[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [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                          April 17, 2009
Expires: October 19, 2009


                  A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric
                    draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-08.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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 October 19, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

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



Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


   lost or that multiple copies arrive.

   In earlier work a metric for packet loss has been defined.  This
   metric quantifies the case where a packet that is sent, does not
   arrive at its destination within a reasonable time.  In this memo, a
   metric for another case is defined: a packet is sent, but multiple
   copies arrive.  The document also discusses streams and methods to
   summarize the results of streams.


Table of Contents

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



Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


     5.1.  Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction . . . . . . . . 10
     5.2.  Type-P-one-way-replicated-packet-rate  . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13









































Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


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, statistics that summarize 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].

   Although RFC 2119 was written with protocols in mind, the key words
   are used in this document for similar reasons.  They are used to
   ensure the results of measurements from two different implementations
   are comparable, and to note instances when an implementation could
   perturb the network.

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 a metric for packet loss has been defined [RFC2680].
   This metric distinguishes between cases where the packet arrives and
   where the packet does not arrive within a reasonable time.  In this



Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


   memo, a metric for a third outcome is defined: a single 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.


2.  A Singleton Definition for one-way packet arrival count

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, the wire time of a packet at the source
   o  T0, the maximum waiting time for a packet to arrive at the
      destination.

2.3.  Metric Units

   An integer number

2.4.  Definition

   Two packets are considered identical if and only if:

   o  Both contain identical information fields (see section 2.5).  The
      recipient thus could take either packet and use the data in an
      application.  The other packet does not contain any additional
      information.
   o  Both packets appear to have been sent by one and the same host, to
      one and the same destination.  Host are identified by their IP
      addresses.

   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.




Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


   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 would not
   discard it automatically.

   If this metrics is used in parallel with the Packet Loss Metric
   [RFC2680], the value of T0 MUST be the same for both cases in order
   to keep the results comparable.

   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.

   Clocks do have to be synchronized between src and dst such that it is
   possible to uniquely and accurately determine the interval [T, T+T0]
   at both sides.

   If this metric is used in an active measurement system, the system
   MUST NOT send multiple packets with identical information fields, in
   order to avoid that all packets will be declared duplicates.  This
   metric can be used inside a passive measurement system as well, using
   packets generated by another source.  However, if the source can send
   two identical packets within the interval [T, T+T0], this will be
   incorrectly labelled as a duplicate, resulting in a false positive.
   It is up to the implementor to estimate if this scenario is likely to
   happen and the rate of false positives is acceptable.

   The definition of identical information fields is such that two
   packets are considered to be identical if they are sent from the same
   source and contain the same information.  This does not necessarily
   mean that all bits in the packet are the same.  For example, when a
   packet is replicated and the copies are transferred along different
   paths, the TTL may be different.  The implementation MUST specify
   which fields are compared when deciding if two packets are identical
   or not.

   In case of IPv4, these will usually be: version, ihl, identification,
   src, dst, protocol, some or all upper layer protocol data

   In IPv6, these will usually be: version, next header, source,



Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


   destination, some or all upper layer protocol data

   Note that the use of the identification field is not present in non-
   fragmented IPv6 packets and may not be sufficient to distinguish
   packets from each even in IPv4, particularly at higher transmission
   speeds

2.6.  Methodology

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

   [RFC2680] does not 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, the wire time of a packet at the source
   o  T0, the maximum waiting time for a packet to arrive at the
      destination.

3.3.  Metric Units

   An integer number.

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)



Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


   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  Tf, a time.  Ts and Tf specify the time interval when packets can
      be sent for this stream.
   o  T0, the maximum waiting time for a packet to arrive at the
      destination.
   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.

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



Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


   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-Periodic-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  Tf, a time.  Ts and Tf specify the time interval when packets can
      be sent for this stream.
   o  T0, the maximum waiting time for a packet to arrive at the
      destination.
   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-
   one-way-packet-arrival-count.  The value of the sample is the
   sequence made up of the resulting {time, duplication} pairs.  If



Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


   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 [RFC3432], section 4.5.

4.2.6.  Errors and uncertainties

   Refer to [RFC3432], section 4.6.

4.2.7.  Reporting the metric

   Refer to [RFC3432], 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 statistic 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, (number of packets received)/(number of packets sent
   and not lost).)

   The number can be expressed as a percentage.

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

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

   This statistic 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
   number of pairs with Type-P-one-Way-packet-arrival-count greater than



Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


   1.  Then one calculates the fraction of packets that meet this
   criterion as a fraction of the total.  (In other words: (number of
   duplicated packets)/(number of packets sent and not lost).).

   The number can be expressed as a percentage.

   Note: this statistic 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.

   Finally, note that the order in which the packets arrived, do not
   affect the results.  For example, these variations of case 2:
   o  Case 2a: (1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4)
   o  Case 2b: (1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4)





Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


   o  Case 2c: (1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1)
   (as well as any other permutation) all yield the same results for
   Type-P-one-way-packet-duplication-fraction and the type-P-one-way-
   replicated-packet-rate.


6.  Security Considerations

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





Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


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 Lars Eggert, Al Morton, Martin Swany and
   Matt Zekauskas for their comments.


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.

   [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.

9.2.  Informative References

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

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

   [Y1540]    "Y.1540 ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 (2007), Internet
              protocol data communication service  IP packet transfer
              and availability performance parameters.", 2007.












Uijterwaal              Expires October 19, 2009               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          Packet Duplication Metric             April 2009


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 October 19, 2009               [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/