[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5136

IP Performance Metrics Working                               P. Chimento
Group                                            JHU Applied Physics Lab
Internet-Draft                                                  J. Ishac
Expires: December 23, 2006                    NASA Glenn Research Center
                                                           June 21, 2006


                       Defining Network Capacity
                     draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-03

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   Measuring capacity is a task that sounds simple, but in reality can
   be quite complex.  In addition, the lack of a unified nomenclature on
   this subject makes it increasingly difficult to properly build, test,
   and use techniques and tools built around these constructs.  This
   document provides definitions for the terms 'Capacity' and 'Available
   Capacity' related to IP traffic traveling between a source and
   destination in an IP network.  By doing so, we hope to provide a



Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


   common framework for the discussion and analysis of a diverse set of
   current and future estimation techniques.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

   3.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1   Standard or Correctly Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2   Other Potential Factors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3   Common Literature Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4   Comparison to Bulk Transfer Capacity (BTC) . . . . . . . .  9
     3.5   Type P Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.6   Time and Sampling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   4.  Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 17



















Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


1.  Introduction

   Measuring the capacity of a link or network path is a task that
   sounds simple, but in reality can be quite complex.  Any physical
   medium requires that information be encoded and, depending on the
   medium, there are various schemes to convert information into a
   sequence of signals that are transmitted physically from one location
   to another.

   While on some media, the maximum frequency of these signals can be
   thought of as "capacity", on other media, the signal transmission
   frequency and the information capacity of the medium (channel) may be
   quite different.  For example, a satellite channel may have a carrier
   frequency of a few gigahertz, but an information-carrying capacity of
   only a few hundred kilobits per second.  Often similar or identical
   terms are used to refer to these different applications of capacity,
   adding to the ambiguity and confusion, and the lack of a unified
   nomenclature makes it difficult to properly build, test, and use
   various techniques and tools.

   We are interested in information-carrying capacity, but even this is
   not straightforward.  Each of the layers, depending on the medium,
   adds overhead to the task of carrying information.  The wired
   Ethernet uses Manchester coding or 4/5 coding which cuts down
   considerably on the "theoretical" capacity.  Similarly RF (radio
   frequency) communications will often add redundancy to the coding
   scheme to implement forward error correction because the physical
   medium (air) is lossy.  This can further decrease the information
   efficiency.

   In addition to coding schemes, usually the physical layer and the
   link layer add framing bits for multiplexing and control purposes.
   For example, on SONET there is physical layer framing and typically
   also some layer 2 framing such as HDLC, PPP or even ATM.

   Aside from questions of coding efficiency, there are issues of how
   access to the channel is controlled which may affect the capacity
   also.  For example, a multiple-access medium with collision
   detection, avoidance and recovery mechanisms has a varying capacity
   from the point of view of the users.  This varying capacity depends
   upon the total number of users contending for the medium, how busy
   the users are, and bounds resulting from the mechanisms themselves.
   RF channels are also varying capacity, depending on range,
   environmental conditions, mobility and shadowing, etc.

   The important points to derive from this discussion are these: First,
   capacity is only meaningful when defined relative to a given protocol
   layer in the network.  It is meaningless to speak of "link" capacity



Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


   without qualifying exactly what is meant.  Second, capacity is not
   necessarily fixed, and consequently, a single measure of capacity at
   whatever layer may in fact provide a skewed picture (either
   optimistic or pessimistic) of what is actually available.















































Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


2.  Definitions

   In this section, we specify definitions for capacity.  We begin by
   first defining a baseline capacity that is simply tied to the
   physical properties of the link.

   Nominal Physical Link Capacity:
      Or NomCap(L) is the theoretical maximum amount of data that the
      link can support.  For example, an OC-3 link would be capable of
      roughly 155 Mbps.  We stress that this is a measurement at the
      physical layer and not the network IP layer, which we will define
      separately.  While NomCap(L) is typically constant over time,
      there are links whose characteristics may allow otherwise, such as
      the dynamic activation of additional transponders for a satellite
      link.

   The nominal physical link capacity is provided as a means to help
   distinguish between the commonly used link layer capacities and the
   remaining definitions for IP layer capacity.  As a result, the value
   of NomCap(L) does not influence the other definitions presented in
   this document.

   There are many factors that can reduce the IP information carrying
   capacity of the link, some of which have already been discussed in
   the introduction.  However, the goal of this document is not to
   become an exhaustive list of of such factors.  Rather, we outline
   some of the major examples in the following section, thus providing
   food for thought to those implementing the algorithms or tools that
   attempt to measure capacity accurately.

   The remaining definitions are all given in terms of "IP layer bits"
   in order to distinguish these definitions from the nominal physical
   capacity of the link.

   IP layer bits:
      Eight (8) times the number of octets in all IP packets received,
      from the first octet of the IP header to the last octet of the IP
      packet payload, inclusive.

   We then define a path P of length n as a series of links (L1, L2,
   ..., Ln) connecting a sequence of nodes (N1, N2, ..., Nn+1).  A
   source, S, and destination, D, reside at N1 and Nn+1 respectively.
   Furthermore, we define a link L as a special case where the path size
   is one.  The concept of links are consistent with [RFC2330] in that
   they represent a link-level connection between two nodes, and each
   node is not necessarily a router.  However, the concept of a path
   differs slightly as intermediate nodes N2...Nn do not need to be
   routers.  They may, for example, be Ethernet switches or other kinds



Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


   of layer 2 or layer 1 devices.

   IP layer bits are recorded at the destination, D, beginning at time T
   and ending at a time T+I. Since the definitions are based on
   averages, the two time parameters, T and I, must accompany any report
   or estimate of the following values in order for them to remain
   meaningful.  It is not required that the interval boundary points
   fall between packet arrivals at D. However, boundaries that fall
   within a packet will invalidate the packets on which they fall.
   Specifically, the data from the partial packet that is contained
   within the interval will not be counted.  This may artificially bias
   some of the values, depending on the length of the interval and the
   amount of data received during that interval.  We elaborate on what
   constitutes correctly received data in the next section.

   IP Layer Link Capacity:
      We define the IP Layer link capacity, C(L,T,I), to be the maximum
      number of IP layer bits that can be transmitted from the source S
      and correctly received by the destination D over the link L during
      the interval [T, T+I], divided by I.

   Using this, we can then extend this notion to an entire path, such
   that the IP layer path capacity simply becomes that of the link with
   the smallest capacity along that path.

   IP Layer Path Capacity:
      C(P,T,I) = min {1..n} {C(Ln,T,I)}

   The previous definitions specify a link's capacity, namely the IP
   information bits that can be transmitted across a link or path should
   the resource be free of any congestion.  Determining how much
   capacity is available for use on a congested link is potentially much
   more useful.  However, in order to define the available capacity we
   must first specify how much is being used.

   IP Layer Link Usage:
      The average usage of a link L, Used(L,T,I), is the actual number
      of IP layer bits from any source, correctly received over link L
      during the interval [T, T+I], divided by I.

   An important distinction between usage and capacity is that
   Used(L,T,I) is not the maximum amount, but rather, the actual amount
   of IP bits that are correctly received.  The information transmitted
   across the link can be generated by any source, including those who
   may not be directly attached to either side of the link.  In
   addition, each information flow from these sources may share any
   number (from one to n) of links in the overall path between S and D.
   Next, we express usage as a fraction of the overall IP layer link



Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


   capacity.

   Average IP Layer Link Utilization:
      Util(L,T,I) = ( Used(L,T,I) / C(L,T,I) )

   Thus, the utilization now represents the fraction of the capacity
   that is being used and is a value between zero, meaning nothing is
   used, and one, meaning the link is fully saturated.  Multiplying the
   utilization by 100 yields the percent utilization of the link.  By
   using the above, we can now define the capacity available over the
   link as well as the path between S and D. Note that this is
   essentially the definition in [PDM].

   IP Layer Available Link Capacity
      AvailCap(L,T,I) = C(L,T,I) * ( 1 - Util(L,T,I) )

   IP Layer Available Path Capacity
      AvailCap(P,T,I) = min {1..n} {AvailCap(Ln,T,I)}

   Since measurements of available capacity are more volatile than that
   of capacity, it is important that both the time and interval be
   specified as their values have a great deal of influence on the
   results.  In addition, a sequence of measurements may be beneficial
   in offsetting the volatility when attempting to characterize
   available capacity.


























Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


3.  Discussion

3.1  Standard or Correctly Formed Packets

   The definitions in this document specify that IP packets must be
   received correctly.  The IPPM framework recommends a set of criteria
   for such standard-formed packet in section 15 of [RFC2330].  However,
   it is inadequate for use with this document.  Thus, we outline our
   own criteria below while pointing out any variations or similarities
   to [RFC2330].

   First, data that is in error at layers below IP and cannot be
   properly passed to the IP layer should not be counted.  For example,
   wireless media often has a considerably larger error rate than wired
   media, resulting in a reduction in IP Link Capacity.  In accordance
   with the framework, packets that fail validation of the IP header
   should be discarded.  Specifically, the requirements in [RFC1812]
   section 5.2.2 on IP header validation should be checked, which
   includes a valid length, checksum, and version field.

   The framework specifies further restrictions, requiring that any
   transport header be checked for correctness and that any packets with
   IP options be ignored.  However, the definitions in this document are
   concerned with the traversal of IP layer bits.  As a result, data
   from the higher layers is not required to be valid or understood as
   they are simply regarded as part of the IP packet.  The same holds
   true for IP options.  Valid IP fragments should also be counted as
   they expend the resources of a link even though assembly of the full
   packet may not be possible.  The framework differs in this area,
   discarding IP fragments.

   In summary, any IP packet that can be properly processed should be
   included in these calculations.

3.2  Other Potential Factors

   The base definitions make no mention of hardware duplication of
   packets.  While hardware duplication has no impact on the nominal
   capacity, it can impact the IP link layer capacity.  For example,
   consider a link which can normally carry a capacity of 2X on average.
   However, the link has developed a syndrome where it duplicates every
   incoming packet.  The link would still technically carry a capacity
   of 2X, however the link has a effective capacity of X or lower,
   depending on framing overhead to send the duplicates, etc.  Thus, a
   value for C(L,T,I) and AvailCap(L,T,I) will reflect the duplication
   with the lower value.

   IP encapsulation does not impact the definitions as all IP header and



Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


   payload bits should be counted regardless of content.  However,
   different sized IP packets can lead to a variation in the amount of
   overhead needed at the lower layers to transmit the data, thus
   altering the overall IP link layer capacity.

   Should the link happen to employ a compression scheme such as ROHC
   [RFC3095] or V.44 [V44], some of the original bits are not
   transmitted across the link.  However, the inflated (not compressed)
   number of IP-layer bits should be counted.

3.3  Common Literature Terminology

   Certain terms are often used to characterize specific aspects of the
   presented definitions.  The link with the smallest capacity is
   commonly referred to as the "narrow link" of a path.  Also, the value
   of n that satisfies AvailCap(P,T,I), is often referred to as the
   "tight link" within a path.  So, while Ln may have a very large
   capacity, the overall congestion level on the link makes it the
   likely bottleneck of a connection.  Conversely, a link that has the
   smallest capacity may not be a bottleneck should it be lightly loaded
   in relation to the rest of the path.

   Also, common literature often overloads the term "bandwidth" to refer
   to what we have described as capacity in this document.  For example,
   when inquiring about the bandwidth of a 802.11b link, a network
   engineer will likely answer with 11 Mbps.  However, an electrical
   engineer may answer with 25 MHz, and an end user may tell you that
   his observed bandwidth is 8 Mbps.  In contrast, the term capacity is
   not quite as overloaded and is an appropriate term that better
   reflects what is actually being measured.

3.4  Comparison to Bulk Transfer Capacity (BTC)

   Bulk Transfer Capacity (BTC) [RFC3148] provides a distinct
   perspective on path capacity that differs from the definitions in
   this document in several fundamental ways.  First, BTC operates at
   the transport layer, gauging the amount of capacity available to an
   application that wishes to send data.  Only unique data is measured,
   meaning header and retransmitted data are not included in the
   calculation.  In contrast, IP layer link capacity includes the IP
   header and is indifferent to the uniqueness of the data contained
   within the packet payload (Hardware duplication of packets is an
   anomaly addressed in the previous section).  Second, BTC utilizes a
   single congestion aware transport connection, such as TCP, to obtain
   measurements.  As a result, BTC implementations react strongly to
   different path characteristics, topologies, and distances.  Since
   these differences can affect the control loop (propagation delays,
   segment reordering, etc), the reaction is further dependent on the



Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


   algorithms being employed for the measurements.  For example,
   consider a single event where a link suffers a large duration of bit
   errors.  The event could cause IP layer packets to be discarded, and
   the lost packets would reduce the IP layer link capacity.  However,
   the same event and subsequent losses would trigger loss recovery for
   a BTC measurement resulting in the retransmission of data and a
   potentially reduced sending rate.  Thus, a measurement of BTC does
   not correspond to any of the definitions in this document.  Both
   techniques are useful in exploring the characteristics of a network
   path, but from different perspectives.

3.5  Type P Packets

   Note that these definitions do not make mention of "Type P" packets,
   while other IPPM definitions do.  We could add the packet type as an
   extra parameter.  This would have the effect of defining a large
   number of quantities, relative to the QoS policies that a given
   network or concatenation of networks may have in effect in the path.
   It would produce metrics such as "estimated EF IP Link/Path Capacity"
   or "estimated EF IP Link Utilization".

   Such metrics may indeed be useful.  For example, this would yield
   something like the sum of the capacities of all the QoS classes
   defined along the path as the link or path capacity.  The breakdown
   then gives the user an analysis of how the link or path capacity (or
   at least the "tight link" capacity) is allocated among classes.

   These QoS-based capacities become difficult to measure on a path if
   there are different capacities defined per QoS class on different
   links in the path.  Possibly the best way to approach this would be
   to measure each link in a path individually, and then combine the
   information from individual links.

3.6  Time and Sampling

   We must emphasize the importance of time in the basic definitions of
   these quantities.  We know that traffic on the Internet is highly
   variable across all time scales.  This argues that the time and
   length of measurements are critical variables in reporting available
   capacity measurements.

   The closer to "instantaneous" a metric is, the more important it is
   to have a plan for sampling the metric over a time period that is
   sufficiently large.  By doing so, we allow valid statistical
   inferences to be made from the measurements.  An obvious pitfall here
   is sampling in a way that causes bias.  For example, a situation
   where the sampling frequency is a multiple of the frequency of an
   underlying condition.



Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


4.  Conclusion

   In this document, we have defined a set of quantities related to the
   capacity of links in an IP network.  In these definitions, we have
   tried to be as clear as possible and take into account various
   characteristics that links can have.  The goal of these definitions
   is to enable researchers who propose capacity metrics to relate those
   metrics to these definitions and to evaluate those metrics with
   respect to how well they approximate these quantities.

   In addition, we have pointed out some key auxiliary parameters and
   opened a discussion of issues related to valid inferences from
   available capacity metrics.






































Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.













































Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


6.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies definitions regarding IP traffic traveling
   between a source and destination in an IP network.  These definitions
   do not raise any security issues and do not have a direct impact on
   the networking protocol suite.













































Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


7.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to acknowledge Mark Allman, Patrik Arlos, Matt
   Mathis, Al Morton, and Stanislav Shalunov for their suggestions,
   comments, and reviews.  We also thank members of the IETF IPPM
   Mailing List for their discussions and feedback on this document.













































Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


8.  References

8.1  Normative References

8.2  Informative References

   [PDM]      Dovrolis, C., Ramanathan, P., and D. Moore, "Packet
              Dispersion Techniques and a Capacity Estimation
              Methodology", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 12(6):
              963-977, December 2004.

   [RFC1812]  Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
              RFC 1812, June 1995.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
              "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
              May 1998.

   [RFC3095]  Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
              Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le,
              K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
              Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
              Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
              ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001.

   [RFC3148]  Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining
              Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148,
              July 2001.

   [V44]      ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)
              Recommendation V.44, "Data Compression Procedures",
              November 2000.
















Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Phil Chimento
   JHU Applied Physics Lab
   11100 Johns Hopkins Road
   Laurel, Maryland  20723-6099
   USA

   Phone: +1-240-228-1743
   Fax:   +1-240-228-0789
   Email: Philip.Chimento@jhuapl.edu


   Joseph Ishac
   NASA Glenn Research Center
   21000 Brookpark Road
   Cleveland, Ohio  44135
   USA

   Phone: +1-216-433-6587
   Fax:   +1-216-433-8705
   Email: jishac@grc.nasa.gov





























Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              Network Capacity                   June 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Chimento & Ishac        Expires December 23, 2006              [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/