
| -------v-------- ------^-------- | | | | | -------v-------- ------^-------- | | | | |||
| | v test stream via ^ | | |-- | | | v test stream via ^ | | |-- | |||
| | -->======================>-- | | | | | | -->======================>-- | | | | |||
| | subpath under test | |- | | | subpath under test | |- | |||
----V----------------------------------V--- | | ----V----------------------------------V--- | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
V V V V V V | V V V V V V | |||
fail/inconclusive pass/fail/inconclusive | fail/inconclusive pass/fail/inconclusive | |||
(traffic generation status) (test result) | ||||
Overall Modeling Framework | Overall Modeling Framework | |||
Figure 1 | Figure 1 | |||
The mathematical models are used to determine Traffic parameters and | The mathematical models are used to determine Traffic parameters and | |||
subsequently to design traffic patterns that mimic TCP or other | subsequently to design traffic patterns that mimic TCP or other | |||
transport protocol delivering bulk data and operating at the Target | transport protocol delivering bulk data and operating at the Target | |||
Data Rate, MTU and RTT over a full range of conditions, including | Data Rate, MTU and RTT over a full range of conditions, including | |||
flows that are bursty at multiple time scales. The traffic patterns | flows that are bursty at multiple time scales. The traffic patterns | |||
are generated based on the three Target parameters of complete path | are generated based on the three Target parameters of complete path | |||
and independent of the properties of individual subpaths using the | and independent of the properties of individual subpaths using the | |||
techniques described in Section 6. As much as possible the test | techniques described in Section 6. As much as possible the test | |||
stream is generated deterministically (precomputed) to minimize the | streams are generated deterministically (precomputed) to minimize the | |||
extent to which test methodology, measurement points, measurement | extent to which test methodology, measurement points, measurement | |||
vantage or path partitioning affect the details of the measurement | vantage or path partitioning affect the details of the measurement | |||
traffic. | traffic. | |||
Section 7 describes packet transfer statistics and methods to test | Section 7 describes packet transfer statistics and methods to test | |||
them against the statistical criteria provided by the mathematical | them against the statistical criteria provided by the mathematical | |||
models. Since the statistical criteria are typically for the | models. Since the statistical criteria typically apply to the | |||
complete path (a composition of subpaths) [RFC6049], in situ testing | complete path (a composition of subpaths) [RFC6049], in situ testing | |||
requires that the end-to-end statistical criteria be apportioned as | requires that the end-to-end statistical criteria be apportioned as | |||
separate criteria for each subpath. Subpaths that are expected to be | separate criteria for each subpath. Subpaths that are expected to be | |||
bottlenecks would then be permitted to contribute a larger fraction | bottlenecks would then be permitted to contribute a larger fraction | |||
of the end-to-end packet loss budget. In compensation, non- | of the end-to-end packet loss budget. In compensation, subpaths that | |||
bottlenecked subpaths have to be constrained to contribute less | to not exhibit bottlenecks have must be constrained to contribute | |||
packet loss. Thus the statistical criteria for each subpath in each | less packet loss. Thus the statistical criteria for each subpath in | |||
test of a TIDS is an apportioned share of the end-to-end statistical | each test of a TIDS is an apportioned share of the end-to-end | |||
criteria for the complete path which was determined by the | statistical criteria for the complete path which was determined by | |||
mathematical model. | the mathematical model. | |||
Section 8 describes the suite of individual tests needed to verify | Section 8 describes the suite of individual tests needed to verify | |||
all of required IP delivery properties. A subpath passes if and only | all of required IP delivery properties. A subpath passes if and only | |||
if all of the individual IP diagnostic tests pass. Any subpath that | if all of the individual IP diagnostic tests pass. Any subpath that | |||
fails any test indicates that some users are likely to fail to attain | fails any test indicates that some users are likely to fail to attain | |||
their Target Transport Performance under some conditions. In | their Target Transport Performance under some conditions. In | |||
addition to passing or failing, a test can be deemed to be | addition to passing or failing, a test can be deemed to be | |||
inconclusive for a number of reasons including: the precomputed | inconclusive for a number of reasons including: the precomputed | |||
traffic pattern was not accurately generated; the measurement results | traffic pattern was not accurately generated; the measurement results | |||
were not statistically significant; and others such as failing to | were not statistically significant; and others such as failing to | |||
meet some required test preconditions. If all tests pass but some | meet some required test preconditions. If all tests pass but some | |||
are inconclusive, then the entire suite is deemed to be inconclusive. | are inconclusive, then the entire suite is deemed to be inconclusive. | |||
In Section 9 we present an example TIDS that might be representative | In Section 9 we present an example TIDS that might be representative | |||
of HD video, and illustrate how Model Based Metrics can be used to | of High Definition (HD) video, and illustrate how Model Based Metrics | |||
address difficult measurement situations, such as confirming that | can be used to address difficult measurement situations, such as | |||
inter-carrier exchanges have sufficient performance and capacity to | confirming that inter-carrier exchanges have sufficient performance | |||
deliver HD video between ISPs. | and capacity to deliver HD video between ISPs. | |||
Since there is some uncertainty in the modeling process, Section 10 | Since there is some uncertainty in the modeling process, Section 10 | |||
describes a validation procedure to diagnose and minimize false | describes a validation procedure to diagnose and minimize false | |||
positive and false negative results. | positive and false negative results. | |||
3. Terminology | 3. Terminology | |||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | |||
Note that terms containing underscores (rather than spaces) appear in | Terms containing underscores (rather than spaces) appear in equations | |||
equations in the modeling sections. In some cases both forms are | and typically have algorithmic definitions. | |||
used for aesthetic reasons, they do not have different meanings. | ||||
General Terminology: | General Terminology: | |||
Target: A general term for any parameter specified by or derived | Target: A general term for any parameter specified by or derived | |||
from the user's application or transport performance requirements. | from the user's application or transport performance requirements. | |||
Target Transport Performance: Application or transport performance | Target Transport Performance: Application or transport performance | |||
target values for the complete path. For Bulk Transport Capacity | target values for the complete path. For Bulk Transport Capacity | |||
defined in this note the Target Transport Performance includes the | defined in this note the Target Transport Performance includes the | |||
Target Data Rate, Target RTT and Target MTU as described below. | Target Data Rate, Target RTT and Target MTU as described below. | |||
Target Data Rate: The specified application data rate required for | Target Data Rate: The specified application data rate required for | |||
an application's proper operation. Conventional BTC metrics are | an application's proper operation. Conventional Bulk Transport | |||
focused on the Target Data Rate, however these metrics had little | Capacity (BTC) metrics are focused on the Target Data Rate, | |||
or no predictive value because they do not consider the effects of | however these metrics had little or no predictive value because | |||
the other two parameters of the Target Transport Performance, the | they do not consider the effects of the other two parameters of | |||
RTT and MTU of the complete paths. | the Target Transport Performance, the RTT and MTU of the complete | |||
paths. | ||||
Target RTT (Round Trip Time): The specified baseline (minimum) RTT | Target RTT (Round Trip Time): The specified baseline (minimum) RTT | |||
of the longest complete path over which the user expects to be | of the longest complete path over which the user expects to be | |||
able meet the target performance. TCP and other transport | able to meet the target performance. TCP and other transport | |||
protocol's ability to compensate for path problems is generally | protocol's ability to compensate for path problems is generally | |||
proportional to the number of round trips per second. The Target | proportional to the number of round trips per second. The Target | |||
RTT determines both key parameters of the traffic patterns (e.g. | RTT determines both key parameters of the traffic patterns (e.g. | |||
burst sizes) and the thresholds on acceptable IP packet transfer | burst sizes) and the thresholds on acceptable IP packet transfer | |||
statistics. The Target RTT must be specified considering | statistics. The Target RTT must be specified considering | |||
appropriate packets sizes: MTU sized packets on the forward path, | appropriate packets sizes: MTU sized packets on the forward path, | |||
ACK sized packets (typically header_overhead) on the return path. | ACK sized packets (typically header_overhead) on the return path. | |||
Note that Target RTT is specified and not measured, MBM | Note that Target RTT is specified and not measured, MBM | |||
measurements derived for a given target_RTT will be applicable to | measurements derived for a given target_RTT will be applicable to | |||
any path with a smaller RTTs. | any path with a smaller RTTs. | |||
Target MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit): The specified maximum MTU | Target MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit): The specified maximum MTU | |||
supported by the complete path the over which the application | supported by the complete path the over which the application | |||
expects to meet the target performance. Assume 1500 Byte MTU | expects to meet the target performance. In this document assume a | |||
unless otherwise specified. If some subpath has a smaller MTU, | 1500 Byte MTU unless otherwise specified. If some subpath has a | |||
then it becomes the Target MTU for the complete path, and all | smaller MTU, then it becomes the Target MTU for the complete path, | |||
model calculations and subpath tests must use the same smaller | and all model calculations and subpath tests must use the same | |||
MTU. | smaller MTU. | |||
Targeted IP Diagnostic Suite (TIDS): A set of IP diagnostic tests | Targeted IP Diagnostic Suite (TIDS): A set of IP diagnostic tests | |||
designed to determine if an otherwise ideal complete path | designed to determine if an otherwise ideal complete path | |||
containing the subpath under test can sustain flows at a specific | containing the subpath under test can sustain flows at a specific | |||
target_data_rate using target_MTU sized packets when the RTT of | target_data_rate using target_MTU sized packets when the RTT of | |||
the complete path is target_RTT. | the complete path is target_RTT. | |||
Fully Specified Targeted IP Diagnostic Suite (FS-TIDS): A TIDS | Fully Specified Targeted IP Diagnostic Suite (FS-TIDS): A TIDS | |||
together with additional specification such as "type-p", etc which | together with additional specification such as measurement packet | |||
are out of scope for this document, but need to be drawn from | type ("type-p" [RFC2330]), etc. which are out of scope for this | |||
other standards documents. | document, but need to be drawn from other standards documents. | |||
Bulk Transport Capacity: Bulk Transport Capacity Metrics evaluate an | Bulk Transport Capacity: Bulk Transport Capacity Metrics evaluate an | |||
Internet path's ability to carry bulk data, such as large files, | Internet path's ability to carry bulk data, such as large files, | |||
streaming (non-real time) video, and under some conditions, web | streaming (non-real time) video, and under some conditions, web | |||
images and other content. Prior efforts to define BTC metrics | images and other content. Prior efforts to define BTC metrics | |||
have been based on [RFC3148], which predates our understanding of | have been based on [RFC3148], which predates our understanding of | |||
TCP and the requirements described in Section 4 | TCP and the requirements described in Section 4. In general "Bulk | |||
Transport" indicates that performance is determined by the | ||||
interplay between the network, cross traffic and congestion | ||||
control in the transport protocol. It excludes situations where | ||||
performance is dominated by the RTT alone (e.g. transactions) or | ||||
bottlenecks elsewhere, such as in the application itself. | ||||
IP diagnostic tests: Measurements or diagnostics to determine if | IP diagnostic tests: Measurements or diagnostics to determine if | |||
packet transfer statistics meet some precomputed target. | packet transfer statistics meet some precomputed target. | |||
traffic patterns: The temporal patterns or burstiness of traffic | traffic patterns: The temporal patterns or burstiness of traffic | |||
generated by applications over transport protocols such as TCP. | generated by applications over transport protocols such as TCP. | |||
There are several mechanisms that cause bursts at various time | There are several mechanisms that cause bursts at various time | |||
scales as described in Section 4.1. Our goal here is to mimic the | scales as described in Section 4.1. Our goal here is to mimic the | |||
range of common patterns (burst sizes and rates, etc), without | range of common patterns (burst sizes and rates, etc), without | |||
tying our applicability to specific applications, implementations | tying our applicability to specific applications, implementations | |||
or technologies, which are sure to become stale. | or technologies, which are sure to become stale. | |||
packet transfer statistics: Raw, detailed or summary statistics | packet transfer statistics: Raw, detailed or summary statistics | |||
about packet transfer properties of the IP layer including packet | about packet transfer properties of the IP layer including packet | |||
losses, ECN Congestion Experienced (CE) marks, reordering, or any | losses, ECN Congestion Experienced (CE) marks, reordering, or any | |||
skipping to change at page 11, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 45 ¶ | |||
apportioned: To divide and allocate, for example budgeting packet | apportioned: To divide and allocate, for example budgeting packet | |||
loss across multiple subpaths such that the losses will accumulate | loss across multiple subpaths such that the losses will accumulate | |||
to less than a specified end-to-end loss ratio. Apportioning | to less than a specified end-to-end loss ratio. Apportioning | |||
metrics is essentially the inverse of the process described in | metrics is essentially the inverse of the process described in | |||
[RFC5835]. | [RFC5835]. | |||
open loop: A control theory term used to describe a class of | open loop: A control theory term used to describe a class of | |||
techniques where systems that naturally exhibit circular | techniques where systems that naturally exhibit circular | |||
dependencies can be analyzed by suppressing some of the | dependencies can be analyzed by suppressing some of the | |||
dependencies, such that the resulting dependency graph is acyclic. | dependencies, such that the resulting dependency graph is acyclic. | |||
Terminology about paths, etc. See [RFC2330] and [RFC7398]. | Terminology about paths, etc. See [RFC2330] and [RFC7398] for | |||
existing terms and definitions. | ||||
data sender: Host sending data and receiving ACKs. | data sender: Host sending data and receiving ACKs. | |||
data receiver: Host receiving data and sending ACKs. | data receiver: Host receiving data and sending ACKs. | |||
complete path: The end-to-end path from the data sender to the data | complete path: The end-to-end path from the data sender to the data | |||
receiver. | receiver. | |||
subpath: A portion of the complete path. Note that there is no | subpath: A portion of the complete path. Note that there is no | |||
requirement that subpaths be non-overlapping. A subpath can be a | requirement that subpaths be non-overlapping. A subpath can be a | |||
small as a single device, link or interface. | small as a single device, link or interface. | |||
measurement point: Measurement points as described in [RFC7398]. | measurement point: Measurement points as described in [RFC7398]. | |||
test path: A path between two measurement points that includes a | test path: A path between two measurement points that includes a | |||
subpath of the complete path under test. If the measurement | subpath of the complete path under test. If the measurement | |||
points are off path, the test path may include "test leads" | points are off path, the test path may include "test leads" | |||
between the measurement points and the subpath. | between the measurement points and the subpath. | |||
dominant bottleneck: The bottleneck that generally determines most | dominant bottleneck: The bottleneck that generally determines most | |||
of packet transfer statistics for the entire path. It typically | of packet transfer statistics for the entire path. It typically | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 9 ¶ | |||
timing of this data. See Section 4.1 and Appendix B for more | timing of this data. See Section 4.1 and Appendix B for more | |||
details. | details. | |||
implied bottleneck IP capacity: This is the bottleneck IP capacity | implied bottleneck IP capacity: This is the bottleneck IP capacity | |||
implied by the ACKs returning from the receiver. It is determined | implied by the ACKs returning from the receiver. It is determined | |||
by looking at how much application data the ACK stream at the | by looking at how much application data the ACK stream at the | |||
sender reports delivered to the data receiver per unit time at | sender reports delivered to the data receiver per unit time at | |||
various time scales. If the return path is thinning, batching or | various time scales. If the return path is thinning, batching or | |||
otherwise altering the ACK timing the implied bottleneck IP | otherwise altering the ACK timing the implied bottleneck IP | |||
capacity over short time scales might be substantially larger than | capacity over short time scales might be substantially larger than | |||
the bottleneck IP capacity averaged over a full RTT. Since TCP | the bottleneck IP capacity averaged over a full RTT. Since TCP | |||
derives its clock from the data delivered through the bottleneck | derives its clock from the data delivered through the bottleneck, | |||
the front path must have sufficient buffering to absorb any data | the front path must have sufficient buffering to absorb any data | |||
bursts at the dimensions (duration and IP rate) implied by the ACK | bursts at the dimensions (size and IP rate) implied by the ACK | |||
stream, potentially doubled during slowstart. If the return path | stream, which are potentially doubled during slowstart. If the | |||
is not altering the ACK stream, then the implied bottleneck IP | return path is not altering the ACK stream, then the implied | |||
capacity will be the same as the bottleneck IP capacity. See | bottleneck IP capacity will be the same as the bottleneck IP | |||
Section 4.1 and Appendix B for more details. | capacity. See Section 4.1 and Appendix B for more details. | |||
sender interface rate: The IP rate which corresponds to the IP | sender interface rate: The IP rate which corresponds to the IP | |||
capacity of the data sender's interface. Due to sender efficiency | capacity of the data sender's interface. Due to sender efficiency | |||
algorithms including technologies such as TCP segmentation offload | algorithms including technologies such as TCP segmentation offload | |||
(TSO), nearly all moderns servers deliver data in bursts at full | (TSO), nearly all modern servers deliver data in bursts at full | |||
interface link rate. Today 1 or 10 Gb/s are typical. | interface link rate. Today 1 or 10 Gb/s are typical. | |||
Header_overhead: The IP and TCP header sizes, which are the portion | Header_overhead: The IP and TCP header sizes, which are the portion | |||
of each MTU not available for carrying application payload. | of each MTU not available for carrying application payload. | |||
Without loss of generality this is assumed to be the size for | Without loss of generality this is assumed to be the size for | |||
returning acknowledgments (ACKs). For TCP, the Maximum Segment | returning acknowledgments (ACKs). For TCP, the Maximum Segment | |||
Size (MSS) is the Target MTU minus the header_overhead. | Size (MSS) is the Target MTU minus the header_overhead. | |||
Basic parameters common to models and subpath tests are defined here | Basic parameters common to models and subpath tests are defined here | |||
are described in more detail in Section 5.2. Note that these are | are described in more detail in Section 5.2. Note that these are | |||
mixed between application transport performance (excludes headers) | mixed between application transport performance (excludes headers) | |||
and IP performance (which include TCP headers and retransmissions as | and IP performance (which include TCP headers and retransmissions as | |||
part of the IP payload). | part of the IP payload). | |||
skipping to change at page 13, line 15 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 33 ¶ | |||
Without loss of generality this is assumed to be the size for | Without loss of generality this is assumed to be the size for | |||
returning acknowledgments (ACKs). For TCP, the Maximum Segment | returning acknowledgments (ACKs). For TCP, the Maximum Segment | |||
Size (MSS) is the Target MTU minus the header_overhead. | Size (MSS) is the Target MTU minus the header_overhead. | |||
Basic parameters common to models and subpath tests are defined here | Basic parameters common to models and subpath tests are defined here | |||
are described in more detail in Section 5.2. Note that these are | are described in more detail in Section 5.2. Note that these are | |||
mixed between application transport performance (excludes headers) | mixed between application transport performance (excludes headers) | |||
and IP performance (which include TCP headers and retransmissions as | and IP performance (which include TCP headers and retransmissions as | |||
part of the IP payload). | part of the IP payload). | |||
Window [size]: The total quantity of data plus the data represented | Window [size]: The total quantity of data carried by packets in- | |||
by ACKs circulating in the network is referred to as the window. | flight plus the data represented by ACKs circulating in the | |||
See Section 4.1. Sometimes used with other qualifiers (congestion | network is referred to as the window. See Section 4.1. Sometimes | |||
window, cwnd or receiver window) to indicate which mechanism is | used with other qualifiers (congestion window, cwnd or receiver | |||
controlling the window. | window) to indicate which mechanism is controlling the window. | |||
pipe size: A general term for number of packets needed in flight | pipe size: A general term for number of packets needed in flight | |||
(the window size) to exactly fill some network path or subpath. | (the window size) to exactly fill some network path or subpath. | |||
It corresponds to the window size which maximizes network power, | It corresponds to the window size which maximizes network power, | |||
the observed data rate divided by the observed RTT. Often used | the observed data rate divided by the observed RTT. Often used | |||
with additional qualifiers to specify which path, or under what | with additional qualifiers to specify which path, or under what | |||
conditions, etc. | conditions, etc. | |||
target_window_size: The average number of packets in flight (the | target_window_size: The average number of packets in flight (the | |||
window size) needed to meet the Target Data Rate, for the | window size) needed to meet the Target Data Rate, for the | |||
specified Target RTT, and MTU. It implies the scale of the bursts | specified Target RTT, and MTU. It implies the scale of the bursts | |||
that the network might experience. | that the network might experience. | |||
skipping to change at page 13, line 52 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 23 ¶ | |||
reference target_run_length: target_run_length computed precisely by | reference target_run_length: target_run_length computed precisely by | |||
the method in Section 5.2. This is likely to be slightly more | the method in Section 5.2. This is likely to be slightly more | |||
conservative than required by modern TCP implementations. | conservative than required by modern TCP implementations. | |||
Ancillary parameters used for some tests: | Ancillary parameters used for some tests: | |||
derating: Under some conditions the standard models are too | derating: Under some conditions the standard models are too | |||
conservative. The modeling framework permits some latitude in | conservative. The modeling framework permits some latitude in | |||
relaxing or "derating" some test parameters as described in | relaxing or "derating" some test parameters as described in | |||
Section 5.3 in exchange for a more stringent TIDS validation | Section 5.3 in exchange for a more stringent TIDS validation | |||
procedures, described in Section 10. | procedures, described in Section 10. Models can be derated by | |||
including a multiplicative derating factor to make tests less | ||||
stringent. | ||||
subpath_IP_capacity: The IP capacity of a specific subpath. | subpath_IP_capacity: The IP capacity of a specific subpath. | |||
test path: A subpath of a complete path under test. | test path: A subpath of a complete path under test. | |||
test_path_RTT: The RTT observed between two measurement points using | test_path_RTT: The RTT observed between two measurement points using | |||
packet sizes that are consistent with the transport protocol. | packet sizes that are consistent with the transport protocol. | |||
This is generally MTU sized packets of the forward path, | This is generally MTU sized packets of the forward path, | |||
header_overhead sized packets on the return path. | header_overhead sized packets on the return path. | |||
test_path_pipe: The pipe size of a test path. Nominally the test | test_path_pipe: The pipe size of a test path. Nominally the | |||
path RTT times the test path IP_capacity. | test_path_RTT times the test path IP_capacity. | |||
test_window: The smallest window sufficient to meet or exceeded the | test_window: The smallest window sufficient to meet or exceed the | |||
target_rate when operating with a pure self clock over a test | target_rate when operating with a pure self clock over a test | |||
path. The test_window is typically given by | path. The test_window is typically given by | |||
ceiling(target_data_rate*test_path_RTT/(target_MTU- | ceiling(target_data_rate*test_path_RTT/(target_MTU- | |||
header_overhead)) but see the discussion in Appendix B about the | header_overhead)) but see the discussion in Appendix B about the | |||
effects of channel scheduling on RTT. On some test paths the | effects of channel scheduling on RTT. On some test paths the | |||
test_window may need to be adjusted slightly to compensate for the | test_window may need to be adjusted slightly to compensate for the | |||
RTT being inflated by the devices that schedule packets. | RTT being inflated by the devices that schedule packets. | |||
The terminology below is used to define temporal patterns for test | The terminology below is used to define temporal patterns for test | |||
stream. These patterns are designed to mimic TCP behavior, as | stream. These patterns are designed to mimic TCP behavior, as | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 30 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 4 ¶ | |||
RTT being inflated by the devices that schedule packets. | RTT being inflated by the devices that schedule packets. | |||
The terminology below is used to define temporal patterns for test | The terminology below is used to define temporal patterns for test | |||
stream. These patterns are designed to mimic TCP behavior, as | stream. These patterns are designed to mimic TCP behavior, as | |||
described in Section 4.1. | described in Section 4.1. | |||
packet headway: Time interval between packets, specified from the | packet headway: Time interval between packets, specified from the | |||
start of one to the start of the next. e.g. If packets are sent | start of one to the start of the next. e.g. If packets are sent | |||
with a 1 mS headway, there will be exactly 1000 packets per | with a 1 mS headway, there will be exactly 1000 packets per | |||
second. | second. | |||
burst headway: Time interval between bursts, specified from the | burst headway: Time interval between bursts, specified from the | |||
start of the first packet one burst to the start of the first | start of the first packet one burst to the start of the first | |||
packet of the next burst. e.g. If 4 packet bursts are sent with a | packet of the next burst. e.g. If 4 packet bursts are sent with a | |||
1 mS burst headway, there will be exactly 4000 packets per second. | 1 mS burst headway, there will be exactly 4000 packets per second. | |||
paced single packets: Send individual packets at the specified rate | paced single packets: Send individual packets at the specified rate | |||
or packet headway. | or packet headway. | |||
paced bursts: Send bursts on a timer. Specify any 3 of: average | paced bursts: Send bursts on a timer. Specify any 3 of: average | |||
data rate, packet size, burst size (number of packets) and burst | data rate, packet size, burst size (number of packets) and burst | |||
headway (burst start to start). By default the bursts are assumed | headway (burst start to start). By default the bursts are assumed | |||
full sender interface rate, such that the packet headway within | to occur at full sender interface rate, such that the packet | |||
each burst is the minimum supported by the sender's interface. | headway within each burst is the minimum supported by the sender's | |||
Under some conditions it is useful to explicitly specify the | interface. Under some conditions it is useful to explicitly | |||
packet headway within each burst. | specify the packet headway within each burst. | |||
slowstart rate: Mimic TCP slowstart by sending 4 packet paced bursts | slowstart rate: Mimic TCP slowstart by sending 4 packet paced bursts | |||
at an average data rate equal to twice the implied bottleneck IP | at an average data rate equal to twice the implied bottleneck IP | |||
capacity (but not more than the sender interface rate). This is a | capacity (but not more than the sender interface rate). This is a | |||
two level burst pattern described in more detail in Section 6.1. | two level burst pattern described in more detail in Section 6.1. | |||
If the implied bottleneck IP capacity is more than half of the | If the implied bottleneck IP capacity is more than half of the | |||
sender interface rate, slowstart rate becomes sender interface | sender interface rate, slowstart rate becomes sender interface | |||
rate. | rate. | |||
slowstart burst: Mimic one round of TCP slowstart by sending a | slowstart burst: Mimic one round of TCP slowstart by sending a | |||
specified number of packets packets in a two level burst pattern | specified number of packets packets in a two level burst pattern | |||
that resembles slowstart. | that resembles slowstart. | |||
skipping to change at page 15, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 6 ¶ | |||
consequence of cross traffic, additional presented load or the | consequence of cross traffic, additional presented load or the | |||
actions of other network users. By definition, capacity tests | actions of other network users. By definition, capacity tests | |||
also consume significant network resources (data capacity and/or | also consume significant network resources (data capacity and/or | |||
queue buffer space), and the test schedules must be balanced by | queue buffer space), and the test schedules must be balanced by | |||
their cost. | their cost. | |||
Monitoring tests: Monitoring tests are designed to capture the most | Monitoring tests: Monitoring tests are designed to capture the most | |||
important aspects of a capacity test, but without presenting | important aspects of a capacity test, but without presenting | |||
excessive ongoing load themselves. As such they may miss some | excessive ongoing load themselves. As such they may miss some | |||
details of the network's performance, but can serve as a useful | details of the network's performance, but can serve as a useful | |||
reduced-cost proxy for a capacity test, for example to support | reduced-cost proxy for a capacity test, for example to support | |||
ongoing monitoring. | continuous production network monitoring. | |||
Engineering tests: Engineering tests evaluate how network algorithms | Engineering tests: Engineering tests evaluate how network algorithms | |||
(such as AQM and channel allocation) interact with TCP-style self | (such as AQM and channel allocation) interact with TCP-style self | |||
clocked protocols and adaptive congestion control based on packet | clocked protocols and adaptive congestion control based on packet | |||
loss and ECN Congestion Experienced (CE) marks. These tests are | loss and ECN Congestion Experienced (CE) marks. These tests are | |||
likely to have complicated interactions with cross traffic and | likely to have complicated interactions with cross traffic and | |||
under some conditions can be inversely sensitive to load. For | under some conditions can be inversely sensitive to load. For | |||
example a test to verify that an AQM algorithm causes ECN CE marks | example a test to verify that an AQM algorithm causes ECN CE marks | |||
or packet drops early enough to limit queue occupancy may | or packet drops early enough to limit queue occupancy may | |||
experience a false pass result in the presence of cross traffic. | experience a false pass result in the presence of cross traffic. | |||
It is important that engineering tests be performed under a wide | It is important that engineering tests be performed under a wide | |||
range of conditions, including both in situ and bench testing, and | range of conditions, including both in situ and bench testing, and | |||
over a wide variety of load conditions. Ongoing monitoring is | over a wide variety of load conditions. Ongoing monitoring is | |||
less likely to be useful for engineering tests, although sparse in | less likely to be useful for engineering tests, although sparse in | |||
situ testing might be appropriate. | situ testing might be appropriate. | |||
4. Background | 4. Background | |||
At the time the IPPM WG was chartered, sound Bulk Transport Capacity | At the time the "Framework for IP Performance Metrics" [RFC2330] was | |||
(BTC) measurement was known to be well beyond our capabilities. Even | published (1998), sound Bulk Transport Capacity (BTC) measurement was | |||
at the time that Framework for Empirical BTC Metrics [RFC3148] was | known to be well beyond our capabilities. Even when Framework for | |||
written we knew that we didn't fully understand the problem. Now, by | Empirical BTC Metrics [RFC3148] was published, we knew that we didn't | |||
hindsight we understand why assessing BTC is such a hard problem: | really understand the problem. Now, by hindsight we understand why | |||
assessing BTC is such a hard problem: | ||||
o TCP is a control system with circular dependencies - everything | o TCP is a control system with circular dependencies - everything | |||
affects performance, including components that are explicitly not | affects performance, including components that are explicitly not | |||
part of the test (for example, the host processing power is not | part of the test (for example, the host processing power is not | |||
in-scope of path performance tests). | in-scope of path performance tests). | |||
o Congestion control is a dynamic equilibrium process, similar to | o Congestion control is a dynamic equilibrium process, similar to | |||
processes observed in chemistry and other fields. The network and | processes observed in chemistry and other fields. The network and | |||
transport protocols find an operating point which balances between | transport protocols find an operating point which balances between | |||
opposing forces: the transport protocol pushing harder (raising | opposing forces: the transport protocol pushing harder (raising | |||
the data rate and or window) while the network pushes back | the data rate and/or window) while the network pushes back | |||
(raising packet loss ratio, RTT and/or ECN CE marks). By design | (raising packet loss ratio, RTT and/or ECN CE marks). By design | |||
TCP congestion control keeps raising the data rate until the | TCP congestion control keeps raising the data rate until the | |||
network gives some indication that its capacity has been exceeded | network gives some indication that its capacity has been exceeded | |||
by dropping packets or ECN CE marks. If a TCP sender accurately | by dropping packets or adding ECN CE marks. If a TCP sender | |||
fills a path to its IP capacity, (e.g. the bottleneck is 100% | accurately fills a path to its IP capacity, (e.g. the bottleneck | |||
utilized), then packet losses and ECN CE marks are mostly | is 100% utilized), then packet losses and ECN CE marks are mostly | |||
determined by the TCP sender and how aggressively it seeks | determined by the TCP sender and how aggressively it seeks | |||
additional capacity, and not the network itself, since the network | additional capacity, and not the network itself, since the network | |||
must send exactly the signals that TCP needs to set its rate. | must send exactly the signals that TCP needs to set its rate. | |||
o TCP's ability to compensate for network impairments (such as loss, | o TCP's ability to compensate for network impairments (such as loss, | |||
delay and delay variation, outside of those caused by TCP itself) | delay and delay variation, outside of those caused by TCP itself) | |||
is directly proportional to the number of send-ACK round trip | is directly proportional to the number of send-ACK round trip | |||
exchanges per second (i.e. inversely proportional to the RTT). As | exchanges per second (i.e. inversely proportional to the RTT). As | |||
a consequence an impaired subpath may pass a short RTT local test | a consequence an impaired subpath may pass a short RTT local test | |||
even though it fails when the subpath is extended by an | even though it fails when the subpath is extended by an | |||
effectively perfect network to some larger RTT. | effectively perfect network to some larger RTT. | |||
skipping to change at page 16, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 23 ¶ | |||
measured particles. For network measurement you can not in | measured particles. For network measurement you can not in | |||
general determine even the order of magnitude of the effect. It | general determine even the order of magnitude of the effect. It | |||
is possible to construct measurement scenarios where the | is possible to construct measurement scenarios where the | |||
measurement traffic starves real user traffic, yielding an overly | measurement traffic starves real user traffic, yielding an overly | |||
inflated measurement. The inverse is also possible: the user | inflated measurement. The inverse is also possible: the user | |||
traffic can fill the network, such that the measurement traffic | traffic can fill the network, such that the measurement traffic | |||
detects only minimal available capacity. You can not in general | detects only minimal available capacity. You can not in general | |||
determine which scenario might be in effect, so you can not gauge | determine which scenario might be in effect, so you can not gauge | |||
the relative magnitude of the uncertainty introduced by | the relative magnitude of the uncertainty introduced by | |||
interactions with other network traffic. | interactions with other network traffic. | |||
o It is difficult, if not impossible, for two independent | o As a consequence of the properties listed above it is difficult, | |||
implementations (HW or SW) of TCP congestion control to produce | if not impossible, for two independent implementations (HW or SW) | |||
equivalent performance results [RFC6576] under the same network | of TCP congestion control to produce equivalent performance | |||
conditions, as an outcome of the other properties listed. | results [RFC6576] under the same network conditions, | |||
These properties are a consequence of the dynamic equilibrium | These properties are a consequence of the dynamic equilibrium | |||
behavior intrinsic to how all throughput maximizing protocols | behavior intrinsic to how all throughput maximizing protocols | |||
interact with the Internet. These protocols rely on control systems | interact with the Internet. These protocols rely on control systems | |||
based on estimated network metrics to regulate the quantity of data | based on estimated network metrics to regulate the quantity of data | |||
sent into the network. The packet sending characteristics in turn | to send into the network. The packet sending characteristics in turn | |||
alter the network properties estimated by the control system metrics, | alter the network properties estimated by the control system metrics, | |||
such that there are circular dependencies between every transmission | such that there are circular dependencies between every transmission | |||
characteristic and every estimated metric. Since some of these | characteristic and every estimated metric. Since some of these | |||
dependencies are nonlinear, the entire system is nonlinear, and any | dependencies are nonlinear, the entire system is nonlinear, and any | |||
change causes a response in packet sending characteristics or | change anywhere causes a difficult to predict response in network | |||
estimated network metrics that is difficult to predict. | metrics. As a consequence Bulk Transport Capacity metrics have | |||
entirely thwarted the analytic framework envisioned in [RFC2330] | ||||
Model Based Metrics overcome these problems by making the measurement | Model Based Metrics overcome these problems by making the measurement | |||
system open loop: the packet transfer statistics (akin to the network | system open loop: the packet transfer statistics (akin to the network | |||
estimators) do not affect the traffic or traffic patterns (bursts), | estimators) do not affect the traffic or traffic patterns (bursts), | |||
which are computed on the basis of the Target Transport Performance. | which are computed on the basis of the Target Transport Performance. | |||
A path or subpath meeting the Target Transfer Performance | A path or subpath meeting the Target Transfer Performance | |||
requirements would exhibit packet transfer statistics and estimated | requirements would exhibit packet transfer statistics and estimated | |||
metrics that would not cause the control system to slow the traffic | metrics that would not cause the control system to slow the traffic | |||
below the Target Data Rate. | below the Target Data Rate. | |||
4.1. TCP properties | 4.1. TCP properties | |||
TCP and SCTP are self clocked protocols that carry the vast majority | TCP and other self clocked protocols (e.g. SCTP) carry the vast | |||
of all Internet data. Their dominant behavior is to have an | majority of all Internet data. Their dominant bulk data transport | |||
approximately fixed quantity of data and acknowledgments (ACKs) | behavior is to have an approximately fixed quantity of data and | |||
circulating in the network. The data receiver reports arriving data | acknowledgments (ACKs) circulating in the network. The data receiver | |||
by returning ACKs to the data sender, the data sender typically | reports arriving data by returning ACKs to the data sender, the data | |||
responds by sending exactly the same quantity of data back into the | sender typically responds by sending approximately the same quantity | |||
network. The total quantity of data plus the data represented by | of data back into the network. The total quantity of data plus the | |||
ACKs circulating in the network is referred to as the window. The | data represented by ACKs circulating in the network is referred to as | |||
mandatory congestion control algorithms incrementally adjust the | the window. The mandatory congestion control algorithms | |||
window by sending slightly more or less data in response to each ACK. | incrementally adjust the window by sending slightly more or less data | |||
The fundamentally important property of this system is that it is | in response to each ACK. The fundamentally important property of | |||
self clocked: The data transmissions are a reflection of the ACKs | this system is that it is self clocked: The data transmissions are a | |||
that were delivered by the network, the ACKs are a reflection of the | reflection of the ACKs that were delivered by the network, the ACKs | |||
data arriving from the network. | are a reflection of the data arriving from the network. | |||
A number of protocol features cause bursts of data, even in idealized | A number of protocol features cause bursts of data, even in idealized | |||
networks that can be modeled as simple queuing systems. | networks that can be modeled as simple queuing systems. | |||
During slowstart the IP rate is doubled on each RTT by sending twice | During slowstart the IP rate is doubled on each RTT by sending twice | |||
as much data as was delivered to the receiver during the prior RTT. | as much data as was delivered to the receiver during the prior RTT. | |||
Each returning ACK causes the sender to transmit twice the data the | Each returning ACK causes the sender to transmit twice the data the | |||
ACK reported arriving at the receiver. For slowstart to be able to | ACK reported arriving at the receiver. For slowstart to be able to | |||
fill the pipe, the network must be able to tolerate slowstart bursts | fill the pipe, the network must be able to tolerate slowstart bursts | |||
up to the full pipe size inflated by the anticipated window reduction | up to the full pipe size inflated by the anticipated window reduction | |||
skipping to change at page 19, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 13 ¶ | |||
than the Target RTT and equal to or larger than the Target MTU | than the Target RTT and equal to or larger than the Target MTU | |||
respectively, is expected to be able to attain a specified Bulk | respectively, is expected to be able to attain a specified Bulk | |||
Transport Capacity when all of the following conditions are met: | Transport Capacity when all of the following conditions are met: | |||
1. The IP capacity is above the Target Data Rate by sufficient | 1. The IP capacity is above the Target Data Rate by sufficient | |||
margin to cover all TCP/IP overheads. This can be confirmed by | margin to cover all TCP/IP overheads. This can be confirmed by | |||
the tests described in Section 8.1 or any number of IP capacity | the tests described in Section 8.1 or any number of IP capacity | |||
tests adapted to implement MBM. | tests adapted to implement MBM. | |||
2. The observed packet transfer statistics are better than required | 2. The observed packet transfer statistics are better than required | |||
by a suitable TCP performance model (e.g. fewer packet losses or | by a suitable TCP performance model (e.g. fewer packet losses or | |||
ECN CE marks). See Section 8.1 or any number of low rate packet | ECN CE marks). See Section 8.1 or any number of low or fixed | |||
loss tests outside of MBM. | rate packet loss tests outside of MBM. | |||
3. There is sufficient buffering at the dominant bottleneck to | 3. There is sufficient buffering at the dominant bottleneck to | |||
absorb a slowstart bursts large enough to get the flow out of | absorb a slowstart bursts large enough to get the flow out of | |||
slowstart at a suitable window size. See Section 8.3. | slowstart at a suitable window size. See Section 8.3. | |||
4. There is sufficient buffering in the front path to absorb and | 4. There is sufficient buffering in the front path to absorb and | |||
smooth sender interface rate bursts at all scales that are likely | smooth sender interface rate bursts at all scales that are likely | |||
to be generated by the application, any channel arbitration in | to be generated by the application, any channel arbitration in | |||
the ACK path or any other mechanisms. See Section 8.4. | the ACK path or any other mechanisms. See Section 8.4. | |||
5. When there is a slowly rising standing queue at the bottleneck | 5. When there is a slowly rising standing queue at the bottleneck | |||
the onset of packet loss has to be at an appropriate point (time | the onset of packet loss has to be at an appropriate point (time | |||
or queue depth) and progressive [RFC7567]. See Section 8.2. | or queue depth) and progressive [RFC7567]. See Section 8.2. | |||
skipping to change at page 20, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 32 ¶ | |||
5. When there is a slowly rising standing queue at the bottleneck | 5. When there is a slowly rising standing queue at the bottleneck | |||
the onset of packet loss has to be at an appropriate point (time | the onset of packet loss has to be at an appropriate point (time | |||
or queue depth) and progressive [RFC7567]. See Section 8.2. | or queue depth) and progressive [RFC7567]. See Section 8.2. | |||
6. When there is a standing queue at a bottleneck for a shared media | 6. When there is a standing queue at a bottleneck for a shared media | |||
subpath (e.g. half duplex), there must be a suitable bounds on | subpath (e.g. half duplex), there must be a suitable bounds on | |||
the interaction between ACKs and data, for example due to the | the interaction between ACKs and data, for example due to the | |||
channel arbitration mechanism. See Section 8.2.4. | channel arbitration mechanism. See Section 8.2.4. | |||
Note that conditions 1 through 4 require capacity tests for | Note that conditions 1 through 4 require capacity tests for | |||
validation, and thus may need to be monitored on an ongoing basis. | validation, and thus may need to be monitored on an ongoing basis. | |||
Conditions 5 and 6 require engineering tests, which are best | Conditions 5 and 6 require engineering tests, which are best | |||
performed in controlled environments such as a bench test. They | performed in controlled environments such as a bench test. They | |||
won't generally fail due to load, but may fail in the field due to | won't generally fail due to load, but may fail in the field due to | |||
configuration errors, etc. and should be spot checked. | configuration errors, etc. and should be spot checked. | |||
We are developing a tool that can perform many of the tests described | A tool that can perform many of the tests is available from | |||
here [MBMSource]. | [MBMSource]. | |||
4.3. New requirements relative to RFC 2330 | 4.3. New requirements relative to RFC 2330 | |||
Model Based Metrics are designed to fulfill some additional | Model Based Metrics are designed to fulfill some additional | |||
requirements that were not recognized at the time RFC 2330 was | requirements that were not recognized at the time RFC 2330 was | |||
written [RFC2330]. These missing requirements may have significantly | written [RFC2330]. These missing requirements may have significantly | |||
contributed to policy difficulties in the IP measurement space. Some | contributed to policy difficulties in the IP measurement space. Some | |||
additional requirements are: | additional requirements are: | |||
o IP metrics must be actionable by the ISP - they have to be | o IP metrics must be actionable by the ISP - they have to be | |||
skipping to change at page 22, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 22, line 28 ¶ | |||
The Target Transport Performance is used to derive the | The Target Transport Performance is used to derive the | |||
target_window_size and the reference target_run_length. | target_window_size and the reference target_run_length. | |||
The target_window_size, is the average window size in packets needed | The target_window_size, is the average window size in packets needed | |||
to meet the target_rate, for the specified target_RTT and target_MTU. | to meet the target_rate, for the specified target_RTT and target_MTU. | |||
It is given by: | It is given by: | |||
target_window_size = ceiling( target_rate * target_RTT / ( target_MTU | target_window_size = ceiling( target_rate * target_RTT / ( target_MTU | |||
- header_overhead ) ) | - header_overhead ) ) | |||
Target_run_length is an estimate of the minimum required number of | Target_run_length is an estimate of the minimum required number of | |||
unmarked packets that must be delivered between losses or ECN | unmarked packets that must be delivered between losses or ECN | |||
Congestion Experienced (CE) marks, as computed by a mathematical | Congestion Experienced (CE) marks, as computed by a mathematical | |||
model of TCP congestion control. The derivation here follows | model of TCP congestion control. The derivation here follows | |||
[MSMO97], and by design is quite conservative. | [MSMO97], and by design is quite conservative. | |||
Reference target_run_length is derived as follows: assume the | Reference target_run_length is derived as follows: assume the | |||
subpath_IP_capacity is infinitesimally larger than the | subpath_IP_capacity is infinitesimally larger than the | |||
target_data_rate plus the required header_overhead. Then | target_data_rate plus the required header_overhead. Then | |||
target_window_size also predicts the onset of queueing. A larger | target_window_size also predicts the onset of queuing. A larger | |||
window will cause a standing queue at the bottleneck. | window will cause a standing queue at the bottleneck. | |||
Assume the transport protocol is using standard Reno style Additive | Assume the transport protocol is using standard Reno style Additive | |||
Increase, Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD) congestion control [RFC5681] | Increase, Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD) congestion control [RFC5681] | |||
(but not Appropriate Byte Counting [RFC3465]) and the receiver is | (but not Appropriate Byte Counting [RFC3465]) and the receiver is | |||
using standard delayed ACKs. Reno increases the window by one packet | using standard delayed ACKs. Reno increases the window by one packet | |||
every pipe_size worth of ACKs. With delayed ACKs this takes 2 Round | every pipe_size worth of ACKs. With delayed ACKs this takes 2 Round | |||
Trip Times per increase. To exactly fill the pipe, losses must be no | Trip Times per increase. To exactly fill the pipe, the spacing of | |||
closer than when the peak of the AIMD sawtooth reached exactly twice | losses must be no closer than when the peak of the AIMD sawtooth | |||
the target_window_size otherwise the multiplicative window reduction | reached exactly twice the target_window_size. Otherwise, the | |||
triggered by the loss would cause the network to be underfilled. | multiplicative window reduction triggered by the loss would cause the | |||
Following [MSMO97] the number of packets between losses must be the | network to be under-filled. Following [MSMO97] the number of packets | |||
area under the AIMD sawtooth. They must be no more frequent than | between losses must be the area under the AIMD sawtooth. They must | |||
every 1 in ((3/2)*target_window_size)*(2*target_window_size) packets, | be no more frequent than every 1 in | |||
which simplifies to: | ((3/2)*target_window_size)*(2*target_window_size) packets, which | |||
simplifies to: | ||||
target_run_length = 3*(target_window_size^2) | target_run_length = 3*(target_window_size^2) | |||
Note that this calculation is very conservative and is based on a | Note that this calculation is very conservative and is based on a | |||
number of assumptions that may not apply. Appendix A discusses these | number of assumptions that may not apply. Appendix A discusses these | |||
assumptions and provides some alternative models. If a different | assumptions and provides some alternative models. If a different | |||
model is used, a fully specified TIDS or FSTIDS MUST document the | model is used, a FS-TIDS must document the actual method for | |||
actual method for computing target_run_length and ratio between | computing target_run_length and ratio between alternate | |||
alternate target_run_length and the reference target_run_length | target_run_length and the reference target_run_length calculated | |||
calculated above, along with a discussion of the rationale for the | above, along with a discussion of the rationale for the underlying | |||
underlying assumptions. | assumptions. | |||
These two parameters, target_window_size and target_run_length, | These two parameters, target_window_size and target_run_length, | |||
directly imply most of the individual parameters for the tests in | directly imply most of the individual parameters for the tests in | |||
Section 8. | Section 8. | |||
5.3. Parameter Derating | 5.3. Parameter Derating | |||
Since some aspects of the models are very conservative, the MBM | Since some aspects of the models are very conservative, the MBM | |||
framework permits some latitude in derating test parameters. Rather | framework permits some latitude in derating test parameters. Rather | |||
than trying to formalize more complicated models we permit some test | than trying to formalize more complicated models we permit some test | |||
parameters to be relaxed as long as they meet some additional | parameters to be relaxed as long as they meet some additional | |||
procedural constraints: | procedural constraints: | |||
o The TIDS or FSTIDS MUST document and justify the actual method | o The FS-TIDS must document and justify the actual method used to | |||
used to compute the derated metric parameters. | compute the derated metric parameters. | |||
o The validation procedures described in Section 10 must be used to | o The validation procedures described in Section 10 must be used to | |||
demonstrate the feasibility of meeting the Target Transport | demonstrate the feasibility of meeting the Target Transport | |||
Performance with infrastructure that infinitesimally passes the | Performance with infrastructure that infinitesimally passes the | |||
derated tests. | derated tests. | |||
o The validation process for a FSTIDS itself must be documented is | o The validation process for a FS-TIDS itself must be documented is | |||
such a way that other researchers can duplicate the validation | such a way that other researchers can duplicate the validation | |||
experiments. | experiments. | |||
Except as noted, all tests below assume no derating. Tests where | Except as noted, all tests below assume no derating. Tests where | |||
there is not currently a well established model for the required | there is not currently a well established model for the required | |||
parameters explicitly include derating as a way to indicate | parameters explicitly include derating as a way to indicate | |||
flexibility in the parameters. | flexibility in the parameters. | |||
5.4. Test Preconditions | 5.4. Test Preconditions | |||
Many tests have preconditions which are required to assure their | Many tests have preconditions which are required to assure their | |||
validity. Examples include: the presence or non-presence of cross | validity. Examples include: the presence or non-presence of cross | |||
traffic on specific subpaths; negotiating ECN; and appropriate | traffic on specific subpaths; negotiating ECN; and appropriate | |||
preamble packet stream to testing to put reactive network elements | preamble packet stream to testing to put reactive network elements | |||
into the proper states [RFC7312]. If preconditions are not properly | into the proper states [RFC7312]. If preconditions are not properly | |||
satisfied for some reason, the tests should be considered to be | satisfied for some reason, the tests should be considered to be | |||
inconclusive. In general it is useful to preserve diagnostic | inconclusive. In general it is useful to preserve diagnostic | |||
information as to why the preconditions were not met, and any test | information as to why the preconditions were not met, and any test | |||
data that was collected even if it is not useful for the intended | data that was collected even if it is not useful for the intended | |||
test. Such diagnostic information and partial test data may be | test. Such diagnostic information and partial test data may be | |||
useful for improving the test in the future. | useful for improving the test or test procedures themselves. | |||
It is important to preserve the record that a test was scheduled, | It is important to preserve the record that a test was scheduled, | |||
because otherwise precondition enforcement mechanisms can introduce | because otherwise precondition enforcement mechanisms can introduce | |||
sampling bias. For example, canceling tests due to cross traffic on | sampling bias. For example, canceling tests due to cross traffic on | |||
subscriber access links might introduce sampling bias in tests of the | subscriber access links might introduce sampling bias in tests of the | |||
rest of the network by reducing the number of tests during peak | rest of the network by reducing the number of tests during peak | |||
network load. | network load. | |||
Test preconditions and failure actions MUST be specified in a FSTIDS. | Test preconditions and failure actions must be specified in a FS- | |||
TIDS. | ||||
6. Generating test streams | 6. Generating test streams | |||
Many important properties of Model Based Metrics, such as vantage | Many important properties of Model Based Metrics, such as vantage | |||
independence, are a consequence of using test streams that have | independence, are a consequence of using test streams that have | |||
temporal structures that mimic TCP or other transport protocols | temporal structures that mimic TCP or other transport protocols | |||
running over a complete path. As described in Section 4.1, self | running over a complete path. As described in Section 4.1, self | |||
clocked protocols naturally have burst structures related to the RTT | clocked protocols naturally have burst structures related to the RTT | |||
and pipe size of the complete path. These bursts naturally get | and pipe size of the complete path. These bursts naturally get | |||
larger (contain more packets) as either the Target RTT or Target Data | larger (contain more packets) as either the Target RTT or Target Data | |||
Rate get larger, or the Target MTU gets smaller. An implication of | Rate get larger, or the Target MTU gets smaller. An implication of | |||
these relationships is that test streams generated by running self | these relationships is that test streams generated by running self | |||
clocked protocols over short subpaths may not adequately exercise the | clocked protocols over short subpaths may not adequately exercise the | |||
queuing at any bottleneck to determine if the subpath can support the | queuing at any bottleneck to determine if the subpath can support the | |||
full Target Transport Performance over the complete path. | full Target Transport Performance over the complete path. | |||
Failing to authentically mimic TCP's temporal structure is part the | Failing to authentically mimic TCP's temporal structure is part of | |||
reason why simple performance tools such as iPerf, netperf, nc, etc | the reason why simple performance tools such as iPerf, netperf, nc, | |||
have the reputation of yielding false pass results over short test | etc have the reputation of yielding false pass results over short | |||
paths, even when some subpath has a flaw. | test paths, even when some subpath has a flaw. | |||
The definitions in Section 3 are sufficient for most test streams. | The definitions in Section 3 are sufficient for most test streams. | |||
We describe the slowstart and standing queue test streams in more | We describe the slowstart and standing queue test streams in more | |||
detail. | detail. | |||
In conventional measurement practice stochastic processes are used to | In conventional measurement practice stochastic processes are used to | |||
eliminate many unintended correlations and sample biases. However | eliminate many unintended correlations and sample biases. However | |||
MBM tests are designed to explicitly mimic temporal correlations | MBM tests are designed to explicitly mimic temporal correlations | |||
caused by network or protocol elements themselves and are intended to | caused by network or protocol elements themselves. Some portions of | |||
accurately reflect implementation behavior. Some portion of the | these system, such as traffic arrival (test scheduling) are naturally | |||
system, such as traffic arrival (test scheduling) are naturally | stochastic. Other behaviors, such as back-to-back packet | |||
stochastic. Other details, such as protocol processing times, are | transmissions, are dominated by implementation specific deterministic | |||
technically non-deterministic and might be modeled stochastically, | effects. Although these behaviors always contain non-deterministic | |||
but are only a tiny part of the overall behavior which is dominated | elements and might be modeled stochastically, these details typically | |||
by implementation specific deterministic effects. Furthermore, it is | do not contribute significantly to the overall system behavior. | |||
known that sampling bias is a real problem for some protocol | Furthermore, it is known that real protocols are subject to failures | |||
implementations. For example TCP's RTT estimator used to determine | caused by network property estimators suffering from bias due to | |||
the Retransmit Time Out (RTO), can be fooled by periodic cross | correlation in their own traffic. For example TCP's RTT estimator | |||
traffic or start-stop applications. | used to determine the Retransmit Time Out (RTO), can be fooled by | |||
periodic cross traffic or start-stop applications. For these reasons | ||||
many details of the test streams are specified deterministically. | ||||
At some point in the future it may make sense to introduce fine | It may prove useful to introduce fine grained noise sources into the | |||
grained noise sources into the models used for generating test | models used for generating test streams in an update of Model Based | |||
streams, but they are not warranted at this time. | Metrics, but the complexity is not warranted at the time this | |||
document was written. | ||||
6.1. Mimicking slowstart | 6.1. Mimicking slowstart | |||
TCP slowstart has a two level burst structure as shown in Figure 2. | TCP slowstart has a two level burst structure as shown in Figure 2. | |||
The fine structure is caused by the interaction between the ACK clock | The fine time structure is caused by efficiency algorithms that | |||
and TCP efficiency algorithms. Each ACK passing through the return | deliberately batch work (CPU, channel allocation, etc) to better | |||
path triggers a small data burst. These bursts are typically full | amortize certain network and host overheads. ACKs passing through | |||
sender interface rate, with the same headway as the returning ACKs, | the return path typically cause the sender to transmit small bursts | |||
but having twice as much data as the ACK reported was delivered to | of data at full sender interface rate. For example TCP Segmentation | |||
the receiver. Due to variations in delayed ACK and algorithms such | Offload (TSO) and Delayed Acknowledgment both contribute to this | |||
as Appropriate Byte Counting [RFC3465], different pairs of senders | effect. During slowstart these bursts are at the same headway as the | |||
and receivers produce different burst patterns. Without loss of | returning ACKs, but are typically twice as large (e.g. having twice | |||
generality, we assume each ACK causes 4 packet bursts at an average | as much data) as the ACK reported was delivered to the receiver. Due | |||
headway equal to the ACK headway, and corresponding to sending at an | to variations in delayed ACK and algorithms such as Appropriate Byte | |||
average rate equal to twice the effective bottleneck IP rate. This | Counting [RFC3465], different pairs of senders and receivers produce | |||
fine structure defines one slowstart rate burst. | slightly different burst patterns. Without loss of generality, we | |||
assume each ACK causes 4 packet sender interface rate bursts at an | ||||
average headway equal to the ACK headway, and corresponding to | ||||
sending at an average rate equal to twice the effective bottleneck IP | ||||
rate. Each slowstart burst consists of a series of 4 packet sender | ||||
interface rate bursts such that the total number of packets is the | ||||
current window size (as of the last packet in the burst). | ||||
For a transport protocol the slowstart bursts are repeated every | The coarse time structure is due to each RTT being a reflection of | |||
target_RTT. Each slowstart burst is twice as large as the previous | the prior RTT. For real transport protocols, each slowstart burst is | |||
burst, and slowstart ends on the first lost packet or ECN mark. For | twice as large (twice the window) as the previous burst but is spread | |||
diagnostic tests described below we preserve the fine structure but | out in time by the network bottleneck, such that each successive RTT | |||
manipulate the burst size and headway to measure the ability of the | exhibits the same effective bottleneck IP rate. The slowstart phase | |||
dominant bottleneck to absorb and smooth slowstart bursts. | ends on the first lost packet or ECN mark, which is intended to | |||
happen after successive slowstart bursts merge in time: the next | ||||
burst starts before the bottleneck queue is fully drained and the | ||||
prior burst is complete. | ||||
For diagnostic tests described below we preserve the fine time | ||||
structure but manipulate the coarse structure of the slowstart bursts | ||||
(burst size and headway) to measure the ability of the dominant | ||||
bottleneck to absorb and smooth slowstart bursts. | ||||
Note that a stream of repeated slowstart bursts has three different | Note that a stream of repeated slowstart bursts has three different | |||
average rates, depending on the averaging interval. At the finest | average rates, depending on the averaging time interval. At the | |||
time scale (a few packet times at the sender interface) the peak of | finest time scale (a few packet times at the sender interface) the | |||
the average IP rate is the same as the sender interface rate; at a | peak of the average IP rate is the same as the sender interface rate; | |||
medium timescale (a few packet times at the dominant bottleneck) the | at a medium timescale (a few ACK times at the dominant bottleneck) | |||
peak of the average IP rate is twice the implied bottleneck IP | the peak of the average IP rate is twice the implied bottleneck IP | |||
capacity; and at time scales longer than the target_RTT and when the | capacity; and at time scales longer than the target_RTT and when the | |||
burst size is equal to the target_window_size the average rate is | burst size is equal to the target_window_size, the average rate is | |||
equal to the target_data_rate. This pattern corresponds to repeating | equal to the target_data_rate. This pattern corresponds to repeating | |||
the last RTT of TCP slowstart when delayed ACK and sender side byte | the last RTT of TCP slowstart when delayed ACK and sender side byte | |||
counting are present but without the limits specified in Appropriate | counting are present but without the limits specified in Appropriate | |||
Byte Counting [RFC3465]. | Byte Counting [RFC3465]. | |||
time ==> ( - equals one packet) | time ==> ( - equals one packet) | |||
Packet stream: | ||||
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ... | Fine time structure of the packet stream: | |||
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- | ||||
|<>| sender interface rate bursts (typically 3 or 4 packets) | |<>| sender interface rate bursts (typically 3 or 4 packets) | |||
|<===>| burst headway (determined by ACK headway) | |<===>| burst headway (from the ACK headway) | |||
|<========================>| slowstart burst size(from the window) | ||||
\____repeating sender______/ | ||||
rate bursts | ||||
Coarse (RTT level) time structure of the packet stream: | ||||
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ... | ||||
|<========================>| slowstart burst size (from the window) | ||||
|<==============================================>| slowstart headway | |<==============================================>| slowstart headway | |||
\____________ _____________/ \______ __ ... | (from the RTT) | |||
V V | \__________________________/ \_________ ... | |||
One slowstart burst Repeated slowstart bursts | one slowstart burst Repeated slowstart bursts | |||
Multiple levels of Slowstart Bursts | Multiple levels of Slowstart Bursts | |||
Figure 2 | Figure 2 | |||
6.2. Constant window pseudo CBR | 6.2. Constant window pseudo CBR | |||
Implement pseudo constant bit rate by running a standard self clocked | Implement pseudo constant bit rate by running a standard self clocked | |||
protocol such as TCP with a fixed window size. If that window size | protocol such as TCP with a fixed window size. If that window size | |||
is test_window, the data rate will be slightly above the target_rate. | is test_window, the data rate will be slightly above the target_rate. | |||
Since the test_window is constrained to be an integer number of | Since the test_window is constrained to be an integer number of | |||
packets, for small RTTs or low data rates there may not be | packets, for small RTTs or low data rates there may not be | |||
sufficiently precise control over the data rate. Rounding the | sufficiently precise control over the data rate. Rounding the | |||
test_window up (the default) is likely to result in data rates that | test_window up (the default) is likely to result in data rates that | |||
are higher than the target rate, but reducing the window by one | are higher than the target rate, but reducing the window by one | |||
packet may result in data rates that are too small. Also cross | packet may result in data rates that are too small. Also cross | |||
traffic potentially raises the RTT, implicitly reducing the rate. | traffic potentially raises the RTT, implicitly reducing the rate. | |||
Cross traffic that raises the RTT nearly always makes the test more | Cross traffic that raises the RTT nearly always makes the test more | |||
strenuous. A FS-TIDS specifying a constant window CBR tests MUST | strenuous (more demanding for the network path). A FS-TIDS | |||
explicitly indicate under what conditions errors in the data rate | specifying a constant window CBR test must explicitly indicate under | |||
cause tests to inconclusive. | what conditions errors in the data rate cause tests to inconclusive. | |||
Since constant window pseudo CBR testing is sensitive to RTT | Since constant window pseudo CBR testing is sensitive to RTT | |||
fluctuations it will be less accurate at controlling the data rate in | fluctuations it will be less accurate at controlling the data rate in | |||
environments with fluctuating delays. Conventional paced measurement | environments with fluctuating delays. Conventional paced measurement | |||
traffic may be more appropriate for these environments. | traffic may be more appropriate for these environments. | |||
6.3. Scanned window pseudo CBR | 6.3. Scanned window pseudo CBR | |||
Scanned window pseudo CBR is similar to the constant window CBR | Scanned window pseudo CBR is similar to the constant window CBR | |||
described above, except the window is scanned across a range of sizes | described above, except the window is scanned across a range of sizes | |||
skipping to change at page 27, line 11 ¶ | skipping to change at page 28, line 18 ¶ | |||
The test procedures in Section 8.2 describe how to the partition the | The test procedures in Section 8.2 describe how to the partition the | |||
scans into regions and how to interpret the results. | scans into regions and how to interpret the results. | |||
6.4. Concurrent or channelized testing | 6.4. Concurrent or channelized testing | |||
The procedures described in this document are only directly | The procedures described in this document are only directly | |||
applicable to single stream measurement, e.g. one TCP connection or | applicable to single stream measurement, e.g. one TCP connection or | |||
measurement stream. In an ideal world, we would disallow all | measurement stream. In an ideal world, we would disallow all | |||
performance claims based multiple concurrent streams, but this is not | performance claims based multiple concurrent streams, but this is not | |||
practical due to at least two different issues. First, many very | practical due to at least two issues. First, many very high rate | |||
high rate link technologies are channelized and at last partially pin | link technologies are channelized and at last partially pin the flow | |||
the flow to channel mapping to minimize packet reordering within | to channel mapping to minimize packet reordering within flows. | |||
flows. Second, TCP itself has scaling limits. Although the former | Second, TCP itself has scaling limits. Although the former problem | |||
problem might be overcome through different design decisions, the | might be overcome through different design decisions, the later | |||
later problem is more deeply rooted. | problem is more deeply rooted. | |||
All congestion control algorithms that are philosophically aligned | All congestion control algorithms that are philosophically aligned | |||
with the standard [RFC5681] (e.g. claim some level of TCP | with the standard [RFC5681] (e.g. claim some level of TCP | |||
compatibility, friendliness or fairness) have scaling limits, in the | compatibility, friendliness or fairness) have scaling limits, in the | |||
sense that as a long fast network (LFN) with a fixed RTT and MTU gets | sense that as a long fast network (LFN) with a fixed RTT and MTU gets | |||
faster, these congestion control algorithms get less accurate and as | faster, these congestion control algorithms get less accurate and as | |||
a consequence have difficulty filling the network [CCscaling]. These | a consequence have difficulty filling the network [CCscaling]. These | |||
properties are a consequence of the original Reno AIMD congestion | properties are a consequence of the original Reno AIMD congestion | |||
control design and the requirement in [RFC5681] that all transport | control design and the requirement in [RFC5681] that all transport | |||
protocols have similar responses to congestion. | protocols have similar responses to congestion. | |||
There are a number of reasons to want to specify performance in term | There are a number of reasons to want to specify performance in terms | |||
of multiple concurrent flows, however this approach is not | of multiple concurrent flows, however this approach is not | |||
recommended for data rates below several megabits per second, which | recommended for data rates below several megabits per second, which | |||
can be attained with run lengths under 10000 packets on many paths. | can be attained with run lengths under 10000 packets on many paths. | |||
Since the required run length goes as the square of the data rate, at | Since the required run length goes as the square of the data rate, at | |||
higher rates the run lengths can be unreasonably large, and multiple | higher rates the run lengths can be unreasonably large, and multiple | |||
flows might be the only feasible approach. | flows might be the only feasible approach. | |||
If multiple flows are deemed necessary to meet aggregate performance | If multiple flows are deemed necessary to meet aggregate performance | |||
targets then this MUST be stated both the design of the TIDS and in | targets then this MUST be stated in both the design of the TIDS and | |||
any claims about network performance. The IP diagnostic tests MUST | in any claims about network performance. The IP diagnostic tests | |||
be performed concurrently with the specified number of connections. | MUST be performed concurrently with the specified number of | |||
For the tests that use bursty test streams, the bursts should be | connections. For the tests that use bursty test streams, the bursts | |||
synchronized across streams. | should be synchronized across streams unless there is a priori | |||
knowledge that the applications have some explicit mechanism to | ||||
stagger their own bursts. In the absences of an explicit mechanism | ||||
to stagger bursts many network and application artifacts will | ||||
sometimes implicitly synchronize bursts. A test that does not | ||||
control burst synchronization may be prone to false pass results for | ||||
some applications. | ||||
7. Interpreting the Results | 7. Interpreting the Results | |||
7.1. Test outcomes | 7.1. Test outcomes | |||
To perform an exhaustive test of a complete network path, each test | To perform an exhaustive test of a complete network path, each test | |||
of the TIDS is applied to each subpath of the complete path. If any | of the TIDS is applied to each subpath of the complete path. If any | |||
subpath fails any test then a standard transport protocol running | subpath fails any test then a standard transport protocol running | |||
over the complete path can also be expected to fail to attain the | over the complete path can also be expected to fail to attain the | |||
Target Transport Performance under some conditions. | Target Transport Performance under some conditions. | |||
skipping to change at page 28, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 49 ¶ | |||
statistics meet the statistical criteria for failing (accepting | statistics meet the statistical criteria for failing (accepting | |||
hypnosis H1 in Section 7.2), the test can can be considered to have | hypnosis H1 in Section 7.2), the test can can be considered to have | |||
failed because it doesn't really matter that the test didn't attain | failed because it doesn't really matter that the test didn't attain | |||
the required data rate. | the required data rate. | |||
The really important new properties of MBM, such as vantage | The really important new properties of MBM, such as vantage | |||
independence, are a direct consequence of opening the control loops | independence, are a direct consequence of opening the control loops | |||
in the protocols, such that the test stream does not depend on | in the protocols, such that the test stream does not depend on | |||
network conditions or IP packets received. Any mechanism that | network conditions or IP packets received. Any mechanism that | |||
introduces feedback between the path's measurements and the test | introduces feedback between the path's measurements and the test | |||
stream generation is at risk of introducing non-linearities that | stream generation is at risk of introducing nonlinearities that spoil | |||
spoil these properties. Any exceptional event that indicates that | these properties. Any exceptional event that indicates that such | |||
such feedback has happened should cause the test to be considered | feedback has happened should cause the test to be considered | |||
inconclusive. | inconclusive. | |||
One way to view inconclusive tests is that they reflect situations | One way to view inconclusive tests is that they reflect situations | |||
where a test outcome is ambiguous between limitations of the network | where a test outcome is ambiguous between limitations of the network | |||
and some unknown limitation of the IP diagnostic test itself, which | and some unknown limitation of the IP diagnostic test itself, which | |||
may have been caused by some uncontrolled feedback from the network. | may have been caused by some uncontrolled feedback from the network. | |||
Note that procedures that attempt to search the target parameter | Note that procedures that attempt to search the target parameter | |||
space to find the limits on some parameter such as target_data_rate | space to find the limits on some parameter such as target_data_rate | |||
are at risk of breaking the location independent properties of Model | are at risk of breaking the location independent properties of Model | |||
Based Metrics, if any part of the boundary between passing and | Based Metrics, if any part of the boundary between passing and | |||
inconclusive or failing results is sensitive to RTT (which is | inconclusive or failing results is sensitive to RTT (which is | |||
normally the case). For example the maximum data rate for a | normally the case). For example the maximum data rate for a marginal | |||
margional link (e.g. exhibiting excess errors) is likely to be | link (e.g. exhibiting excess errors) is likely to be sensitive to | |||
sensitive to the test path RTT. The maximum observed data rate over | the test_path_RTT. The maximum observed data rate over the test path | |||
the test path has very little predictive value for the maximum rate | has very little predictive value for the maximum rate over a | |||
over a different path. | different path. | |||
One of the goals for evolving TIDS designs will be to keep sharpening | One of the goals for evolving TIDS designs will be to keep sharpening | |||
distinction between inconclusive, passing and failing tests. The | distinction between inconclusive, passing and failing tests. The | |||
criteria for for passing, failing and inconclusive tests MUST be | criteria for for passing, failing and inconclusive tests MUST be | |||
explicitly stated for every test in the TIDS or FSTIDS. | explicitly stated for every test in the TIDS or FS-TIDS. | |||
One of the goals of evolving the testing process, procedures, tools | One of the goals of evolving the testing process, procedures, tools | |||
and measurement point selection should be to minimize the number of | and measurement point selection should be to minimize the number of | |||
inconclusive tests. | inconclusive tests. | |||
It may be useful to keep raw packet transfer statistics and ancillary | It may be useful to keep raw packet transfer statistics and ancillary | |||
metrics [RFC3148] for deeper study of the behavior of the network | metrics [RFC3148] for deeper study of the behavior of the network | |||
path and to measure the tools themselves. Raw packet transfer | path and to measure the tools themselves. Raw packet transfer | |||
statistics can help to drive tool evolution. Under some conditions | statistics can help to drive tool evolution. Under some conditions | |||
it might be possible to re-evaluate the raw data for satisfying | it might be possible to re-evaluate the raw data for satisfying | |||
skipping to change at page 29, line 42 ¶ | skipping to change at page 31, line 9 ¶ | |||
When evaluating the observed run_length, we need to determine | When evaluating the observed run_length, we need to determine | |||
appropriate packet stream sizes and acceptable error levels for | appropriate packet stream sizes and acceptable error levels for | |||
efficient measurement. In practice, can we compare the empirically | efficient measurement. In practice, can we compare the empirically | |||
estimated packet loss and ECN Congestion Experienced (CE) marking | estimated packet loss and ECN Congestion Experienced (CE) marking | |||
ratios with the targets as the sample size grows? How large a sample | ratios with the targets as the sample size grows? How large a sample | |||
is needed to say that the measurements of packet transfer indicate a | is needed to say that the measurements of packet transfer indicate a | |||
particular run length is present? | particular run length is present? | |||
The generalized measurement can be described as recursive testing: | The generalized measurement can be described as recursive testing: | |||
send packets (individually or in patterns) and observe the packet | send packets (individually or in patterns) and observe the packet | |||
delivery performance (packet loss ratio or other metric, any marking | transfer performance (packet loss ratio or other metric, any marking | |||
we define). | we define). | |||
As each packet is sent and measured, we have an ongoing estimate of | As each packet is sent and measured, we have an ongoing estimate of | |||
the performance in terms of the ratio of packet loss or ECN CE mark | the performance in terms of the ratio of packet loss or ECN CE mark | |||
to total packets (i.e. an empirical probability). We continue to | to total packets (i.e. an empirical probability). We continue to | |||
send until conditions support a conclusion or a maximum sending limit | send until conditions support a conclusion or a maximum sending limit | |||
has been reached. | has been reached. | |||
We have a target_mark_probability, 1 mark per target_run_length, | We have a target_mark_probability, 1 mark per target_run_length, | |||
where a "mark" is defined as a lost packet, a packet with ECN CE | where a "mark" is defined as a lost packet, a packet with ECN CE | |||
skipping to change at page 33, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 35, line 7 ¶ | |||
Confirm that the observed run length is at least the | Confirm that the observed run length is at least the | |||
target_run_length while sending at an average rate approximately | target_run_length while sending at an average rate approximately | |||
equal to the target_data_rate, by controlling (or clamping) the | equal to the target_data_rate, by controlling (or clamping) the | |||
window size of a conventional transport protocol to test_window. | window size of a conventional transport protocol to test_window. | |||
Since losses and ECN CE marks cause transport protocols to reduce | Since losses and ECN CE marks cause transport protocols to reduce | |||
their data rates, this test is expected to be less precise about | their data rates, this test is expected to be less precise about | |||
controlling its data rate. It should not be considered inconclusive | controlling its data rate. It should not be considered inconclusive | |||
as long as at least some of the round trips reached the full | as long as at least some of the round trips reached the full | |||
target_data_rate without incurring losses or ECN CE marks. To pass | target_data_rate without incurring losses or ECN CE marks. To pass | |||
this test the network MUST deliver target_window_size packets in | this test the network must deliver target_window_size packets in | |||
target_RTT time without any losses or ECN CE marks at least once per | target_RTT time without any losses or ECN CE marks at least once per | |||
two target_window_size round trips, in addition to meeting the run | two target_window_size round trips, in addition to meeting the run | |||
length statistical test. | length statistical test. | |||
8.1.3. Background Packet Transfer Statistics Tests | 8.1.3. Background Packet Transfer Statistics Tests | |||
The background run length is a low rate version of the target target | The background run length is a low rate version of the target target | |||
rate test above, designed for ongoing lightweight monitoring for | rate test above, designed for ongoing lightweight monitoring for | |||
changes in the observed subpath run length without disrupting users. | changes in the observed subpath run length without disrupting users. | |||
It should be used in conjunction with one of the above full rate | It should be used in conjunction with one of the above full rate | |||
tests because it does not confirm that the subpath can support raw | tests because it does not confirm that the subpath can support raw | |||
data rate. | data rate. | |||
RFC 6673 [RFC6673] is appropriate for measuring background packet | RFC 6673 [RFC6673] is appropriate for measuring background packet | |||
transfer statistics. | transfer statistics. | |||
8.2. Standing Queue Tests | 8.2. Standing Queue Tests | |||
These engineering tests confirm that the bottleneck is well behaved | These engineering tests confirm that the bottleneck is well behaved | |||
across the onset of packet loss, which typically follows after the | across the onset of packet loss, which typically follows after the | |||
onset of queueing. Well behaved generally means lossless for | onset of queuing. Well behaved generally means lossless for | |||
transient queues, but once the queue has been sustained for a | transient queues, but once the queue has been sustained for a | |||
sufficient period of time (or reaches a sufficient queue depth) there | sufficient period of time (or reaches a sufficient queue depth) there | |||
should be a small number of losses or ECN CE marks to signal to the | should be a small number of losses or ECN CE marks to signal to the | |||
transport protocol that it should reduce its window. Losses that are | transport protocol that it should reduce its window. Losses that are | |||
too early can prevent the transport from averaging at the | too early can prevent the transport from averaging at the | |||
target_data_rate. Losses that are too late indicate that the queue | target_data_rate. Losses that are too late indicate that the queue | |||
might be subject to bufferbloat [wikiBloat] and inflict excess | might be subject to bufferbloat [wikiBloat] and inflict excess | |||
queuing delays on all flows sharing the bottleneck queue. Excess | queuing delays on all flows sharing the bottleneck queue. Excess | |||
losses (more than half of the window) at the onset of congestion make | losses (more than half of the window) at the onset of congestion make | |||
loss recovery problematic for the transport protocol. Non-linear, | loss recovery problematic for the transport protocol. Non-linear, | |||
erratic or excessive RTT increases suggest poor interactions between | erratic or excessive RTT increases suggest poor interactions between | |||
the channel acquisition algorithms and the transport self clock. All | the channel acquisition algorithms and the transport self clock. All | |||
of the tests in this section use the same basic scanning algorithm, | of the tests in this section use the same basic scanning algorithm, | |||
described here, but score the link or subpath on the basis of how | described here, but score the link or subpath on the basis of how | |||
well it avoids each of these problems. | well it avoids each of these problems. | |||
For some technologies the data might not be subject to increasing | Some network technologies rely on virtual queues or other techniques | |||
delays, in which case the data rate will vary with the window size | to meter traffic without adding any queuing delay, in which case the | |||
all the way up to the onset of load induced packet loss or ECN CE | data rate will vary with the window size all the way up to the onset | |||
marks. For theses technologies, the discussion of queueing does not | of load induced packet loss or ECN CE marks. For theses | |||
apply, but it is still required that the onset of losses or ECN CE | technologies, the discussion of queuing in Section 6.3 does not | |||
marks be at an appropriate point and progressive. Start the scan at | apply, but it is still necessary to confirm that the onset of losses | |||
a window equal to or slightly below the test_window. | or ECN CE marks be at an appropriate point and progressive. If the | |||
network bottleneck does not introduce significant queuing delay, | ||||
modify the procedure described in Section 6.3 to start scan at a | ||||
window equal to or slightly smaller than the test_window. | ||||
Use the procedure in Section 6.3 to sweep the window across the onset | Use the procedure in Section 6.3 to sweep the window across the onset | |||
of queueing and the onset of loss. The tests below all assume that | of queuing and the onset of loss. The tests below all assume that | |||
the scan emulates standard additive increase and delayed ACK by | the scan emulates standard additive increase and delayed ACK by | |||
incrementing the window by one packet for every 2*target_window_size | incrementing the window by one packet for every 2*target_window_size | |||
packets delivered. A scan can typically be divided into three | packets delivered. A scan can typically be divided into three | |||
regions: below the onset of queueing, a standing queue, and at or | regions: below the onset of queuing, a standing queue, and at or | |||
beyond the onset of loss. | beyond the onset of loss. | |||
Below the onset of queueing the RTT is typically fairly constant, and | Below the onset of queuing the RTT is typically fairly constant, and | |||
the data rate varies in proportion to the window size. Once the data | the data rate varies in proportion to the window size. Once the data | |||
rate reaches the subpath IP rate, the data rate becomes fairly | rate reaches the subpath IP rate, the data rate becomes fairly | |||
constant, and the RTT increases in proportion to the increase in | constant, and the RTT increases in proportion to the increase in | |||
window size. The precise transition across the start of queueing can | window size. The precise transition across the start of queuing can | |||
be identified by the maximum network power, defined to be the ratio | be identified by the maximum network power, defined to be the ratio | |||
data rate over the RTT. The network power can be computed at each | data rate over the RTT. The network power can be computed at each | |||
window size, and the window with the maximum is taken as the start of | window size, and the window with the maximum is taken as the start of | |||
the queueing region. | the queuing region. | |||
If there is random background loss (e.g. bit errors, etc), precise | If there is random background loss (e.g. bit errors, etc), precise | |||
determination of the onset of queue induced packet loss may require | determination of the onset of queue induced packet loss may require | |||
multiple scans. Above the onset of queuing loss, all transport | multiple scans. Above the onset of queuing loss, all transport | |||
protocols are expected to experience periodic losses determined by | protocols are expected to experience periodic losses determined by | |||
the interaction between the congestion control and AQM algorithms. | the interaction between the congestion control and AQM algorithms. | |||
For standard congestion control algorithms the periodic losses are | For standard congestion control algorithms the periodic losses are | |||
likely to be relatively widely spaced and the details are typically | likely to be relatively widely spaced and the details are typically | |||
dominated by the behavior of the transport protocol itself. For the | dominated by the behavior of the transport protocol itself. For the | |||
stiffened transport protocols case (with non-standard, aggressive | stiffened transport protocols case (with non-standard, aggressive | |||
congestion control algorithms) the details of periodic losses will be | congestion control algorithms) the details of periodic losses will be | |||
dominated by how the window increase function responds to loss. | dominated by how the window increase function responds to loss. | |||
8.2.1. Congestion Avoidance | 8.2.1. Congestion Avoidance | |||
A subpath passes the congestion avoidance standing queue test if more | A subpath passes the congestion avoidance standing queue test if more | |||
than target_run_length packets are delivered between the onset of | than target_run_length packets are delivered between the onset of | |||
queueing (as determined by the window with the maximum network power | queuing (as determined by the window with the maximum network power | |||
as described above) and the first loss or ECN CE mark. If this test | as described above) and the first loss or ECN CE mark. If this test | |||
is implemented using a standard congestion control algorithm with a | is implemented using a standard congestion control algorithm with a | |||
clamp, it can be performed in situ in the production internet as a | clamp, it can be performed in situ in the production internet as a | |||
capacity test. For an example of such a test see [Pathdiag]. | capacity test. For an example of such a test see [Pathdiag]. | |||
For technologies that do not have conventional queues, use the | For technologies that do not have conventional queues, use the | |||
test_window in place of the onset of queueing. i.e. A subpath passes | test_window in place of the onset of queuing. i.e. A subpath passes | |||
the congestion avoidance standing queue test if more than | the congestion avoidance standing queue test if more than | |||
target_run_length packets are delivered between start of the scan at | target_run_length packets are delivered between start of the scan at | |||
test_window and the first loss or ECN CE mark. | test_window and the first loss or ECN CE mark. | |||
8.2.2. Bufferbloat | 8.2.2. Bufferbloat | |||
This test confirms that there is some mechanism to limit buffer | This test confirms that there is some mechanism to limit buffer | |||
occupancy (e.g. that prevents bufferbloat). Note that this is not | occupancy (e.g. that prevents bufferbloat). Note that this is not | |||
strictly a requirement for single stream bulk transport capacity, | strictly a requirement for single stream bulk transport capacity, | |||
however if there is no mechanism to limit buffer queue occupancy then | however if there is no mechanism to limit buffer queue occupancy then | |||
a single stream with sufficient data to deliver is likely to cause | a single stream with sufficient data to deliver is likely to cause | |||
the problems described in [RFC7567], and [wikiBloat]. This may cause | the problems described in [RFC7567], and [wikiBloat]. This may cause | |||
only minor symptoms for the dominant flow, but has the potential to | only minor symptoms for the dominant flow, but has the potential to | |||
make the subpath unusable for other flows and applications. | make the subpath unusable for other flows and applications. | |||
Pass if the onset of loss occurs before a standing queue has | Pass if the onset of loss occurs before a standing queue has | |||
introduced more delay than than twice target_RTT, or other well | introduced more delay than than twice target_RTT, or other well | |||
defined and specified limit. Note that there is not yet a model for | defined and specified limit. Note that there is not yet a model for | |||
how much standing queue is acceptable. The factor of two chosen here | how much standing queue is acceptable. The factor of two chosen here | |||
reflects a rule of thumb. In conjunction with the previous test, | reflects a rule of thumb. In conjunction with the previous test, | |||
this test implies that the first loss should occur at a queueing | this test implies that the first loss should occur at a queuing delay | |||
delay which is between one and two times the target_RTT. | which is between one and two times the target_RTT. | |||
Specified RTT limits that are larger than twice the target_RTT must | Specified RTT limits that are larger than twice the target_RTT must | |||
be fully justified in the FSTIDS. | be fully justified in the FS-TIDS. | |||
8.2.3. Non excessive loss | 8.2.3. Non excessive loss | |||
This test confirms that the onset of loss is not excessive. Pass if | This test confirms that the onset of loss is not excessive. Pass if | |||
losses are equal or less than the increase in the cross traffic plus | losses are equal or less than the increase in the cross traffic plus | |||
the test stream window increase since the previous RTT. This could | the test stream window increase since the previous RTT. This could | |||
be restated as non-decreasing total throughput of the subpath at the | be restated as non-decreasing total throughput of the subpath at the | |||
onset of loss. (Note that when there is a transient drop in subpath | onset of loss. (Note that when there is a transient drop in subpath | |||
throughput and there is not already a standing queue, a subpath that | throughput and there is not already a standing queue, a subpath that | |||
passes other queue tests in this document will have sufficient queue | passes other queue tests in this document will have sufficient queue | |||
space to hold one full RTT worth of data). | space to hold one full RTT worth of data). | |||
Note that token bucket policers will not pass this test, which is as | Note that token bucket policers will not pass this test, which is as | |||
intended. TCP often stumbles badly if more than a small fraction of | intended. TCP often stumbles badly if more than a small fraction of | |||
the packets are dropped in one RTT. Many TCP implementations will | the packets are dropped in one RTT. Many TCP implementations will | |||
require a timeout and slowstart to recover their self clock. Even if | require a timeout and slowstart to recover their self clock. Even if | |||
they can recover from the massive losses the sudden change in | they can recover from the massive losses the sudden change in | |||
available capacity at the bottleneck waists serving and front path | available capacity at the bottleneck wastes serving and front path | |||
capacity until TCP can adapt to the new rate [Policing]. | capacity until TCP can adapt to the new rate [Policing]. | |||
8.2.4. Duplex Self Interference | 8.2.4. Duplex Self Interference | |||
This engineering test confirms a bound on the interactions between | This engineering test confirms a bound on the interactions between | |||
the forward data path and the ACK return path. | the forward data path and the ACK return path. | |||
Some historical half duplex technologies had the property that each | Some historical half duplex technologies had the property that each | |||
direction held the channel until it completely drained its queue. | direction held the channel until it completely drained its queue. | |||
When a self clocked transport protocol, such as TCP, has data and | When a self clocked transport protocol, such as TCP, has data and | |||
ACKs passing in opposite directions through such a link, the behavior | ACKs passing in opposite directions through such a link, the behavior | |||
often reverts to stop-and-wait. Each additional packet added to the | often reverts to stop-and-wait. Each additional packet added to the | |||
window raises the observed RTT by two packet times, once as it passes | window raises the observed RTT by two packet times, once as it passes | |||
through the data path, and once for the additional delay incurred by | through the data path, and once for the additional delay incurred by | |||
the ACK waiting on the return path. | the ACK waiting on the return path. | |||
The duplex self interference test fails if the RTT rises by more than | The duplex self interference test fails if the RTT rises by more than | |||
a fixed bound above the expected queueing time computed from trom the | a fixed bound above the expected queugit staing time computed from | |||
excess window divided by the subpath IP Capacity. This bound must be | trom the excess window divided by the subpath IP Capacity. This | |||
smaller than target_RTT/2 to avoid reverting to stop and wait | bound must be smaller than target_RTT/2 to avoid reverting to stop | |||
behavior. (e.g. Data packets and ACKs both have to be released at | and wait behavior. (e.g. Data packets and ACKs both have to be | |||
least twice per RTT.) | released at least twice per RTT.) | |||
8.3. Slowstart tests | 8.3. Slowstart tests | |||
These tests mimic slowstart: data is sent at twice the effective | These tests mimic slowstart: data is sent at twice the effective | |||
bottleneck rate to exercise the queue at the dominant bottleneck. | bottleneck rate to exercise the queue at the dominant bottleneck. | |||
8.3.1. Full Window slowstart test | 8.3.1. Full Window slowstart test | |||
This is a capacity test to confirm that slowstart is not likely to | This is a capacity test to confirm that slowstart is not likely to | |||
exit prematurely. Send slowstart bursts that are target_window_size | exit prematurely. Send slowstart bursts that are target_window_size | |||
skipping to change at page 37, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 39, line 6 ¶ | |||
or ECN CE marks is smaller than the target_run_length. | or ECN CE marks is smaller than the target_run_length. | |||
It is deemed inconclusive if the elapsed time to send the data burst | It is deemed inconclusive if the elapsed time to send the data burst | |||
is not less than half of the time to receive the ACKs. (i.e. It is | is not less than half of the time to receive the ACKs. (i.e. It is | |||
acceptable to send data too fast, but sending it slower than twice | acceptable to send data too fast, but sending it slower than twice | |||
the actual bottleneck rate as indicated by the ACKs is deemed | the actual bottleneck rate as indicated by the ACKs is deemed | |||
inconclusive). The headway for the slowstart bursts should be the | inconclusive). The headway for the slowstart bursts should be the | |||
target_RTT. | target_RTT. | |||
Note that these are the same parameters as the Sender Full Window | Note that these are the same parameters as the Sender Full Window | |||
burst test, except the burst rate is at slowestart rate, rather than | burst test, except the burst rate is at slowstart rate, rather than | |||
sender interface rate. | sender interface rate. | |||
8.3.2. Slowstart AQM test | 8.3.2. Slowstart AQM test | |||
Do a continuous slowstart (send data continuously at twice the | Do a continuous slowstart (send data continuously at twice the | |||
implied IP bottleneck capacity), until the first loss, stop, allow | implied IP bottleneck capacity), until the first loss, stop, allow | |||
the network to drain and repeat, gathering statistics on how many | the network to drain and repeat, gathering statistics on how many | |||
packets were delivered before the loss, the pattern of losses, | packets were delivered before the loss, the pattern of losses, | |||
maximum observed RTT and window size. Justify the results. There is | maximum observed RTT and window size. Justify the results. There is | |||
not currently sufficient theory justifying requiring any particular | not currently sufficient theory justifying requiring any particular | |||
skipping to change at page 38, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 39, line 36 ¶ | |||
8.4. Sender Rate Burst tests | 8.4. Sender Rate Burst tests | |||
These tests determine how well the network can deliver bursts sent at | These tests determine how well the network can deliver bursts sent at | |||
sender's interface rate. Note that this test most heavily exercises | sender's interface rate. Note that this test most heavily exercises | |||
the front path, and is likely to include infrastructure may be out of | the front path, and is likely to include infrastructure may be out of | |||
scope for an access ISP, even though the bursts might be caused by | scope for an access ISP, even though the bursts might be caused by | |||
ACK compression, thinning or channel arbitration in the access ISP. | ACK compression, thinning or channel arbitration in the access ISP. | |||
See Appendix B. | See Appendix B. | |||
Also, there are a several details that are not precisely defined. | Also, there are a several details about sender interface rate bursts | |||
For starters there is not a standard server interface rate. 1 Gb/s | that are not fully defined here. These details, such as the assumed | |||
and 10 Gb/s are common today, but higher rates will become cost | sender interface rate, should be explicitly stated is a FS-TIDS. | |||
effective and can be expected to be dominant some time in the future. | ||||
Current standards permit TCP to send a full window bursts following | Current standards permit TCP to send full window bursts following an | |||
an application pause. (Congestion Window Validation [RFC2861] | application pause. (Congestion Window Validation [RFC2861] and | |||
[RFC7661], is not required, but even if was, it does not take effect | updates to support Rate-Limited Traffic [RFC7661], are not required). | |||
until an application pause is longer than an RTO.) Since full window | Since full window bursts are consistent with standard behavior, it is | |||
bursts are consistent with standard behavior, it is desirable that | desirable that the network be able to deliver such bursts, otherwise | |||
the network be able to deliver such bursts, otherwise application | application pauses will cause unwarranted losses. Note that the AIMD | |||
pauses will cause unwarranted losses. Note that the AIMD sawtooth | sawtooth requires a peak window that is twice target_window_size, so | |||
requires a peak window that is twice target_window_size, so the worst | the worst case burst may be 2*target_window_size. | |||
case burst may be 2*target_window_size. | ||||
It is also understood in the application and serving community that | It is also understood in the application and serving community that | |||
interface rate bursts have a cost to the network that has to be | interface rate bursts have a cost to the network that has to be | |||
balanced against other costs in the servers themselves. For example | balanced against other costs in the servers themselves. For example | |||
TCP Segmentation Offload (TSO) reduces server CPU in exchange for | TCP Segmentation Offload (TSO) reduces server CPU in exchange for | |||
larger network bursts, which increase the stress on network buffer | larger network bursts, which increase the stress on network buffer | |||
memory. Some newer TCP implementations can pace traffic at scale | memory. Some newer TCP implementations can pace traffic at scale | |||
[TSO_pacing][TSO_fq_pacing]. It remains to be determined if and how | [TSO_pacing][TSO_fq_pacing]. It remains to be determined if and how | |||
quickly these changes will be deployed. | quickly these changes will be deployed. | |||
skipping to change at page 39, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 40, line 44 ¶ | |||
Send target_window_size bursts of packets at server interface rate | Send target_window_size bursts of packets at server interface rate | |||
with target_RTT burst headway (burst start to next burst start). | with target_RTT burst headway (burst start to next burst start). | |||
Verify that the observed packet transfer statistics meets the | Verify that the observed packet transfer statistics meets the | |||
target_run_length. | target_run_length. | |||
Key observations: | Key observations: | |||
o The subpath under test is expected to go idle for some fraction of | o The subpath under test is expected to go idle for some fraction of | |||
the time, determined by the difference between the time to drain | the time, determined by the difference between the time to drain | |||
the queue at the subpath IP capacity, and the target_RTT. If the | the queue at the subpath_IP_capacity, and the target_RTT. If the | |||
queue does not drain completely it may be an indication that the | queue does not drain completely it may be an indication that the | |||
the subpath has insufficient IP capacity or that there is some | the subpath has insufficient IP capacity or that there is some | |||
other problem with the test (e.g. inconclusive). | other problem with the test (e.g. inconclusive). | |||
o The burst sensitivity can be derated by sending smaller bursts | o The burst sensitivity can be derated by sending smaller bursts | |||
more frequently. E.g. send target_window_size*derate packet | more frequently. E.g. send target_window_size*derate packet | |||
bursts every target_RTT*derate, where "derate" is less than one. | bursts every target_RTT*derate, where "derate" is less than one. | |||
o When not derated, this test is the most strenuous capacity test. | o When not derated, this test is the most strenuous capacity test. | |||
o A subpath that passes this test is likely to be able to sustain | o A subpath that passes this test is likely to be able to sustain | |||
higher rates (close to subpath_IP_capacity) for paths with RTTs | higher rates (close to subpath_IP_capacity) for paths with RTTs | |||
significantly smaller than the target_RTT. | significantly smaller than the target_RTT. | |||
o This test can be implemented with instrumented TCP [RFC4898], | o This test can be implemented with instrumented TCP [RFC4898], | |||
using a specialized measurement application at one end [MBMSource] | using a specialized measurement application at one end [MBMSource] | |||
and a minimal service at the other end [RFC0863] [RFC0864]. | and a minimal service at the other end [RFC0863] [RFC0864]. | |||
o This test is efficient to implement, since it does not require | o This test is efficient to implement, since it does not require | |||
per-packet timers, and can make use of TSO in modern NIC hardware. | per-packet timers, and can make use of TSO in modern NIC hardware. | |||
o If a subpath is known to pass the Standing Queue engineering tests | o If a subpath is known to pass the Standing Queue engineering tests | |||
(particularly that it has a progressive onset of loss at an | (particularly that it has a progressive onset of loss at an | |||
skipping to change at page 40, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 41, line 26 ¶ | |||
sufficient to assure that the subpath under test will not impair | sufficient to assure that the subpath under test will not impair | |||
Bulk Transport Capacity at the target performance under all | Bulk Transport Capacity at the target performance under all | |||
conditions. See Section 8.2 for a discussion of the standing | conditions. See Section 8.2 for a discussion of the standing | |||
queue tests. | queue tests. | |||
Note that this test is clearly independent of the subpath RTT, or | Note that this test is clearly independent of the subpath RTT, or | |||
other details of the measurement infrastructure, as long as the | other details of the measurement infrastructure, as long as the | |||
measurement infrastructure can accurately and reliably deliver the | measurement infrastructure can accurately and reliably deliver the | |||
required bursts to the subpath under test. | required bursts to the subpath under test. | |||
8.5.2. Streaming Media | 8.5.2. Passive Measurements | |||
Model Based Metrics can be implicitly implemented as a side effect | Any non-throughput maximizing application, such as fixed rate | |||
any non-throughput maximizing application, such as streaming media, | streaming media, can be used to implement passive or hybrid (defined | |||
with some additional controls and instrumentation in the servers. | in [RFC7799]) versions of Model Based Metrics with some additional | |||
The essential requirement is that the data rate be constrained such | instrumentation and possibly a traffic shaper or other controls in | |||
that even with arbitrary application pauses and bursts, the data rate | the servers. The essential requirement is that the data transmission | |||
and burst sizes stay within the envelope defined by the individual | be constrained such that even with arbitrary application pauses and | |||
tests described above. | bursts, the data rate and burst sizes stay within the envelope | |||
defined by the individual tests described above. | ||||
If the application's serving data rate can be constrained to be less | If the application's serving data rate can be constrained to be less | |||
than or equal to the target_data_rate and the serving_RTT (the RTT | than or equal to the target_data_rate and the serving_RTT (the RTT | |||
between the sender and client) is less than the target_RTT, this | between the sender and client) is less than the target_RTT, this | |||
constraint is most easily implemented by clamping the transport | constraint is most easily implemented by clamping the transport | |||
window size to serving_window_clamp, set to the test_window, computed | window size to serving_window_clamp, set to the test_window, computed | |||
for the actual serving path. | for the actual serving path. | |||
Under the above constraints the serving_window_clamp will limit the | Under the above constraints the serving_window_clamp will limit the | |||
both the serving data rate and burst sizes to be no larger than the | both the serving data rate and burst sizes to be no larger than the | |||
skipping to change at page 40, line 42 ¶ | skipping to change at page 42, line 11 ¶ | |||
called for by Section 8.4 and the sender rate burst sizes are | called for by Section 8.4 and the sender rate burst sizes are | |||
implicitly derated by the serving_window_clamp divided by the | implicitly derated by the serving_window_clamp divided by the | |||
target_window_size at the very least. (Depending on the application | target_window_size at the very least. (Depending on the application | |||
behavior, the data might be significantly smoother than specified by | behavior, the data might be significantly smoother than specified by | |||
any of the burst tests.) | any of the burst tests.) | |||
In an alternative implementation the data rate and bursts might be | In an alternative implementation the data rate and bursts might be | |||
explicitly controlled by a programmable traffic shaper or pacing at | explicitly controlled by a programmable traffic shaper or pacing at | |||
the sender. This would provide better control over transmissions but | the sender. This would provide better control over transmissions but | |||
is more complicated to implement, although the required technology is | is more complicated to implement, although the required technology is | |||
available[TSO_pacing][TSO_fq_pacing]. | available [TSO_pacing][TSO_fq_pacing]. | |||
Note that these techniques can be applied to any content delivery | Note that these techniques can be applied to any content delivery | |||
that can be constrained to a reduced data rate in order to inhibit | that can operated at a constrained data rate to inhibit TCP | |||
TCP equilibrium behavior. | equilibrium behavior. | |||
Furthermore note that Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) is | ||||
generally in conflict with passive Model Based Metrics measurement, | ||||
because it is a rate maximizing protocol. It can still meet the | ||||
requirement here if the rate can be capped, for example by knowing a | ||||
priori the maximum rate needed to deliver a particular piece of | ||||
content. | ||||
9. An Example | 9. An Example | |||
In this section a we illustrate a TIDS designed to confirm that an | In this section we illustrate a TIDS designed to confirm that an | |||
access ISP can reliably deliver HD video from multiple content | access ISP can reliably deliver HD video from multiple content | |||
providers to all of their customers. With modern codecs, minimal HD | providers to all of their customers. With modern codecs, minimal HD | |||
video (720p) generally fits in 2.5 Mb/s. Due to their geographical | video (720p) generally fits in 2.5 Mb/s. Due to their geographical | |||
size, network topology and modem characteristics the ISP determines | size, network topology and modem characteristics the ISP determines | |||
that most content is within a 50 mS RTT of their users (This example | that most content is within a 50 mS RTT of their users (This example | |||
RTT is a sufficient to cover the propagation delay to continental | RTT is a sufficient to cover the propagation delay to continental | |||
Europe or either US coast with low delay modems or somewhat smaller | Europe or either US coast with low delay modems or somewhat smaller | |||
geographical regions if the modems require additional delay to | geographical regions if the modems require additional delay to | |||
implement advanced compression and error recovery). | implement advanced compression and error recovery). | |||
skipping to change at page 41, line 38 ¶ | skipping to change at page 43, line 15 ¶ | |||
Table 1 shows the default TCP model with no derating, and as such is | Table 1 shows the default TCP model with no derating, and as such is | |||
quite conservative. The simplest TIDS would be to use the sustained | quite conservative. The simplest TIDS would be to use the sustained | |||
burst test, described in Section 8.5.1. Such a test would send 11 | burst test, described in Section 8.5.1. Such a test would send 11 | |||
packet bursts every 50mS, and confirming that there was no more than | packet bursts every 50mS, and confirming that there was no more than | |||
1 packet loss per 33 bursts (363 total packets in 1.650 seconds). | 1 packet loss per 33 bursts (363 total packets in 1.650 seconds). | |||
Since this number represents is the entire end-to-end loss budget, | Since this number represents is the entire end-to-end loss budget, | |||
independent subpath tests could be implemented by apportioning the | independent subpath tests could be implemented by apportioning the | |||
packet loss ratio across subpaths. For example 50% of the losses | packet loss ratio across subpaths. For example 50% of the losses | |||
might be allocated to the access or last mile link to the user, 40% | might be allocated to the access or last mile link to the user, 40% | |||
to the interconnects with other ISPs and 1% to each internal hop | to the network interconnections with other ISPs and 1% to each | |||
(assuming no more than 10 internal hops). Then all of the subpaths | internal hop (assuming no more than 10 internal hops). Then all of | |||
can be tested independently, and the spatial composition of passing | the subpaths can be tested independently, and the spatial composition | |||
subpaths would be expected to be within the end-to-end loss budget. | of passing subpaths would be expected to be within the end-to-end | |||
loss budget. | ||||
9.1. Observations about applicability | 9.1. Observations about applicability | |||
Guidance on deploying and using MBM belong in a future document. | Guidance on deploying and using MBM belong in a future document. | |||
However this example illustrates some the issues that may need to be | However this example illustrates some the issues that may need to be | |||
considered. | considered. | |||
Note that a another ISP, with different geographical coverage, | Note that another ISP, with different geographical coverage, topology | |||
topology or modem technology may need to assume a different | or modem technology may need to assume a different target_RTT, and as | |||
target_RTT, and as a consequence different target_window_size and | a consequence different target_window_size and target_run_length, | |||
target_run_length, even for the same target_data rate. One of the | even for the same target_data rate. One of the implications of this | |||
implications of this is that infrastructure shared by multiple ISPs, | is that infrastructure shared by multiple ISPs, such as inter- | |||
such as inter-exchange points (IXPs) and other interconnects may need | exchange points (IXPs) and other interconnects may need to be | |||
to be evaluated on the basis of the most stringent target_window_size | evaluated on the basis of the most stringent target_window_size and | |||
and target_run_length of any participating ISP. One way to do this | target_run_length of any participating ISP. One way to do this might | |||
might be to choose target parameters for evaluating such shared | be to choose target parameters for evaluating such shared | |||
infrastructure on the basis of a hypothetical reference path that | infrastructure on the basis of a hypothetical reference path that | |||
does not necessarily match any actual paths. | does not necessarily match any actual paths. | |||
Testing interconnects has generally been problematic: conventional | Testing interconnects has generally been problematic: conventional | |||
performance tests run between measurement points adjacent to either | performance tests run between measurement points adjacent to either | |||
side of the interconnect are not generally useful. Unconstrained TCP | side of the interconnect are not generally useful. Unconstrained TCP | |||
tests, such as iPerf [iPerf] are usually overly aggressive due to the | tests, such as iPerf [iPerf] are usually overly aggressive due to the | |||
small RTT (often less than 1 mS). With a short RTT these tools are | small RTT (often less than 1 mS). With a short RTT these tools are | |||
likely to report inflated data rates because on a short RTT these | likely to report inflated data rates because on a short RTT these | |||
tools can tolerate very high packet loss ratios and can push other | tools can tolerate very high packet loss ratios and can push other | |||
skipping to change at page 43, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 44, line 38 ¶ | |||
An infinitesimally passing testbed resembles a epsilon-delta proof in | An infinitesimally passing testbed resembles a epsilon-delta proof in | |||
calculus. Construct a test network such that all of the individual | calculus. Construct a test network such that all of the individual | |||
tests of the TIDS pass by only small (infinitesimal) margins, and | tests of the TIDS pass by only small (infinitesimal) margins, and | |||
demonstrate that a variety of authentic applications running over | demonstrate that a variety of authentic applications running over | |||
real TCP implementations (or other protocol as appropriate) meets the | real TCP implementations (or other protocol as appropriate) meets the | |||
Target Transport Performance over such a network. The workloads | Target Transport Performance over such a network. The workloads | |||
should include multiple types of streaming media and transaction | should include multiple types of streaming media and transaction | |||
oriented short flows (e.g. synthetic web traffic). | oriented short flows (e.g. synthetic web traffic). | |||
For example, for the HD streaming video TIDS described in Section 9, | For example, for the HD streaming video TIDS described in Section 9, | |||
the IP capacity should be exactly the header overhead above 2.5 Mb/s, | the IP capacity should be exactly the header_overhead above 2.5 Mb/s, | |||
the per packet random background loss ratio should be 1/363, for a | the per packet random background loss ratio should be 1/363, for a | |||
run length of 363 packets, the bottleneck queue should be 11 packets | run length of 363 packets, the bottleneck queue should be 11 packets | |||
and the front path should have just enough buffering to withstand 11 | and the front path should have just enough buffering to withstand 11 | |||
packet interface rate bursts. We want every one of the TIDS tests to | packet interface rate bursts. We want every one of the TIDS tests to | |||
fail if we slightly increase the relevant test parameter, so for | fail if we slightly increase the relevant test parameter, so for | |||
example sending a 12 packet bursts should cause excess (possibly | example sending a 12 packet bursts should cause excess (possibly | |||
deterministic) packet drops at the dominant queue at the bottleneck. | deterministic) packet drops at the dominant queue at the bottleneck. | |||
On this infinitesimally passing network it should be possible for a | On this infinitesimally passing network it should be possible for a | |||
real application using a stock TCP implementation in the vendor's | real application using a stock TCP implementation in the vendor's | |||
default configuration to attain 2.5 Mb/s over an 50 mS path. | default configuration to attain 2.5 Mb/s over an 50 mS path. | |||
skipping to change at page 44, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 45, line 31 ¶ | |||
11. Security Considerations | 11. Security Considerations | |||
Measurement is often used to inform business and policy decisions, | Measurement is often used to inform business and policy decisions, | |||
and as a consequence is potentially subject to manipulation. Model | and as a consequence is potentially subject to manipulation. Model | |||
Based Metrics are expected to be a huge step forward because | Based Metrics are expected to be a huge step forward because | |||
equivalent measurements can be performed from multiple vantage | equivalent measurements can be performed from multiple vantage | |||
points, such that performance claims can be independently validated | points, such that performance claims can be independently validated | |||
by multiple parties. | by multiple parties. | |||
Much of the acrimony in the Net Neutrality debate is due by the | Much of the acrimony in the Net Neutrality debate is due to the | |||
historical lack of any effective vantage independent tools to | historical lack of any effective vantage independent tools to | |||
characterize network performance. Traditional methods for measuring | characterize network performance. Traditional methods for measuring | |||
Bulk Transport Capacity are sensitive to RTT and as a consequence | Bulk Transport Capacity are sensitive to RTT and as a consequence | |||
often yield very different results when run local to an ISP or | often yield very different results when run local to an ISP or | |||
interconnect and when run over a customer's complete path. Neither | interconnect and when run over a customer's complete path. Neither | |||
the ISP nor customer can repeat the others measurements, leading to | the ISP nor customer can repeat the others measurements, leading to | |||
high levels of distrust and acrimony. Model Based Metrics are | high levels of distrust and acrimony. Model Based Metrics are | |||
expected to greatly improve this situation. | expected to greatly improve this situation. | |||
This document only describes a framework for designing Fully | This document only describes a framework for designing Fully | |||
Specified Targeted IP Diagnostic Suite. Each FS-TIDS MUST include | Specified Targeted IP Diagnostic Suite. Each FS-TIDS MUST include | |||
its own security section. | its own security section. | |||
12. Acknowledgements | 12. Acknowledgments | |||
Ganga Maguluri suggested the statistical test for measuring loss | Ganga Maguluri suggested the statistical test for measuring loss | |||
probability in the target run length. Alex Gilgur for helping with | probability in the target run length. Alex Gilgur for helping with | |||
the statistics. | the statistics. | |||
Meredith Whittaker for improving the clarity of the communications. | Meredith Whittaker for improving the clarity of the communications. | |||
Ruediger Geib provided feedback which greatly improved the document. | Ruediger Geib provided feedback which greatly improved the document. | |||
This work was inspired by Measurement Lab: open tools running on an | This work was inspired by Measurement Lab: open tools running on an | |||
skipping to change at page 46, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 48, line 5 ¶ | |||
[RFC7661] Fairhurst, G., Sathiaseelan, A., and R. Secchi, "Updating | [RFC7661] Fairhurst, G., Sathiaseelan, A., and R. Secchi, "Updating | |||
TCP to Support Rate-Limited Traffic", RFC 7661, | TCP to Support Rate-Limited Traffic", RFC 7661, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC7661, October 2015, | DOI 10.17487/RFC7661, October 2015, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7661>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7661>. | |||
[RFC7680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton, | [RFC7680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton, | |||
Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics | Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics | |||
(IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January | (IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January | |||
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>. | 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>. | |||
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with | ||||
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, | ||||
May 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>. | ||||
[MSMO97] Mathis, M., Semke, J., Mahdavi, J., and T. Ott, "The | [MSMO97] Mathis, M., Semke, J., Mahdavi, J., and T. Ott, "The | |||
Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance | Macroscopic Behavior of the TCP Congestion Avoidance | |||
Algorithm", Computer Communications Review volume 27, | Algorithm", Computer Communications Review volume 27, | |||
number3, July 1997. | number3, July 1997. | |||
[WPING] Mathis, M., "Windowed Ping: An IP Level Performance | [WPING] Mathis, M., "Windowed Ping: An IP Level Performance | |||
Diagnostic", INET 94, June 1994. | Diagnostic", INET 94, June 1994. | |||
[mpingSource] | [mpingSource] | |||
Fan, X., Mathis, M., and D. Hamon, "Git Repository for | Fan, X., Mathis, M., and D. Hamon, "Git Repository for | |||
skipping to change at page 48, line 8 ¶ | skipping to change at page 49, line 35 ¶ | |||
[Policing] | [Policing] | |||
Flach, T., Papageorge, P., Terzis, A., Pedrosa, L., Cheng, | Flach, T., Papageorge, P., Terzis, A., Pedrosa, L., Cheng, | |||
Y., Karim, T., Katz-Bassett, E., and R. Govindan, "An | Y., Karim, T., Katz-Bassett, E., and R. Govindan, "An | |||
Internet-Wide Analysis of Traffic Policing", ACM SIGCOMM , | Internet-Wide Analysis of Traffic Policing", ACM SIGCOMM , | |||
August 2016. | August 2016. | |||
Appendix A. Model Derivations | Appendix A. Model Derivations | |||
The reference target_run_length described in Section 5.2 is based on | The reference target_run_length described in Section 5.2 is based on | |||
very conservative assumptions: that all window above | very conservative assumptions: that all excess data in flight | |||
target_window_size contributes to a standing queue that raises the | (window) above the target_window_size contributes to a standing queue | |||
RTT, and that classic Reno congestion control with delayed ACKs are | that raises the RTT, and that classic Reno congestion control with | |||
in effect. In this section we provide two alternative calculations | delayed ACKs are in effect. In this section we provide two | |||
using different assumptions. | alternative calculations using different assumptions. | |||
It may seem out of place to allow such latitude in a measurement | It may seem out of place to allow such latitude in a measurement | |||
standard, but this section provides offsetting requirements. | method, but this section provides offsetting requirements. | |||
The estimates provided by these models make the most sense if network | The estimates provided by these models make the most sense if network | |||
performance is viewed logarithmically. In the operational Internet, | performance is viewed logarithmically. In the operational Internet, | |||
data rates span more than 8 orders of magnitude, RTT spans more than | data rates span more than 8 orders of magnitude, RTT spans more than | |||
3 orders of magnitude, and packet loss ratio spans at least 8 orders | 3 orders of magnitude, and packet loss ratio spans at least 8 orders | |||
of magnitude if not more. When viewed logarithmically (as in | of magnitude if not more. When viewed logarithmically (as in | |||
decibels), these correspond to 80 dB of dynamic range. On an 80 dB | decibels), these correspond to 80 dB of dynamic range. On an 80 dB | |||
scale, a 3 dB error is less than 4% of the scale, even though it | scale, a 3 dB error is less than 4% of the scale, even though it | |||
represents a factor of 2 in untransformed parameter. | represents a factor of 2 in untransformed parameter. | |||
skipping to change at page 49, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 50, line 36 ¶ | |||
not involve extra delay, for example by the use of a virtual queue as | not involve extra delay, for example by the use of a virtual queue as | |||
done in Approximate Fair Dropping [AFD]. A flow controlled by such a | done in Approximate Fair Dropping [AFD]. A flow controlled by such a | |||
bottleneck would have a constant RTT and a data rate that fluctuates | bottleneck would have a constant RTT and a data rate that fluctuates | |||
in a sawtooth due to AIMD congestion control. Assume the losses are | in a sawtooth due to AIMD congestion control. Assume the losses are | |||
being controlled to make the average data rate meet some goal which | being controlled to make the average data rate meet some goal which | |||
is equal or greater than the target_rate. The necessary run length | is equal or greater than the target_rate. The necessary run length | |||
to meet the target_rate can be computed as follows: | to meet the target_rate can be computed as follows: | |||
For some value of Wmin, the window will sweep from Wmin packets to | For some value of Wmin, the window will sweep from Wmin packets to | |||
2*Wmin packets in 2*Wmin RTT (due to delayed ACK). Unlike the | 2*Wmin packets in 2*Wmin RTT (due to delayed ACK). Unlike the | |||
queueing case where Wmin = target_window_size, we want the average of | queuing case where Wmin = target_window_size, we want the average of | |||
Wmin and 2*Wmin to be the target_window_size, so the average data | Wmin and 2*Wmin to be the target_window_size, so the average data | |||
rate is the target rate. Thus we want Wmin = | rate is the target rate. Thus we want Wmin = | |||
(2/3)*target_window_size. | (2/3)*target_window_size. | |||
Between losses each sawtooth delivers (1/2)(Wmin+2*Wmin)(2Wmin) | Between losses each sawtooth delivers (1/2)(Wmin+2*Wmin)(2Wmin) | |||
packets in 2*Wmin round trip times. | packets in 2*Wmin round trip times. | |||
Substituting these together we get: | Substituting these together we get: | |||
target_run_length = (4/3)(target_window_size^2) | target_run_length = (4/3)(target_window_size^2) | |||
skipping to change at page 50, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 51, line 38 ¶ | |||
contiguous burst on the forward path, followed by the entire window | contiguous burst on the forward path, followed by the entire window | |||
of ACKs on the return path. | of ACKs on the return path. | |||
If a particular return path contains a subpath or device that alters | If a particular return path contains a subpath or device that alters | |||
the timing of the ACK stream, then the entire front path from the | the timing of the ACK stream, then the entire front path from the | |||
sender up to the bottleneck must be tested at the burst parameters | sender up to the bottleneck must be tested at the burst parameters | |||
implied by the ACK scheduling algorithm. The most important | implied by the ACK scheduling algorithm. The most important | |||
parameter is the Implied Bottleneck IP Capacity, which is the average | parameter is the Implied Bottleneck IP Capacity, which is the average | |||
rate at which the ACKs advance snd.una. Note that thinning the ACK | rate at which the ACKs advance snd.una. Note that thinning the ACK | |||
stream (relying on the cumulative nature of seg.ack to permit | stream (relying on the cumulative nature of seg.ack to permit | |||
discarding some ACKs) causes most TCP implementation to send | discarding some ACKs) causes most TCP implementations to send | |||
interface rate bursts to offset the longer times between ACKs in | interface rate bursts to offset the longer times between ACKs in | |||
order to maintain the average data rate. | order to maintain the average data rate. | |||
Note that due to ubiquitous self clocking in Internet protocols, ill | Note that due to ubiquitous self clocking in Internet protocols, ill | |||
conceived channel allocation mechanisms are likely to increases the | conceived channel allocation mechanisms are likely to increases the | |||
queuing stress on the front path because they cause larger full | queuing stress on the front path because they cause larger full | |||
sender rate data bursts. | sender rate data bursts. | |||
Holding data or ACKs for channel allocation or other reasons (such as | Holding data or ACKs for channel allocation or other reasons (such as | |||
forward error correction) always raises the effective RTT relative to | forward error correction) always raises the effective RTT relative to | |||
End of changes. 112 change blocks. | ||||
323 lines changed or deleted | 405 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |