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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 5474

   `
   
   Internet Draft                               Nick Duffield (Editor)
   Category: Informational                        AT&T Labs - Research
   Document: draft-ietf-psamp-framework-11.txt                May 2007
   Expires: November 2007
   
   
   
   
   
               A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting
   
   
   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 June, 2007.
   
   Copyright Notice
   
      Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
   
   
   Abstract
   
      This document specifies a framework for the PSAMP (Packet
      SAMPling) protocol.  The functions of this protocol are to select
      packets from a stream according to a set of standardized
      selectors, to form a stream of reports on the selected packets,
      and to export the reports to a collector.  This framework details
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007                [Page 1]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      the components of this architecture, then describes some generic
      requirements, motivated by the dual aims of ubiquitous deployment
      and utility of the reports for applications.  Detailed
      requirements for selection, reporting and exporting are
      described, along with configuration requirements of the PSAMP
      functions.
   
      Comments on this document should be addressed to the PSAMP
      Working Group mailing list: psamp@ops.ietf.org
   
      To subscribe: psamp-request@ops.ietf.org, in body: subscribe
      Archive: https://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/
   
   Table of Contents
   
      1.   Introduction...............................................4
      2.   PSAMP Documents Overview...................................4
      3.   Elements, Terminology and High-level Architecture..........5
      3.1  High-level description of the PSAMP Architecture ..........5
      3.2  Observation Points, Packet Streams and Packet Content......5
      3.3  Selection Process .........................................6
      3.4  Reporting..................................................7
      3.5  Metering Process...........................................8
      3.6  Exporting Process .........................................8
      3.7  PSAMP Device...............................................8
      3.8  Collector..................................................9
      3.9  Possible Configurations....................................9
      4.   Generic Requirements for PSAMP............................10
      4.1  Generic Selection Process Requirements....................10
      4.2  Generic Reporting Requirements............................11
      4.3  Generic Exporting Process Requirements....................12
      4.4  Generic Configuration Requirements........................12
      5.   Packet Selection..........................................13
      5.1  Two Types of Selector.....................................13
      5.2  PSAMP Packet Selectors....................................13
      5.3  Selection Fraction Terminology............................16
      5.4  Input Sequence Numbers for Primitive Selectors............17
      5.5  Composite Selectors.......................................18
      5.6  Constraints on the Selection Fraction.....................18
      6.   Reporting.................................................18
      6.1  Mandatory Contents of Packet Reports: Basic Reports.......18
      6.2  Extended Packet Reports...................................19
      6.3  Extended Packet Reports in the Presence of IPFIX .........20
      6.4  Report Interpretation.....................................20
      7.   Parallel Metering Processes...............................20
      8.   Exporting Process ........................................21
      8.1  Use of IPFIX..............................................21
      8.2  Congestion-aware Unreliable Transport.....................21
      8.3  Configurable Export Rate Limit............................22
      8.4  Limiting Delay for Export Packets ........................22
      8.5  Export Packet Compression ................................23
      8.6  Collector Destination.....................................24
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007                [Page 2]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      8.7  Local Export.............................................24
      9.   Configuration and Management.............................24
      10.  Feasibility and Complexity...............................24
      10.1 Feasibility..............................................25
      10.1.1 Filtering..............................................25
      10.1.2 Sampling ..............................................25
      10.1.3 Hashing................................................25
      10.1.4 Reporting..............................................25
      10.1.5 Exporting..............................................26
      10.2 Potential Hardware Complexity............................26
      11.  Applications.............................................27
      11.1 Baseline Measurement and Drill Down......................27
      11.2 Trajectory Sampling......................................28
      11.3 Passive Performance Measurement..........................28
      11.4 Troubleshooting..........................................29
      12.  Security Considerations..................................30
      13.  IANA Considerations......................................30
      14.  References ..............................................30
      14.1 Normative References.....................................30
      14.2 Informative References...................................31
      15.  Authors' Addresses.......................................32
      16.  Intellectual Property Statements.........................33
      17.  Copyright Statement......................................34
      18.  Disclaimer ..............................................34
   
   
      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.
      This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
      with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
   
      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.
   
      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
      RFC 2119.
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007                [Page 3]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
   1. Introduction
   
      This document describes the PSAMP framework for network elements
      to select subsets of packets by statistical and other methods,
      and to export a stream of reports on the selected packets to a
      collector.
   
      The motivation for the PSAMP standard comes from the need for
      measurement-based support for network management and control
      across multivendor domains.  This requires domain-wide
      consistency in the types of selection schemes available, and the
      manner in which the resulting measurements are presented and
      interpreted.
   
      The motivation for specific packet selection operations comes
      from the applications that they enable.  Development of the PSAMP
      standard is open to influence by the requirements of standards in
      related IETF Working Groups, for example, IP Performance Metrics
      (IPPM) [RFC-2330] and Internet Traffic Engineering (TEWG).
   
      The name PSAMP is a contraction of the phrase Packet Sampling.
      The word "sampling" captures the idea that only a subset of all
      packets passing a network element will be selected for reporting.
      But PSAMP selection operations include random selection,
      deterministic selection (filtering), and deterministic
      approximations to random selection (hash-based selection).
   
   2. PSAMP Documents Overview
   
      PSAMP-FW: "A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting" (this
      document).  This document describes the PSAMP framework for
      network elements to select subsets of packets by statistical and
      other methods, and to export a stream of reports on the selected
      packets to a collector.  Definitions of terminology and the use
      of the terms "must", "should" and "may" in this document are
      informational only.
   
      [PSAMP-TECH]: "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
      Selection", describes the set of packet selection techniques
      supported by PSAMP.
   
      [PSAMP-MIB]: "Definitions of Managed Objects for Packet Sampling"
      describes the PSAMP Management Information Base
   
      [PSAMP-PROTO]: "Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications"
      specifies the export of packet information from a PSAMP Exporting
      Process to a PSAMP Colleting Process
   
      [PSAMP-INFO]: "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports"
      defines an information and data model for PSAMP.
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007                [Page 4]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
   3. Elements, Terminology and High-level Architecture
   
   3.1 High-level description of the PSAMP Architecture
   
      Here is an informal high level description of the PSAMP protocol
      operating in a PSAMP Device (all terms will be defined
      presently).  A stream of packets is observed at an Observation
      Point.  A Selection Process inspects each packet to determine
      whether or not it is to be selected from reporting.  The
      Selection Process is part of the Metering Process, which
      constructs a report on each selected packet, using the Packet
      Content, and possibly other information such as the packet
      treatment at the Observation Point or the arrival timestamp.  An
      Exporting Process sends the Packet Reports to a Collector,
      together with any subsidiary information needed for their
      interpretation.
   
      The following figure indicates the sequence of the three
      processes (Selection, Metering, and Exporting) within the PSAMP
      device.
   
   
                    +------------------+
                    | Metering Process |
                    | +-----------+    |     +-----------+
          Observed  | | Selection |    |     | Exporting |
          Packet--->| | Process   |--------->| Process   |--->Collector
          Stream    | +-----------+    |     +-----------+
                    +------------------+
   
   
      The following sections give the detailed definitions of each of
      all the objects just named.
   
   3.2 Observation Points, Packet Streams and Packet Content
   
      This section contains the definition of terms relevant to
      obtaining the packet input to the selection process.
   
      * Observation Point
   
        An Observation Point is a location in the network where IP
        packets can be observed.  Examples include: a line to which a
        probe is attached, a shared medium, such as an Ethernet-based
        LAN, a single port of a router, or a set of interfaces
        (physical or logical) of a router.
   
        Note that every Observation Point is associated with an
        Observation Domain (defined below), and that one Observation
        Point may be a superset of several other Observation Points.
        For example one Observation Point can be an entire line card.
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007                [Page 5]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
        That would be the superset of the individual Observation Points
        at the line card's interfaces.
   
      * Observed Packet Stream
   
        The Observed Packet Stream is the set of all packets observed
        at the Observation Point.
   
      * Packet Stream
   
        A Packet Stream denotes a subset of the Observed Packet Stream
        that flows past some specified point within the Selection
        Process.
        An example of a Packet Stream is the output of the Selection
        Process.  Note that packets selected from a stream, e.g. by
        sampling, do not necessarily possess a property by which they
        can be distinguished from packets that have not been selected.
        For this reason the term "stream" is favored over "flow", which
        is defined as set of packets with common properties [RFC-3917].
   
   
      * Packet Content
   
        The Packet Content denotes the union of the packet header
        (which includes link layer, network layer and other
        encapsulation headers) and the packet payload.
   
   
   3.3 Selection Process
   
      This section defines the selection process and related objects.
   
      * Selection Process
   
        A Selection Process takes the Observed Packet Stream as its
        input and selects a subset of that stream as its output.
   
      * Selection State:
   
        A Selection Process may maintain state information for use by
        the Selection Process.  At a given time, the Selection State
        may depend on packets observed at and before that time, and
        other variables.  Examples include:
   
            (i)   sequence numbers of packets at the input of
        Selectors;
   
            (ii)  a timestamp of observation of the packet at the
                  Observation Point;
   
            (iii) iterators for pseudorandom number generators;
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007                [Page 6]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
            (iv)  hash values calculated during selection;
   
            (v)   indicators of whether the packet was selected by a
                  given Selector.
   
        Selection Processes may change portions of the Selection State
        as a result of processing a packet.  Selection state for a
        packet is to reflect the state after processing the packet.
   
   
      * Selector:
   
        A Selector defines the action of a Selection Process on a
        single packet of its input.  If selected, the packet becomes an
        element of the output Packet Stream.
   
        The Selector can make use of the following information in
        determining whether a packet is selected:
   
            (i)  the Packet Content;
   
            (ii) information derived from the packet's treatment at the
                 Observation Point;
   
            (iii) any selection state that may be maintained by the
                  Selection Process.
   
   
      * Composite Selector:
   
        A Composite Selector is an ordered composition of Selectors, in
        which the output Packet Stream issuing from one Selector forms
        the input Packet Stream to the succeeding Selector.
   
   
      * Primitive Selector:
   
        A Selector is primitive if it is not a Composite Selector.
   
   
   3.4 Reporting
   
   
      * Packet Reports
   
        Packet Reports comprise a configurable subset of a packet's
        input to the Selection Process, including the Packet Content,
        information relating to its treatment (for example, the output
        interface), and its associated selection state (for example, a
        hash of the Packet Content).
   
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007                [Page 7]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      * Report Interpretation:
   
        Report Interpretation comprises subsidiary information,
        relating to one or more packets, that are used for
        interpretation of their Packet Reports.  Examples include
        configuration parameters of the Selection Process.
   
   
      * Report Stream:
   
        The Report Stream is the output of a Metering Process,
        comprising two distinguished types of information: Packet
        Reports, and Report Interpretation.
   
   
   3.5 Metering Process
   
      A Metering Process selects packets from the Observed Packet
      Stream using a Selection Process, and produces as output a Report
      Stream concerning the selected packets.
   
      The PSAMP Metering Process can be viewed as analogous to the
      IPFIX metering process [IPFIX-PROTO], which produces flow records
      as its output.  While the Metering Process definition in this
      document specifies the PSAMP definition, the PSAMP protocol
      specifications [PSAMP-PROTO] will use the IPFIX Metering Process
      definition, which also suits the PSAMP requirements.   The
      relationship between PSAMP and IPFIX is described more in [PSAMP-
      INFO] and [PSAMP-PROTO].
   
   
   3.6 Exporting Process
   
      * Exporting Process:
   
        An Exporting Process sends, in the form of Export Packets, the
        output of one or more Metering Processes to one or more
        Collectors.
   
      * Export Packets:
   
        An Export Packet is a combination of Report Interpretation(s)
        and/or one or more Packet Reports that are bundled by the
        Exporting Process into a Export Packet for exporting to a
        Collector.
   
   3.7 PSAMP Device
   
      A PSAMP Device is a device hosting at least an Observation Point,
      a Selection Process and an Exporting Process.  Typically,
      corresponding Observation Point(s), Selection Process(es) and
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007                [Page 8]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      Exporting Process(es) are co-located at this device, for example
      at a router.
   
   
   3.8 Collector
   
      A Collector receives a Report Stream exported by one or more
      Exporting Processes.  In some cases, the host of the Metering
      and/or Exporting Processes may also serve as the Collector.
   
   
   
   
   
   3.9 Possible Configurations
   
      Various possibilities for the high level architecture of these
      elements are as follows.
   
          MP = Metering Process, EP = Exporting process
   
          PSAMP Device
         +---------------------+                 +------------------+
         |Observation Point(s) |                 | Collector(1)     |
         |MP(s)--->EP----------+---------------->|                  |
         |MP(s)--->EP----------+-------+-------->|                  |
         +---------------------+       |         +------------------+
                                       |
          PSAMP Device                 |
         +---------------------+       |         +------------------+
         |Observation Point(s) |       +-------->| Collector(2)     |
         |MP(s)--->EP----------+---------------->|                  |
         +---------------------+                 +------------------+
   
          PSAMP Device
         +---------------------+
         |Observation Point(s) |
         |MP(s)--->EP---+      |
         |              |      |
         |Collector(3)<-+      |
         +---------------------+
   
      The most generic Metering Process configuration is composed of:
   
                +------------------------------------+
                | +----------+                       |
                | |Selection |                       |
       Observed | |Process   |  Packet               |
       Packet-->| |(primitive|-> Stream ->           |--> Report Stream
       Stream   | | selector)|                       |
                | +----------+                       |
                |          Metering Process          |
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007                [Page 9]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
                +------------------------------------+
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
      A Metering Process with a composite selector is composed of:
   
                +--------------------------------------------------...
                | +-----------------------------------+
                | | +----------+         +----------+ |
                | | |Selection |         |Selection | |
       Observed | | |Process   |         |Process   | |
       Packet-->| | |(primitive|-Packet->|(primitive|---> Packet ...
       Stream   | | |selector1)| Stream  |selector2)| |   Stream
                | | +----------+         +----------+ |
                | |        Composite Selector         |
                | +-----------------------------------+
                |                   Metering Process
                +--------------------------------------------------...
   
                  ...-------------+
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |---> Report Stream
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                                  |
                  ...-------------+
   
   
   4. Generic Requirements for PSAMP
   
      This section describes the generic requirements for the PSAMP
      protocol.  A number of these are realized as specific
      requirements in later sections.
   
   4.1 Generic Selection Process Requirements.
   
      * Ubiquity: The Selectors must be simple enough to be implemented
        ubiquitously at maximal line rate.
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 10]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
   
      * Applicability: the set of Selectors must be rich enough to
        support a range of existing and emerging measurement based
        applications and protocols.  This requires a workable trade-off
        between the range of traffic engineering applications and
        operational tasks it enables, and the complexity of the set of
        capabilities.
   
      * Extensibility: the protocol must be able to accommodate
        additional packet Selectors not currently defined.
   
      * Flexibility: the protocol must support selection of packets
        using various network protocols or encapsulation layers,
        including Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) [IPv4], Internet
        Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) [RFC-2460], and Multiprotocol Label
        Switching (MPLS) [RFC-3031].
   
      * Robust Selection: packet selection must be robust against
        attempts to craft an Observed Packet Stream from which packets
        are selected disproportionately (e.g. to evade selection, or
        overload measurement systems).
   
      * Parallel Metering Processes: the protocol must support
        simultaneous operation of multiple independent Metering
        Processes at the same host.
   
      * Causality: the selection decision for each packet should depend
        only weakly, if at all, upon future packets arrivals.  This
        promotes ubiquity by limiting the complexity of the selection
        logic.
   
      * Encrypted Packets: Selectors that interpret packet fields must
        be configurable to ignore (i.e. not select) encrypted packets,
        when they are detected.
   
      Specific Selectors are outlined in Section 5, and described in
      more detail in the companion document [PSAMP-TECH].
   
   4.2 Generic Reporting Requirements
   
      * Self-defining: the Report Stream must be complete in the sense
        that no additional information need be retrieved from the
        Observation Point in order to interpret and analyze the
        reports.
   
      * Indication of Information Loss: the Report Stream must include
        sufficient information to indicate or allow the detection of
        loss occurring within the Selection, Metering, and/or Exporting
        Processes, or in transport.  This may be achieved by the use of
        sequence numbers.
   
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 11]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      * Accuracy: the Report Stream must include information that
        enables the accuracy of measurements to be determined.
   
      * Faithfulness: all reported quantities that relate to the packet
        treatment must reflect the router state and configuration
        encountered by the packet at the time it is received by the
        Metering Process.
   
      * Privacy: selection of the content of Packet Reports will be
        cognizant of privacy and anonymity issues while being
        responsive to the needs of measurement applications, and in
        accordance with [RFC-2804].  Full packet capture of arbitrary
        packet streams is explicitly out of scope.
   
      See section 6 for further discussions on Reporting.
   
   4.3 Generic Exporting Process Requirements
   
      * Timeliness: configuration must allow for limiting of buffering
        delays for the formation and transmission for Export Packets.
        See Section 8.4 for further details.
   
      * Congestion Avoidance: export of a Report Stream across a
        network must be congestion avoiding in compliance with [RFC-
        2914].  This is discussed further in Section 8.2.
   
      * Secure Export:
   
        (i) confidentiality: the option to encrypt exported data must
        be provided.
   
        (ii) integrity: alterations in transit to exported data must be
        detectable at the Collector
   
        (iii) authenticity: authenticity of exported data must be
        verifiable by the Collector in order to detect forged data.
   
      The motivation here is the same as for security in IPFIX export;
      see Sections 6.3 and 10 of [RFC-3917].
   
   4.4 Generic Configuration Requirements
   
      * Ease of Configuration: of sampling and export parameters, e.g.
        for automated remote reconfiguration in response to collected
        reports.
   
      * Secure Configuration: the option to configure via protocols
        that prevent unauthorized reconfiguration or eavesdropping on
        configuration communications must be available.  Eavesdropping
        on configuration might allow an attacker to gain knowledge that
        would be helpful in crafting a packet stream to evade
        subversion, or overload the measurement infrastructure.
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 12]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
   
      Configuration is discussed in Section 9.  Feasibility and
      complexity of PSAMP operations is discussed in Section 10.
   
   5. Packet Selection
   
      This section details specific requirements for the Selection
      Process, motivated by the generic requirements of Section 3.3.
   
   
   5.1 Two Types of Selector
   
      PSAMP categorizes selectors into two types:
   
      * Filtering: a filter is a Selector that selects a packet
        deterministically based on the Packet Content, or its
        treatment, or functions of these occurring in the Selection
        State.  Two examples are:
   
           (i) Property match filtering: a packet is selected if a
           specific field in the packet equals a predefined value.
   
           (ii) Hash-based selection: a hash function is applied to the
           Packet Content, and the packet is selected if the result
           falls in a specified range.
   
      * Sampling: a selector that is not a filter is called a sampling
        operation.  This reflects the intuitive notion that if the
        selection of a packet cannot be determined from its content
        alone, there must be some type of sampling taking place.
   
        Sampling operations can be divided into two subtypes:
   
           (i) Content-independent sampling, which does not use Packet
           Content in reaching sampling decisions.  Examples include
           systematic sampling, and uniform pseudorandom sampling
           driven by a pseudorandom number whose generation is
           independent of Packet Content.  Note that in Content-
           independent Sampling it is not necessary to access the
           Packet Content in order to make the selection decision.
   
           (ii) Content-dependent sampling, in which the Packet Content
           is used in reaching selection decisions.  An application is
           pseudorandom selection according to a probability that
           depends on the contents of a packet field, e.g., sampling
           packets with a probability dependent on their TCP/UDP port
           numbers.  Note that this is not a Filter.
   
   
   
   5.2 PSAMP Packet Selectors
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 13]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
       A spectrum of packet selectors is described in detail in [PSAMP-
       TECH].  Here we only briefly summarize the meanings for
       completeness.
   
      A PSAMP Selection Process must support at least one of the
      following Selectors.
   
      * systematic count based sampling: similar to systematic time
        based expect that selection is reckoned with respect to packet
        count rather than time.  Packet selection is triggered
        periodically by packet count, a number of successive packets
        being selected subsequent to each trigger.
   
      * systematic time based sampling: packet selection is triggered
        at periodic instants separated by a time called the spacing.
        All packets that arrive within a certain time of the trigger
        (called the interval length) are selected.
   
      * probabilistic n-out-of-N sampling: from each count-based
        successive block of N packets, n are selected at random.
   
      * uniform probabilistic sampling: packets are selected
        independently with fixed sampling probability p.
   
      * non-uniform probabilistic sampling: packets are selected
        independently with probability p that depends on Packet
        Content.
   
      * property match filtering
   
        With this Filtering method a packet is selected if a specific
        field within the packet and/or on properties of the router
        state equal(s) a predefined value.  Possible filter fields are
        all IPFIX flow attributes specified in [IPFIX-INFO].  Further
        fields can be defined by vendor specific extensions.
   
        A packet is selected if Field=Value.  Masks and ranges are only
        supported to the extent to which [IPFIX-INFO] allows them e.g.
        by providing explicit fields like the netmasks for source and
        destination addresses.
   
        AND operations are possible by concatenating filters, thus
        producing a composite selection operation.  In this case, the
        ordering in which the filtering happens is implicitly defined
        (outer filters come after inner filters).  However, as long as
        the concatenation is on filters only, the result of the
        cascaded filter is independent from the order, but the order
        may be important for implementation purposes, as the first
        filter will have to work at a higher rate.  In any case, an
        implementation is not constrained to respect the filter
        ordering, as long as the result is the same, and it may even
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 14]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
        implement the composite filtering in filtering in one single
        step.
   
        OR operations are not supported with this basic model.  More
        sophisticated filters (e.g. supporting bitmasks, ranges or OR
        operations etc.) can be realized as vendor specific schemes.
   
        Property match operations should be available for different
        protocol portions of the packet header:
   
           (i) the IP header (excluding options in IPv4, stacked
           headers in IPv6)
   
           (ii) transport header
   
           (iii) encapsulation headers (e.g. the MPLS label stack, if
           present)
   
        When the PSAMP Device offers property match filtering, and, in
        its usual capacity other than in performing PSAMP functions,
        identifies or processes information from IP, transport or
        encapsulation protocols, then the information should be made
        available for filtering.  For example, when a PSAMP Device
        routes based on destination IP address, that field should be
        made available for filtering.  Conversely, a PSAMP Device that
        does not route is not expected to be able to locate an IP
        address within a packet, or make it available for Filtering,
        although it may do so.
   
        Since packet encryption alters the meaning of encrypted fields,
        property match filtering must be configurable to ignore
        encrypted packets, when detected.
   
        The Selection Process may support filtering based on the
        properties of the router state:
   
           (i) Ingress interface at which packet arrives equals a
           specified value
           (ii) Egress interface to which packet is routed to equals a
           specified value
           (iii) Packet violated Access Control List (ACL) on the
           router
           (iv) Failed Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF)
           (v) Failed Resource Reservation (RSVP)
           (vi) No route found for the packet
           (vii) Origin Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Autonomous System
           (AS) [RFC-4271] equals a specified value or lies within a
           given range
           (viii) Destination BGP AS equals a specified value or lies
           within a given range
   
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 15]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
        Router architectural considerations may preclude some
        information concerning the packet treatment being available at
        line rate for selection of packets.  For example, the Selection
        Process may not be implemented in the fast path that is able to
        access routing state at line rate.  However, when filtering
        follows sampling (or some other selection operation) in a
        Composite Selector, the rate of the Packet Stream output from
        the sampler and input to the filter may be sufficiently slow
        that the filter could select based on routing state.
   
      * Hash-based Selection:
   
        Hash-based selection will employ one or more hash functions to
        be standardized.  A hash function is applied to a subset of
        Packet Content, and the packet is selected of the resulting
        hash falls in a specified range.  The stronger the hash
        function, the more closely hash-based selection approximates
        uniform random sampling.  Privacy of hash selection range and
        hash function parameters obstructs subversion of the selector
        by packets that are crafted either to avoid selection or to be
        selected.  Privacy of the hash function is not required.
        Robustness and security considerations of hash-based selection
        are further discussed in further in [PSAMP-TECH].  Applications
        of hash-based sampling are described in Section 11.
   
   
   5.3 Selection Fraction Terminology
   
      * Population:
   
        A population is a Packet Stream, or a subset of a Packet
        Stream.  A Population can be considered as a base set from
        which packets are selected.  An example is all packets in the
        Observed Packet Stream that are observed within some specified
        time interval.
   
      * Population Size:
   
        The Population Size is the number of all packets in a
        Population.
   
      * Configured Selection Fraction
   
        The Configured Selection Fraction is the ratio of the number of
        packets selected by a Selector from an input Population, to the
        Population Size, as based on the configured selection
        parameters.
   
      * Attained Selection Fraction
   
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 16]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
        The Attained Selection Fraction is the actual ratio of the
        number of packets selected by a Selector from an input
        Population, to the Population Size.
   
      For some sampling methods the Attained Selection Fraction can
      differ from the Configured Selection Fraction due to, for
      example, the inherent statistical variability in sampling
      decisions of probabilistic sampling and hash-based selection.
      Nevertheless, for large Population Sizes and properly configured
      Selectors, the Attained Selection Fraction usually approaches the
      Configured Selection Fraction.
   
      The notions of Configured/Attained Selection Fraction extend
      beyond Selectors.  An illustrative example is the Configured
      Selection Fraction of the composition of the Metering Process
      with the Exporting Process.  Here the Population is the Observed
      Packet Stream or a subset thereof.  The Configured Selection
      Fraction is the fraction of the Population for which Packet
      Reports which are expected to reach the Collector.  This quantity
      may reflect additional parameters, not necessarily described in
      the PSAMP protocol, that determine the degree of loss suffered by
      Packet Reports en route to the Collector, e.g., the transmission
      bandwidth available to the Exporting Process.  In this example,
      the Attained Selection Fraction is the fraction of Population
      packets for which reports did actually reach the Collector, and
      thus incorporates the effect of any loss of Packet Reports due,
      e.g, to resource contention at the Observation Point, or during
      transmission.
   
   
   5.4 Input Sequence Numbers for Primitive Selectors
   
      Each instance of a Primitive Selector must maintain a count of
      packets presented at its input.  The counter value is to be
      included as a sequence number for selected packets.  The sequence
      numbers are considered as part of the packet's Selection State.
   
      Use of input sequence numbers enables applications to determine
      the Attained Selection Fraction, and hence correctly normalize
      network usage estimates regardless of loss of information,
      regardless of whether this loss occurs because of discard of
      packet reports in the Metering Process (e.g. due to resource
      contention in the host of these processes), or loss of export
      packets in transmission or collection.  See [RFC-3176] for
      further details.
   
      As an example, consider a set of n consecutive packet reports r1,
      r2,... , rn, selected by a sampling operation and received at a
      Collector.  Let s1, s2,..., sn be the input sequence numbers
      reported by the packets.  The Attained Selection Fraction for the
      composite of the measurement and exporting processes, taking into
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 17]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      account both packet sampling at the Observation Point and loss in
      transmission, is computed as R = (n-1)/(sn-s1).  (Note R would be
      1 if all packets were selected and there were no transmission
      loss).
   
      The Attained Selection Fraction can be used to estimate the
      number bytes present in a portion of the Observed Packet Stream.
      Let b1, b2,..., bn be the bytes reported in each of the packets
      that reached the Collector, and set B = b1+b2+...+bn.  Then the
      total bytes present in packets in the Observed Packet Stream
      whose input sequence numbers lie between s1 and sn is estimated
      by B/R, i.e, scaling up the measured bytes through division by
      the Attained Selection Fraction
   
      With Composite Selectors, an input sequence number must be
      reported for each Selector in the composition.
   
   5.5 Composite Selectors
   
      The ability to compose Selectors in a Selection Process should be
      provided.  The following combinations appear to be most useful
      for applications:
   
      *  concatentation of property match filters.  This is useful for
      constructing the AND of the component filters.
   
      * filtering followed by sampling.
   
      * sampling followed by filtering.
   
      Composite Selectors are useful for drill down applications.  The
      first component of a composite selector can be used to reduce the
      load on the second component.  In this setting, the advantage to
      be gained from a given ordering can depends on the composition of
      the packet stream.
   
   5.6 Constraints on the Selection Fraction
   
      Sampling at full line rate, i.e. with probability 1, is not
      excluded in principle, although resource constraints may not
      permit it in practice.
   
   6. Reporting
   
      This section details specific requirements for reporting,
      motivated by the generic requirements of Section 3.4
   
   6.1 Mandatory Contents of Packet Reports: Basic Reports
   
      Packet Reports must include the following:
   
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 18]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
           (i) the input sequence number(s) of any Selectors that acted
           on the packet in the instance of a Metering Process which
           produced the report.
   
           (ii) the identifier of the Metering Process that produced
           the selected packet
   
      The Metering Process must support inclusion of the following in
      each Packet Report, as a configurable option:
   
           (iii) a basic report on the packet, i.e., some number of
           contiguous bytes from the start of the packet, including the
           packet header (which includes link layer, network layer and
           other encapsulation headers) and some subsequent bytes of
           the packet payload.
   
      Some devices may not have the resource capacity or functionality
      to provide more detailed packet reports that those in (i), (ii)
      and (iii) above.  Using this minimum required reporting
      functionality, the Metering Process places the burden of
      interpretation on the Collector, or on applications that it
      supplies.  Some devices may have the capability to provide
      extended packet reports, described in the next section.
   
   6.2 Extended Packet Reports
   
      The Metering Process may support inclusion in Packet Reports of
      the following information, inclusion any or all being
      configurable as an option.
   
           (iv) fields relating to the following protocols used in the
           packet: IPv4, IPV6, transport protocols, MPLS.
   
           (v) packet treatment, including:
   
            - identifiers for any input and output interfaces of the
           Observation Point that were traversed by the packet
   
            - source and destination BGP AS
   
           (vi) Selection State associated with the packet, including:
   
           - the timestamp of observation of the packet at the
           Observation Point.  The timestamp should be reported to
           microsecond resolution.
   
           - hashes, where calculated.
   
       It is envisaged that selection of fields for Extended Packet
       Reporting may be used to reduce reporting bandwidth, in which
       case the option to report information in (iii) may not be
       exercised.
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 19]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
   
   6.3 Extended Packet Reports in the Presence of IPFIX
   
      If an IPFIX metering process is supported at the Observation
      Point, then in order to be PSAMP compliant, Extended Packet
      Reports must be able to include all fields required in the IPFIX
      information model [IPFIX-INFO], with modifications appropriate to
      reporting on single packets rather than flows.
   
   6.4  Report Interpretation
   
      The Report Interpretation must include:
   
           (i) configuration parameters of the Selectors of the packets
           reported on.
   
           (ii) format of the Packet Report;
   
           (iii) indication of the inherent accuracy of the reported
           quantities, e.g., of the packet timestamp.
   
      The accuracy measure in (iii) is of fundamental importance for
      estimating the likely error attached to estimates formed from the
      Packet Reports by applications.
   
      The requirements for robustness and transparency are motivations
      for including Report Interpretation in the Report Stream: it
      makes the Report Stream self-defining.  The PSAMP framework
      excludes reliance on an alternative model in which interpretation
      is recovered out of band.  This latter approach is not robust
      with respect to undocumented changes in Selector configuration,
      and may give rise to future architectural problems for network
      management systems to coherently manage both configuration and
      data collection.
   
      It is not envisaged that all Report Interpretation be included in
      every Packet Report.  Many of the quantities listed above are
      expected to be relatively static; they could be communicated
      periodically, and upon change.
   
   7. Parallel Metering Processes
   
      Because of the increasing number of distinct measurement
      applications, with varying requirements, it is desirable to set
      up parallel Metering Processes on a given Observed Packet Stream.
      A device capable of hosting a Metering Process should be able to
      support more than one independently configurable Metering Process
      simultaneously.  Each such Metering Process should have the
      option of being equipped with its own Exporting Process;
      otherwise the parallel Metering Processes may share the same
      Exporting Process.
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 20]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      Each of the parallel Metering Processes should be independent.
      However, resource constraints may prevent complete reporting on a
      packet selected by multiple Selection Processes.  In this case,
      reporting for the packet must be complete for at least one
      Metering Process; other Metering Processes need only record that
      they selected the packet, e.g., by incrementing a counter.  The
      priority amongst Metering Processes under resource contention
      should be configurable.
   
      It is not proposed to standardize the number of parallel Metering
      Processes.
   
   8. Exporting Process
   
      This section details specific requirements for the Exporting
      Process, motivated by the generic requirements of Section 3.6
   
   8.1 Use of IPFIX
   
      PSAMP will use the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) protocol
      for export of the Report Stream.  The IPFIX protocol is well
      suited for this purpose, because the IPFIX architecture matches
      the PSAMP architecture very well and the means provided by the
      IPFIX protocol are sufficient for PSAMP purposes.  On the other
      hand, not all features of the IPFIX protocol will need to be
      implemented by some PSAMP devices.  For example, a device that
      offers only content-independent sampling and basic PSAMP
      reporting has no need to support IPFIX capabilities based on
      packet fields.
   
   8.1 Export Packets
   
      Export packets may contain one or more Packet Reports, and/or
      Report Interpretation.  Export packets must also contain:
   
           (i) An identifier for the Exporting Process
   
           (ii) An export packet sequence number.
   
           An export packet sequence number enables the Collector to
           identify loss of export packets in transit.  Note that some
           transport protocols, e.g. UDP, do not provide sequence
           numbers.  Moreover, having sequence numbers available at the
           application level enables the Collector to calculate packet
           loss rate for use, e.g., in estimating original traffic
           volumes from export packet that reach the Collector.
   
   8.2 Congestion-aware Unreliable Transport
   
      The export of the Report Stream does not require reliable export.
      Section 5.4 shows that the use of input sequence numbers in
      packet Selectors means that the ability to estimate traffic rates
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 21]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      is not impaired by export loss.  Export packet loss becomes
      another form of sampling, albeit a less desirable, and less
      controlled, form of sampling.
   
      In distinction, retransmission of lost Export Packets consumes
      additional network resources.  The requirement to store
      unacknowledged data is an impediment to having ubiquitous support
      for PSAMP.
   
      In order to jointly satisfy the timeliness and congestion
      avoidance requirements of Section 4.3, a congestion-aware
      unreliable transport protocol may be used.  IPFIX is compatible
      with this requirement, since it mandates support of the Stream
      Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC-2960] and the SCTP
      Partial Reliability Extension [RFC-3758].
   
      IPFIX also allows the use of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC-
      768] although it is not a congestion-aware protocol.  However, in
      this case, the Export Packets must remain wholly within the
      administrative domains of the operators [IPFIX-PROTO].  The PSAMP
      exporting process is equipped with a configurable export rate
      limit (see Section 8.3 following) that can be used to limit the
      export rate when a congestion aware transport protocol is not
      used.  The Collector, upon detection of export packet loss
      through missing export sequence numbers, may reconfigure the
      export rate limit downwards in order to avoid congestion.
   
   8.3 Configurable Export Rate Limit
   
      The exporting process must have an export rate limit,
      configurable per Exporting Process.  This is useful for two
      reasons:
   
           (i) Even without network congestion, the rate of packet
           selection may exceed the capacity of the Collector to
           process reports, particularly when many Exporting Processes
           feed a common Collector.  Use of an Export Rate Limit allows
           control of the global input rate to the Collector.
   
           (ii) IPFIX provides export using UDP as the transport
           protocol in some circumstances.  An Export Rate Limit allows
           the capping of the export rate to match both path link
           speeds and the capacity of the Collector.
   
   8.4 Limiting Delay for Export Packets
   
      Low measurement latency allows the traffic monitoring system to
      be more responsive to real-time network events, for example, in
      quickly identifying sources of congestion.  Timeliness is
      generally a good thing for devices performing the sampling since
      it minimizes the amount of memory needed to buffer samples.
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 22]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      Keeping the packet dispatching delay small has other benefits
      besides limiting buffer requirements.  For many applications a
      resolution of 1 second is sufficient.  Applications in this
      category would include: identifying sources associated with
      congestion, tracing denial of service attacks through the
      network, and constructing traffic matrices.  Furthermore, keeping
      dispatch delay within the resolution required by applications
      eliminates the need for timestamping by synchronized clocks at
      observation points, or for the Observation Points and Collector
      to maintain bi-directional communication in order to track clock
      offsets.  The Collector can simply process Packet Reports in the
      order that they are received, using its own clock as a "global"
      time base.  This avoids the complexity of buffering and
      reordering samples.  See [DuGeGr02] for an example.
   
      The delay between observation of a packet and transmission of a
      Export Packet containing a report on that packet has several
      components.  It is difficult to standardize a given numerical
      delay requirement, since in practice the delay may be sensitive
      to processor load at the Observation Point.  Therefore, PSAMP
      aims to control that portion of the delay within the Observation
      Point that is due to buffering in the formation and transmission
      of Export Packets.
   
      In order to limit delay in the formation of Export Packets, the
      Exporting Process must provide the ability to close out and
      enqueue for transmission any Export Packet during formation as
      soon as it includes one Packet Report.
   
      In order to limit the delay in the transmission of Export
      Packets, a configurable upper bound to the delay of an Export
      Packet prior to transmission must be provided.  If the bound is
      exceeded the Export Packet is dropped.  This functionality can be
      provided by the timed reliability service of the SCTP Partial
      Reliability Extension [RFC-3758].
   
      The Exporting Process may enqueue the Report Stream in order to
      export multiple Packet Reports in a single export packet.  Any
      consequent delay must still allow for timely availability of
      Packet Reports as just described.  The timed reliability service
      of the SCTP Partial Reliability Extension [RFC-3758] allows the
      dropping of packets from the export buffer once their age in the
      buffer exceeds a configurable bound.  A suitable default value
      for the bound should be used in order to avoid a low transmission
      rate due to misconfiguration.
   
   8.5 Export Packet Compression
   
      To conserve network bandwidth and resources at the Collector, the
      Export Packets may be compressed before export.  Compression is
      expected to be quite effective since the sampled packets may
      share many fields in common, e.g. if a filter focuses on packets
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 23]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      with certain values in particular header fields.  Using
      compression, however, could impact the timeliness of Packet
      Reports.  Any consequent delay must not violate the timeliness
      requirement for availability of Packet Reports at the Collector.
   
   
   8.6 Collector Destination
   
      When exporting to a remote Collector, the Collector is identified
      by IP address, transport protocol, and transport port number.
   
   8.7 Local Export
   
      The Report Stream may be directly exported to on-board
      measurement based applications, for example those that form
      composite statistics from more than one packet.  Local export may
      be presented through an interface direct to the higher level
      applications, i.e., through an API, rather than employing the
      transport used for off-board export.  Specification of such an
      API is outside the scope of the PSAMP framework.
   
      A possible example of Local Export could be that packets selected
      by the PSAMP Metering Process serve as the input for the IPFIX
      protocol, which then forms flow records out of the stream of
      selected packets.
   
   9. Configuration and Management
   
      A key requirement for PSAMP is the easy reconfiguration of the
      parameters of the Metering Process: those for selection, packet
      reports and export.  An important example is to support
      measurement-based applications that want to adaptively drill-down
      on traffic detail in real-time;
   
      To facilitate reconfiguration and retrieval of parameters, they
      are to reside in a Management Information Base (MIB).  Mandatory
      configuration, capabilities and monitoring objects will cover all
      mandatory PSAMP functionality.
   
      Secondary objects will cover the recommended and optional PSAMP
      functionality, and must be provided when such functionality is
      offered by a PSAMP Device.  Such PSAMP functionality includes
      configuration of offered Selectors, multiple Metering Processes,
      and report format including the choice of fields to be reported.
      For further details concerning the PSAMP MIB, see [PSAMP-MIB].
   
      PSAMP requires a uniform mechanism with which to access and
      configure the MIB.  SNMP access must be provided by the host of
      the MIB.
   
   10.
      Feasibility and Complexity
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 24]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      In order for PSAMP to be supported across the entire spectrum of
      networking equipment, it must be simple and inexpensive to
      implement.  One can envision easy-to-implement instances of the
      mechanisms described within this draft.  Thus, for that subset of
      instances, it should be straightforward for virtually all system
      vendors to include them within their products.  Indeed, sampling
      and filtering operations are already realized in available
      equipment.
   
      Here we give some specific arguments to demonstrate feasibility
      and comment on the complexity of hardware implementations.  We
      stress here that the point of these arguments is not to favor or
      recommend any particular implementation, or to suggest a path for
      standardization, but rather to demonstrate that the set of
      possible implementations is not empty.
   
   10.1     Feasibility
   
   10.1.1  Filtering
   
      Filtering consists of a small number of mask (bit-wise logical),
      comparison and range (greater than) operations.  Implementation
      of at least a small number of such operations is straightforward.
      For example, filters for security access control lists (ACLs) are
      widely implemented.  This could be as simple as an exact match on
      certain fields, or involve more complex comparisons and ranges.
   
   10.1.2  Sampling
   
      Sampling based on either counters (counter set, decrement, test
      for equal to zero) or range matching on the hash of a packet
      (greater than) is possible given a small number of selectors,
      although there may be some differences in ease of implementation
      for hardware vs. software platforms.
   
   10.1.3  Hashing
   
      Hashing functions vary greatly in complexity.  Execution of a
      small number of sufficient simple hash functions is implementable
      at line rate.  Concerning the input to the hash function,
      hop-invariant IP header fields (IP address, IP identification)
      and TCP/UDP header fields (port numbers, TCP sequence number)
      drawn from the first 40 bytes of the packet have been found to
      possess a considerable variability; see [DuGr01].
   
   10.1.4  Reporting
   
      The simplest Packet Report would duplicate the first n bytes of
      the packet.  However, such an uncompressed format may tax the
      bandwidth available to the Exporting Process for high sampling
      rates; reporting selected fields would save on this bandwidth.
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 25]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      Thus there is a trade-off between simplicity and bandwidth
      limitations.
   
   10.1.5  Exporting
   
      Ease of exporting export packets depends on the system
      architecture.  Most systems should be able to support export by
      insertion of export packets, even through the software path.
   
   10.2    Potential Hardware Complexity
   
      We now comment on the complexity of possible hardware
      implementations.  Achieving low constants for performance while
      minimizing hardware resources is, of course, a challenge,
      especially at very high clock frequencies.  Most of the
      Selectors, however, are very basic and their implementations very
      well understood; in fact, the average ASIC designer simply uses
      canned library instances of these operations rather than design
      them from scratch.  In addition, networking equipment generally
      does not need to run at the fastest clock rates, further reducing
      the effort required to get reasonably efficient implementations.
   
      Simple bit-wise logical operations are easy to implement in
      hardware.  Such operations (NAND/NOR/XNOR/NOT) directly translate
      to four-transistor gates.  Each bit of a multiple-bit logical
      operation is completely independent and thus can be performed in
      parallel incurring no additional performance cost above a single
      bit operation.
   
      Comparisons (EQ/NEQ) take O(log(M)) stages of logic, where M is
      the number of bits involved in the comparison.  The log(M) is
      required to accumulate the result into a single bit.
   
      Greater than operations, as used to determine whether a hash
      falls in a selection range, are a determination of the most
      significant not-equivalent bit in the two operands.  The operand
      with that most-significant-not-equal bit set to be one is greater
      than the other.  Thus, a greater than operation is also an
      O(log(M)) stages of logic operation.  Optimized implementations
      of arithmetic operations are also O(log(M)) due to propagation of
      the carry bit.
   
      Setting a counter is simply loading a register with a state.
      Such an operation is simple and fast O(1).  Incrementing or
      decrementing a counter is a read, followed by an arithmetic
      operation followed by a store.  Making the register dual-ported
      does take additional space, but it is a well-understood
      technique.  Thus, the increment/decrement is also an O(log(M))
      operation.
   
      Hashing functions come in a variety of forms.  The computation
      involved in a standard Cyclic Redundancy Code (CRC) for example
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 26]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      are essentially a set of XOR operations, where the intermediate
      result is stored and XORed with the next chunk of data.  There
      are only O(1) operations and no log complexity operations.  Thus,
      a simple hash function, such as CRC or generalizations thereof,
      can be implemented in hardware very efficiently.
   
      At the other end of the range of complexity, the MD5 function
      uses a large number of bit-wise conditional operations and
      arithmetic operations.  The former are O(1) operations and the
      latter are O(log(M)).  MD5 specifies 256 32b ADD operations per
      16B of input processed.  Consider processing 10Gb/sec at 100MHz
      (this processing rate appears to be currently available).  This
      requires processing 12.5B/cycle, and hence at least 200 adders, a
      sizeable number.  Because of data dependencies within the MD5
      algorithm, the adders cannot be simply run in parallel, thus
      requiring either faster clock rates and/or more advanced
      architectures.  Thus, selection hashing functions as complex as
      MD5 may be precluded for ubiquitous use at full line rate.  This
      motivates exploring the use of selection hash functions with
      complexity somewhere between that of MD5 and CRC.  In some
      applications (see Section below) a second hash may be calculated
      on only selected packets; MD5 is feasible for this purpose if the
      rate of production of selected packets is sufficiently low.
   
   11.       Applications
   
      We first describe several representative operational applications
      that require traffic measurements at various levels of temporal
      and spatial granularity.  Some of the goals here appear similar
      to those of IPFIX, at least in the broad classes of applications
      supported.  The major benefit of PSAMP is the support of new
      network management applications, specifically, those enabled by
      the packet Selectors that it supports.
   
   11.1    Baseline Measurement and Drill Down
   
      Packet sampling is ideally suited to determine the composition of
      the traffic across a network.  The approach is to enable
      measurement on a cut-set of the network links such that each
      packet entering the network is seen at least once, for example,
      on all ingress links.  Unfiltered sampling with a relatively low
      selection fraction establishes baseline measurements of the
      network traffic.  Packet Reports include packet attributes of
      common interest: source and destination address and port numbers,
      prefix, protocol number, type of service, etc.  Traffic matrices
      are indicated by reporting source and destination AS matrices.
      Absolute traffic volumes are estimated by renormalizing the
      sampled traffic volumes through division by either the Configured
      Selection Fraction, or by the Attained Selection Fraction (as
      derived from input packet counters included in the Report Stream)
   
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 27]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      Suppose an operator or a measurement-based application detects an
      interesting subset of a Packet Stream, as identified by a
      particular packet attribute.  Real-time drill-down to that subset
      is achieved by instantiating a new Metering Process on the same
      Observed Packet Stream from which the subset was reported.  The
      Selection Process of the new Metering Process filters according
      to the attribute of interest, and composes with sampling if
      necessary to manage the attained fraction of packets selected.
   
   11.2    Trajectory Sampling
   
   
      The goal of trajectory sampling is the selection of a subset of
      packets at all enabled Observation Points at which they are
      observed in a network domain.  Thus the selection decisions are
      consistent in the sense that each packet is selected either at
      all enabled Observation Points, or at none of them.  Trajectory
      sampling is realized by hash-based selection if all enabled
      Observation Points apply a common hash function to a portion of
      the Packet Content that is invariant along the packet path.
      (Thus, fields such at TTL and CRC are excluded).
   
      The trajectory followed by a packet is reconstructed from Packet
      Reports on it that reach the Collector.  Reports on a given
      packet are associated either by matching a label comprising the
      invariant reported Packet Content, or possibly some digest of it.
      The reconstruction of trajectories, and methods for dealing with
      possible ambiguities due to label collisions (identical labels
      reported by different packets) and potential loss of reports in
      transmission are dealt with in [DuGr01], [DuGeGr02] and [DuGr04].
   
   11.3    Passive Performance Measurement
   
      Trajectory sampling enables the tracking of the performance
      experience by customer traffic, customers identified by a list of
      source or destination prefixes, or by ingress or egress
      interfaces.  Operational uses include the verification of Service
      Level Agreements (SLAs), and troubleshooting following a customer
      complaint.
   
      In this application, trajectory sampling is enabled at all
      network ingress and egress interfaces.  Rates of loss in transit
      between ingress and egress are estimated from the proportion of
      trajectories for which no egress report is received.  Note that
      loss of customer packets is distinguishable from loss of packet
      reports through use of report sequence numbers.  Assuming
      synchronization of clocks between different entities, delay of
      customer traffic across the network may also be measured; see
      [Zs02].
   
   
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 28]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      Extending hash-selection to all interfaces in the network would
      enable attribution of poor performance to individual network
      links.
   
   11.4    Troubleshooting
   
      PSAMP Packet Reports can also be used to diagnose problems whose
      occurrence is evident from aggregate statistics, per interface
      utilization and packet loss statistics.  These statistics are
      typically moving averages over relatively long time windows,
      e.g., 5 minutes, and serve as a coarse-grain indication of
      operational health of the network.  The most common method of
      obtaining such measurements are through the appropriate SNMP MIBs
      (MIB-II [RFC-1213] and vendor-specific MIBs.)
   
      Suppose an operator detects a link that is persistently
      overloaded and experiences significant packet drop rates.  There
      is a wide range of potential causes: routing parameters (e.g.,
      OSPF link weights) that are poorly adapted to the traffic matrix,
      e.g., because of a shift in that matrix; a denial of service
      attack or a flash crowd; a routing problem (link flapping).  In
      most cases, aggregate link statistics are not sufficient to
      distinguish between such causes, and to decide on an appropriate
      corrective action.  For example, if routing over two links is
      unstable, and the links flap between being overloaded and
      inactive, this might be averaged out in a 5 minute window,
      indicating moderate loads on both links.
   
      Baseline PSAMP measurement of the congested link, as described in
      Section 11.1, enables measurements that are fine grained in both
      space and time.  The operator has to be able to determine how
      many bytes/packets are generated for each source/destination
      address, port number, and prefix, or other attributes, such as
      protocol number, MPLS forwarding equivalence class (FEC), type of
      service, etc.  This allows the precise determination of the
      nature of the offending traffic.  For example, in the case of a
      Distributed Denial of Service(DDoS) attack, the operator would
      see a significant fraction of traffic with an identical
      destination address.
   
      In certain circumstances, precise information about the spatial
      flow of traffic through the network domain is required to detect
      and diagnose problems and verify correct network behavior.  In
      the case of the overloaded link, it would be very helpful to know
      the precise set of paths that packets traversing this link
      follow.  This would readily reveal a routing problem such as a
      loop, or a link with a misconfigured weight.  More generally,
      complex diagnosis scenarios can benefit from measurement of
      traffic intensities (and other attributes) over a set of paths
      that is constrained in some way.  For example, if a multihomed
      customer complains about performance problems on one of the
      access links from a particular source address prefix, the
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 29]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      operator should be able to examine in detail the traffic from
      that source prefix which also traverses the specified access link
      towards the customer.
   
      While it is in principle possible to obtain the spatial flow of
      traffic through auxiliary network state information, e.g., by
      downloading routing and forwarding tables from routers, this
      information is often unreliable, outdated, voluminous, and
      contingent on a network model.  For operational purposes, a
      direct observation of traffic flow provided by trajectory
      sampling is more reliable, as it does not depend on any such
      auxiliary information.  For example, if there was a bug in a
      router's software, direct observation would allow the diagnosis
      the effect of this bug, while an indirect method would not.
   
   12.       Security Considerations
   
         Security considerations are addressed in:
   
         - Section 4.1: item Robust Selection
         - Section 4.3: item Secure Export
         - Section 4.4: item Secure Configuration
   
      Security considerations for the choice of hash function for hash-
      based selection are discussed in [PSAMP-TECH].
   
   13.       IANA Considerations
   
      This document has no actions for IANA
   
   14.       References
   
   
   14.1    Normative References
   
   
      [PSAMP-TECH] T. Zseby, M. Molina, F. Raspall, N. G. Duffield, S.
              Niccolini, Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP
              Packet Selection, RFC XXXX. [Currently Internet Draft,
              draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-07.txt, work in progress,
              July 2005.
   
      [PSAMP-MIB] T. Dietz, B. Claise, Definitions of Managed Objects
              for Packet Sampling, RFC XXXX. [Currently Internet Draft,
              draft-ietf-psamp-mib-06.txt, work in progress, June
              2006.]
   
      [PSAMP-PROTO] B. Claise (Ed.) Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol
              Specifications, RFC XXXX. [Currently Internet Draft
              draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-07.txt, work in progress,
              October 2006.]
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 30]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      [PSAMP-INFO] T. Dietz, F. Dressler, G. Carle, B. Claise,
              Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports, RFC XXXX.
              [Currently Internet Draft, draft-ietf-psamp-info-05,
              October  2006
   
   
      [IPFIX-PROTO]   B. Claise (Ed.) IPFIX Protocol Specifications ,
              Internet Draft,
              draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-24.txt, November 2006.
   
      [IPFIX-INFO] J. Quittek, S. Bryant, B. Claise, P. Aitken, J.
              Meyer,  "Information Model for IP Flow Information
              Export"
              draft-ietf-ipfix-info-15, February 2007
   
      [RFC-2960] R. Stewart, (ed.) "Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.
   
      [RFC-3758] R. Stewart, M. Ramalho, Q. Xie, M. Tuexen, P. Conrad,
              "SCTP Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.
   
   
   14.2    Informative References
   
   
           [RFC-2460] S. Deering, R. Hinden, Internet Protocol, Version
              6 (IPv6) Specification, RFC 2460, December 1998.
   
           [DuGr01] N. G. Duffield and M. Grossglauser, Trajectory
              Sampling for Direct Traffic Observation, IEEE/ACM Trans.
              on Networking, 9(3), 280-292, June 2001.
   
           [DuGeGr02] N.G. Duffield, A. Gerber, M. Grossglauser,
              Trajectory Engine: A Backend for Trajectory Sampling,
              IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium 2002,
              Florence, Italy, April 15-19, 2002.
   
           [DuGr04] N. G. Duffield and M. Grossglauser, Trajectory
              Sampling with Unreliable Reporting, Proc IEEE Infocom
              2004, Hong Kong, March 2004,
   
           [RFC-2914] S. Floyd, Congestion Control Principles, RFC
              2914, September 2000.
   
           [RFC-2804] IAB and IESG, Network Working Group, IETF Policy
              on Wiretapping, RFC 2804, May 2000
   
           [RFC-1213] K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, Management Information
              Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based
              internets:MIB-II, RFC 1213, March 1991.
   
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 31]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
           [RFC-3176] P. Phaal, S. Panchen, N. McKee, InMon
              Corporation's sFlow: A Method for Monitoring Traffic in
              Switched and Routed Networks, RFC 3176, September 2001
   
           [RFC-2330] V. Paxson, G. Almes, J. Mahdavi, M. Mathis,
              Framework for IP Performance Metrics, RFC 2330, May 1998
   
           [RFC-768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol" RFC 768,
              August 1980
   
           [RFC-3917] J. Quittek, T. Zseby, B. Claise, S. Zander,
              Requirements for IP Flow Information Export, RFC 3917,
              October 2004.
   
           [RFC-4271]   Rekhter, Y., Li, T., Hares, S. "A Border
              Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
   
           [RFC-3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon,
              "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              January 2001.
   
           [Zs02] T. Zseby, ``Deployment of Sampling Methods for SLA
              Validation with Non-Intrusive Measurements'', Proceedings
              of Passive and Active Measurement Workshop (PAM 2002),
              Fort Collins, CO, USA, March 25-26, 2002
   
   15.       Authors' Addresses
   
   
         Derek Chiou
         Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
         University of Texas at Austin
         1 University Station, Stop C0803, ENS Building room 135,
         Austin TX, 78712, USA
         Phone: +1 512 232 7722
         Email: Derek@ece.utexas.edu
   
   
         Benoit Claise
         Cisco Systems
         De Kleetlaan 6a b1
         1831 Diegem
         Belgium
         Phone: +32 2 704 5622
         Email: bclaise@cisco.com
   
         Nick Duffield
         AT&T Labs - Research
         Room B139
         180 Park Ave
         Florham Park NJ 07932, USA
         Phone: +1 973-360-8726
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 32]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
         Email: duffield@research.att.com
   
         Albert Greenberg
         One Microsoft Way
         Redmond, WA 98052-6399
         USA
         Phone: +1 425-722-8870
         Email: albert@microsoft.com
   
         Matthias Grossglauser
         School of Computer and Communication Sciences
         EPFL
         1015 Lausanne
         Switzerland
         Email: matthias.grossglauser@epfl.ch
   
         Peram Marimuthu
         Cisco Systems
         170, W. Tasman Drive
         San Jose, CA 95134
         Phone: + 1 408 527-6314
         Email: peram@cisco.com
   
         Jennifer Rexford
         Department of Computer Science
         Princeton University
         35 Olden Street
         Princeton, NJ 08540-5233, USA
         Phone: +1 609-258-5182
         Email: jrex@cs.princeton.edu
   
   
         Ganesh Sadasivan
         Cisco Systems
         170 W. Tasman Drive
         San Jose, CA 95134
         Phone: (408) 527-0251
         Email: gsadasiv@cisco.com
   
   16.       Intellectual Property Statements
   
      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
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 33]
   

   Internet Draft      Packet Selection and Reporting        May 2007
   
   
      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.
   
   
   17.       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.
   
   18.       Disclaimer
   
      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.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Duffield (Ed.)          Expires November 2007               [Page 34]
   

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