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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 5560

Network Working Group                                      H. Uijterwaal
Internet-Draft                                                  RIPE NCC
Intended status: Standards Track                          August 6, 2007
Expires: February 7, 2008


              A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric for IPPM
                    draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-02.txt

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 February 7, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   When a packet is sent from one host to the other, one normally
   expects that exactly one copy of the packet that was sent arrives at
   the destination.  It is, however, possible that a packet is either
   lost or that multiple copies arrive.

   In earlier work, the IPPM group defined a metric for packet loss.
   This metric quantifies the case where a packet that is sent, never
   arrives at its destination.  In this memo, a metric for the opposite



Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


   case is defined: a packet is sent, but multiple copies arrive.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  A Singleton Definition for one-way packet arrival  . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Metric Name  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Metrics Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.5.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.6.  Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.7.  Errors and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.8.  Reporting the metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  A Singleton Definition for one-way packet duplication  . . . .  6
     3.1.  Metric Name  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Metrics Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.5.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Definition for samples for one-way Packet Duplication  . . . .  7
     4.1.  Poisson Streams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.1.  Metric Name  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.2.  Metric Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.3.  Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.1.4.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.5.  Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.6.  Errors and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.7.  Reporting the metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Periodic Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.1.  Metric Name  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.2.  Metric Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.3.  Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.4.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.5.  Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.6.  Errors and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.7.  Reporting the metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Some statistics definitions for one-way Duplication  . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  Type-P-one-way-replicated-packet-rate  . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.3.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12



Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13















































Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


1.  Introduction

   This document defines a metric for one-way packet duplication across
   Internet paths.  It builds on the IPPM Framework document [RFC2330];
   the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document.

   This document follows the same structure as the document for one-way
   Packet Loss [RFC2680]; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that
   document as well.

   The structure of this memo is as follows:
   o  First, a singleton metric, called Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-
      count, is introduced to measure the number of arriving packets for
      each packet sent.
   o  Then, a singleton metric, called Type-P-one-way-packet-
      duplication, is defined to describe a single instance of packet
      duplication.
   o  Next, this singleton metric is used to define samples, Type-P-one-
      way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream and Type-P-one-way-Packet-
      Duplication-Periodic-Stream.  These are introduced to measure
      duplication in a series of packets sent with either Poisson-
      distributed [RFC2680] or periodic [RFC3432] intervals between the
      packets.
   o  Finally, a method to summarise the properties of these samples are
      introduced.

1.1.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.2.  Motivation

   When a packet is sent from one host to the other, one normally
   expects that exactly one copy of the packet that was sent arrives at
   the destination.  It is, however, possible that a packet is either
   lost or that multiple copies arrive.

   In earlier work, the IPPM group defined a metric for packet loss
   [RFC2680].  This metric quantifies the case where a packet that is
   sent, never arrives at its destination.  In this memo, a metric for
   the opposite case is defined: a packet is sent, but multiple copies
   arrive.

   As this document describes a case similar to the one discussed in
   [RFC2680], all considerations from that document on timing and
   accuracy apply.



Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


2.  A Singleton Definition for one-way packet arrival

2.1.  Metric Name

   Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count

2.2.  Metrics Parameters

   o  Src, the IP address of a host
   o  Dst, the IP address of a host
   o  T, a time
   o  T0, a time

2.3.  Metric Units

   An integer number

2.4.  Definition

   Two packets are considered identical when were sent by one and the
   same host and contain identical information fields.  The recipient
   thus could take either packet and use it in an application, the other
   copy would not contain any additional information.

   The IP headers do not necessarily have to be identical.  This can
   happen, for example, if two packets take a different route resulting
   in a different TTL.

   The value of a Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count is a positive
   integer number indicating the number of (uncorrupted and identical)
   copies received by dst in the interval [T, T+T0] for a packet sent by
   src at time T.

   If a packet is sent, but it is lost or does not arrive in the
   interval [T, T+T0], then the metric is undefined.  Applications MAY
   report an "impossible" value (for example, -1) to indicate this
   condition instead of undefined.

   If a packet is fragmented during transport and if, for whatever
   reason, re-assembly does not occur, then the packet will be deemed
   lost.  It is thus not included in the Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-
   count.

2.5.  Discussion

   This metric counts the number of packets arriving for each packet
   sent.  The time-out value T0 SHOULD be set to a value when the
   application could potentially still use the packet and not discard it



Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


   automatically.

   The metric only counts packets that are not corrupted during
   transmission and may have been resent automatically by lower layers
   or intermediate devices.  Packets that were corrupted during
   transmission but nevertheless still arrived at dst are not counted.

   Because of the definition of duplication (identical information
   fields), active measurement systems MUST NOT send multiple packets
   with identical information fields, in order to avoid that all packets
   will be declared duplicates.

2.6.  Methodology

   The basic technique to measure this metrics follows the methodology
   described in [RFC2680], section 2.6, with one exception.

   [RFC2680] does specify that the receiving host should be able to
   receive multiple copies of a single packet, as it only needs one copy
   to determine the metrics.  Implementations for this metric should
   obviously be capable to receive multiple copies.

2.7.  Errors and uncertainties

   Refer to section 2.7 of [RFC2680]

2.8.  Reporting the metric

   Refer to section 2.8 of [RFC2680]


3.  A Singleton Definition for one-way packet duplication

3.1.  Metric Name

   Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication

3.2.  Metrics Parameters

   o  Src, the IP address of a host
   o  Dst, the IP address of a host
   o  T, a time
   o  T0, a time

3.3.  Metric Units

   An integer number.




Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


3.4.  Definition

   The value of a Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication is a positive
   integer number indicating the number of (uncorrupted and identical)
   additional copies of an individual packet received by dst in the
   interval [T, T+T0] sent by src at time T.

   If a packet is sent and only one copy arrives in the interval [T,
   T+T0], then the metric is 0.  If no copy arrives in this interval, ,
   then the metric is undefined.  Applications MAY report an
   "impossible" value (for example, -1) to indicate this condition.

3.5.  Discussion

   This metric is equal to

         Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count - 1

   This metric is expected to be used for applications that need to know
   duplication for an individual packet.  All considerations regarding
   methodology, errors and reporting from the previous section apply.


4.  Definition for samples for one-way Packet Duplication

4.1.  Poisson Streams

4.1.1.  Metric Name

   Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream

4.1.2.  Metric Parameters

   o  Src, the IP address of a host
   o  Dst, the IP address of a host
   o  Ts, a time
   o  T0, a time
   o  Tf, a time
   o  lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds

4.1.3.  Metric Units

   A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
   o  T, a time
   o  Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count for the packet sent at T.






Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


4.1.4.  Definition

   Given Ts, Tf and lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
   beginning at or before Ts, with average rate lambda and ending at or
   after Tf.  Those time values greater than or equal to Ts, and less
   than or equal to Tf are then selected.  At each of the times in this
   process, we obtain the value of Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count.
   The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the resulting
   {time, duplication} pairs.  If there are no such pairs, the sequence
   is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty.

4.1.5.  Methodology

   Refer to [RFC2680], section 3.6.

4.1.6.  Errors and uncertainties

   Refer to [RFC2680], section 3.7.

4.1.7.  Reporting the metric

   Refer to [RFC2680], section 3.8.

4.2.  Periodic Streams

4.2.1.  Metric Name

   Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream

4.2.2.  Metric Parameters

   o  Src, the IP address of a host
   o  Dst, the IP address of a host
   o  Ts, a time
   o  T0, a time
   o  Tf, a time
   o  lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds

4.2.3.  Metric Units

   A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
   o  T, a time
   o  Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count for the packet sent at T.

4.2.4.  Definition

   At time Ts, we start sending packets with a constant rate lambda,
   until time Tf.  For each packet sent, we obtain the value of Type-P-



Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


   one-way-packet-arrival-count.  The value of the sample is the
   sequence made up of the resulting {time, duplication} pairs.  If
   there are no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the
   sample is said to be empty.

4.2.5.  Methodology

   Refer to [RFC2680], section 4.5.

4.2.6.  Errors and uncertainties

   Refer to [RFC2680], section 4.6.

4.2.7.  Reporting the metric

   Refer to [RFC2680], section 4.7.


5.  Some statistics definitions for one-way Duplication

   Note: the statistics described in this section can be used for both
   Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream and Type-P-one-way-
   Packet-Duplication-Periodic-Stream.  The application SHOULD report
   which sample was used as input.

5.1.  Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction

   This statistics gives the fraction of additional packets that arrived
   in a stream.

   Given a Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream, one first
   removes all values of Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication which are
   undefined.  For the remaining pairs in the stream, one calculates:
   (Sum Type-P-one-Way-packet-arrival-count/Number of pairs left) - 1
   (In other words, #packets received/(#sent and not lost).)

   The number can be expressed as a percentage.

   Note: this statistics is the equivalent of the Y.1540 IPDR [Y1540]

5.2.  Type-P-one-way-replicated-packet-rate

   This statistics gives the fraction of packets that was duplicated
   (one or more times) in a stream.

   Given a Type-P-one-way-Packet-Duplication-Poisson-Stream, one first
   removes all values of Type-P-one-way-packet-arrival-count which are
   undefined.  For the remaining pairs in the stream, one counts the



Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


   number of pairs with Type-P-one-Way-packet-arrival-count greater than
   1.  Then one calculates the fraction of packets that meet this
   criterium as a fraction of the total.  (In other words: # with
   duplication/(#sent and not lost).).

   The number can be expressed as a percentage.

   Note: this statistics is the equivalent of the Y.1540 RIPR [Y1540]

5.3.  Examples

   Consider a stream of 4 packets, sent as:

         (1, 2, 3, 4)

   and arriving as:
   o  Case 1: (1, 2, 3, 4)
   o  Case 2: (1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4)
   o  Case 3: (1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4)
   o  Case 4: (1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4)

   Case 1: No packets are duplicated in a stream and both the Type-P-
   one-way-packet-duplication-fraction and the type-P-one-way-packet-
   replicated-packet-rate are 0.

   Case 2: Every packet is duplicated once and the Type-P-one-way-
   packet-duplication-fraction is 100%.  The type-P-one-way-replicated-
   packet-rate is 100% too.

   Case 3: Every packet is duplicated twice, so the Type-P-one-way-
   packet-duplication-fraction is 200%.  The type-P-one-way-replicated-
   packet-rate is still 100%.

   Case 4: Half the packets are duplicated twice and the other half are
   not duplicated.  The Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction is
   again 100% and this number does not show the difference with case 2.
   However, the type-P-one-way-packet-replicated-packet-rate is 50% in
   this case and 100% in case 2.

   However, the type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-rate will not show the
   difference between case 2 and 3.  For this, one has to look at the
   Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction.


6.  Security Considerations

   Conducting Internet measurements raises both security and privacy
   concerns.  This memo does not specify an implementation of the



Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


   metrics, so it does not directly affect the security of the Internet
   nor of applications which run on the Internet.  However,
   implementations of these metrics must be mindful of security and
   privacy concerns.

   There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by
   the measurements, and potential harm to the measurements.  The
   measurements could cause harm because they are active, and inject
   packets into the network.  The measurement parameters MUST be
   carefully selected so that the measurements inject trivial amounts of
   additional traffic into the networks they measure.  If they inject
   "too much" traffic, they can skew the results of the measurement, and
   in extreme cases cause congestion and denial of service.

   The measurements themselves could be harmed by routers giving
   measurement traffic a different priority than "normal" traffic, or by
   an attacker injecting artificial measurement traffic.  If routers can
   recognize measurement traffic and treat it separately, the
   measurements will not reflect actual user traffic.  If an attacker
   injects artificial traffic that is accepted as legitimate, the loss
   rate will be artificially lowered.  Therefore, the measurement
   methodologies SHOULD include appropriate techniques to reduce the
   probability measurement traffic can be distinguished from "normal"
   traffic.  Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may
   be used where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks.

   The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active
   measurements described in this memo.  Unlike passive measurements,
   there can be no release of existing user data.


7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is asked to add this metrics to the IANA IP Performance Metrics
   (IPPM) Metrics Registry, see [RFC4148].  This section can be removed
   after this has been done and upon publication as a RFC.


8.  Acknowledgements

   The idea to write this draft came up in a meeting with Al Morton,
   Stanislav Shalunov, Emile Stephan and the author, on the IPPM
   reporting draft.

   This document relies heavily on [RFC2680] and the author likes to
   thank the authors of that document for writing it.

   Finally, thanks are due to ... for their comments.



Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

9.2.  Informative References

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

   [RFC2680]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
              Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.

   [RFC3432]  Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
              performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
              November 2002.

   [RFC4148]  Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
              Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.

   [Y1540]    A. Morton, "Y.1540", July 2003.


Author's Address

   Henk Uijterwaal
   RIPE NCC
   Singel 258
   1016 AB Amsterdam
   The Netherlands

   Phone: +31 20 535 4444
   Email: henk@ripe.net















Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric            August 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

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


Intellectual Property

   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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Uijterwaal              Expires February 7, 2008               [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/