[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-psamp-...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [IPR]

INFORMATIONAL

Network Working Group                                   N. Duffield, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5474                          AT&T Labs - Research
Category: Informational                                         D. Chiou
                                                     University of Texas
                                                               B. Claise
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            A. Greenberg
                                                               Microsoft
                                                         M. Grossglauser
                                                            EPFL & Nokia
                                                              J. Rexford
                                                    Princeton University
                                                              March 2009


            A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.






Duffield, et al.             Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


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 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.

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 ...............................................9
      3.8. Collector ..................................................9
      3.9. Possible Configurations ....................................9
   4. Generic Requirements for PSAMP .................................11
      4.1. Generic Selection Process Requirements ....................11
      4.2. Generic Reporting Requirements ............................12
      4.3. Generic Exporting Process Requirements ....................12
      4.4. Generic Configuration Requirements ........................13
   5. Packet Selection ...............................................13
      5.1. Two Types of Selectors ....................................13
      5.2. PSAMP Packet Selectors ....................................14
      5.3. Selection Fraction Terminology ............................17
      5.4. Input Sequence Numbers for Primitive Selectors ............18
      5.5. Composite Selectors .......................................19
      5.6. Constraints on the Selection Fraction .....................19
   6. Reporting ......................................................19
      6.1. Mandatory Contents of Packet Reports: Basic Reports .......19
      6.2. Extended Packet Reports ...................................20
      6.3. Extended Packet Reports in the Presence of IPFIX ..........20
      6.4. Report Interpretation .....................................21
   7. Parallel Metering Processes ....................................22
   8. Exporting Process ..............................................22
      8.1. Use of IPFIX ..............................................22
      8.2. Export Packets ............................................22



Duffield, et al.             Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


      8.3. Congestion-Aware Unreliable Transport .....................22
      8.4. Configurable Export Rate Limit ............................23
      8.5. Limiting Delay for Export Packets .........................23
      8.6. Export Packet Compression .................................24
      8.7. Collector Destination .....................................25
      8.8. Local Export ..............................................25
   9. Configuration and Management ...................................25
   10. Feasibility and Complexity ....................................26
      10.1. Feasibility ..............................................26
           10.1.1. Filtering .........................................26
           10.1.2. Sampling ..........................................26
           10.1.3. Hashing ...........................................26
           10.1.4. Reporting .........................................27
           10.1.5. Exporting .........................................27
      10.2. Potential Hardware Complexity ............................27
   11. Applications ..................................................28
      11.1. Baseline Measurement and Drill Down ......................29
      11.2. Trajectory Sampling ......................................29
      11.3. Passive Performance Measurement ..........................30
      11.4. Troubleshooting ..........................................30
   12. Security Considerations .......................................31
      12.1. Relation of PSAMP and IPFIX Security for
            Exporting Process ........................................31
      12.2. PSAMP Specific Privacy Considerations ....................31
      12.3. Security Considerations for Hash-Based Selection .........32
           12.3.1. Modes and Impact of Vulnerabilities ...............32
           12.3.2. Use of Private Parameters in Hash Functions .......33
           12.3.3. Strength of Hash Functions ........................33
      12.4. Security Guidelines for Configuring PSAMP ................34
   13. Contributors ..................................................34
   14. Acknowledgments ...............................................34
   15. References ....................................................34
      15.1. Normative References .....................................34
      15.2. Informative References ...................................35

















Duffield, et al.             Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


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) [RFC2330]
   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

   This document is one out of a series of documents from the PSAMP
   group.

   RFC 5474 (this document): "A Framework for Packet Selection and
   Reporting" 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.

   [RFC5475]: "Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
   Selection" describes the set of packet selection techniques supported
   by PSAMP.

   [RFC5476]: "Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications"
   specifies the export of packet information from a PSAMP Exporting
   Process to a PSAMP Collecting Process.

   [RFC5477]: "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports" defines an
   information and data model for PSAMP.




Duffield, et al.             Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


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 for 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 detailed definitions of each of 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 and that one Observation Point may be a
      superset of several other Observation Points.  For





Duffield, et al.             Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


      example, one Observation Point can be an entire line card.  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 set of packets from the Observed Packet
      Stream that flows past some specified point within the Metering
      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 a set of packets with common
      properties [RFC3917].

   * 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;




Duffield, et al.             Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


       (iii) iterators for pseudorandom number generators;

        (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
      reflects 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, et al.             Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   * Report Interpretation

      Report Interpretation comprises subsidiary information, relating
      to one or more packets, that is 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 distinct 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 [RFC5101], which produces Flow Records as its
   output, with the difference that the PSAMP Metering Process always
   contains a Selection Process.  The relationship between PSAMP and
   IPFIX is further described in [RFC5477] and [RFC5474].

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 an Export Packet for exporting to a
      Collector.












Duffield, et al.             Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


3.7.  PSAMP Device

   A PSAMP Device is a device hosting at least an Observation Point, a
   Metering Process (which includes a Selection Process), and an
   Exporting Process.  Typically, corresponding Observation Point(s),
   Metering Process(es), and 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)<-+      |
      +---------------------+










Duffield, et al.             Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


      The most simple Metering Process configuration is composed of:

               +------------------------------------+
               | +----------+                       |
               | |Selection |                       |
      Observed | |Process   |  Packet               |
      Packet-->| |(Primitive|-> Stream ->           |--> Report Stream
                   ^
      Stream   | | Selector)|                       |
                   ^
               | +----------+                       |
               |          Metering Process          |
               +------------------------------------+

      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
                                 |
                                 |
                                 |
                                 |
                                 |
                 ...-------------+








Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


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

   (a)  Ubiquity: The Selectors must be simple enough to be implemented
        ubiquitously at maximal line rate.

   (b)  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.

   (c)  Extensibility: The protocol must be able to accommodate
        additional packet Selectors not currently defined.

   (d)  Flexibility: The protocol must support selection of packets
        using various network protocols or encapsulation layers,
        including Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) [RFC0791], Internet
        Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) [RFC2460], and Multiprotocol Label
        Switching (MPLS) [RFC3031].

   (e)  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).

   (f)  Parallel Metering Processes: The protocol must support
        simultaneous operation of multiple independent Metering
        Processes at the same host.

   (g)  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.

   (h)  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 [RFC5475].




Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


4.2.  Generic Reporting Requirements

   (i)  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.

   (j)  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.

   (k)  Accuracy: The Report Stream must include information that
        enables the accuracy of measurements to be determined.

   (l)  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.

   (m)  Privacy: Although selection of the content of Packet Reports
        must be responsive to the needs of measurement applications, it
        must also conform with [RFC2804].  In particular, 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

   (n)  Timeliness: Configuration must allow for limiting of buffering
        delays for the formation and transmission for Export Packets.
        See Section 8.5 for further details.

   (o)  Congestion Avoidance: Export of a Report Stream across a network
        must be congestion avoiding in compliance with [RFC2914].  This
        is discussed further in Section 8.3.

   (p)  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.




Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   The motivation here is the same as for security in IPFIX export; see
   Sections 6.3 and 10 of [RFC3917].

4.4.  Generic Configuration Requirements

   (q)  Ease of Configuration: This applies to ease of configuration of
        Sampling and export parameters, e.g., for automated remote
        reconfiguration in response to collected reports.

   (r)  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.

   Configuration is discussed in Section 9.

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 Selectors

   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



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


             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 with 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

   A spectrum of packet Selectors is described in detail in [RFC5475].
   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: Packet selection is triggered
     periodically by packet count, a number of successive packets being
     selected subsequent to each trigger.

   * systematic time-based Sampling: This is similar to systematic
     count-based Sampling except that selection is reckoned with respect
     to time rather than count.  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 [RFC5102].  Further fields can be
     defined by vendor-specific extensions.



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


     A packet is selected if Field=Value.  Masks and ranges are only
     supported to the extent to which [RFC5102] 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 implement the composite 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) can be realized as vendor-specific schemes.

     Property match operations should be available for different
     protocol portions of the packet header:

         (i) 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 is a router that
     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:




Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


         (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).  Packets that match
             the Failed Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) condition are
             packets for which ingress Filtering failed as defined in
             [RFC3704].

         (v) Failed Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP).  Packets that
             match the Failed RSVP condition are packets that do not
             fulfill the RSVP specification as defined in [RFC2205].

        (vi) No route found for the packet

       (vii) Origin Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Autonomous System (AS)
             [RFC4271] equals a specified value or lies within a given
             range

      (viii) Destination BGP AS equals a specified value or lies within
             a given range

     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 router 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 low that the filter could select based on router
     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 if 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






Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


     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 [RFC5475].
     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.

   * Sample Size

      The Sample Size is the number of packets selected from the
      Population by a Selector.

   * Configured Selection Fraction

      The Configured Selection Fraction is the expected ratio of the
      Sample Size to the Population Size, as based on the configured
      selection parameters.

   * Attained Selection Fraction

      The Attained Selection Fraction is the ratio of the actual Sample
      Size 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 Fractions 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 are



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


      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 [RFC3176] 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 account both
   packet Sampling at the Observation Point and loss in transmission, is
   computed as R = (n-1)/(sn-s1).  (Note that 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 of
   bytes present in a portion of the Observed Packet Stream.  Let b1,
   b2,..., bn be the number of 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.





Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


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:

   *  concatenation 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 depend 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:

         (i) the input sequence number(s) of any Selectors that acted on
             the packet in the instance of a Metering Process that
             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 network layer and any




Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


             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 than 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 of any or all being configurable as
   an option.

        (iv) fields relating to the following protocols used in the
             packet: IPv4, IPV6, transport protocols, and encapsulation
             protocols including 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.

           - hash values, 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.

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
   [RFC5102], with modifications appropriate to reporting on single
   packets rather than Flows.




Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


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.

   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 among
   Metering Processes under resource contention should be configurable.



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   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.

8.2.  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 the packet loss rate for use, e.g., in
   estimating original traffic volumes from Export Packets that reach
   the Collector.

8.3.  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 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



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   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) [RFC4960] and the SCTP Partial Reliability Extension
   [RFC3758].

   IPFIX also allows the use of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
   [RFC0768], 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 [RFC5101].  The PSAMP
   Exporting Process is equipped with a configurable export rate limit
   (see Section 8.4) 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.

8.4.  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.

8.5.  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.

   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



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   identifying sources associated with congestion, tracing Denial-of-
   Service (DoS) 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 bidirectional 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 an
   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
   [RFC3758].

   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 [RFC3758] 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.

8.6.  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 selected packets may share
   many fields in common, e.g., if a filter focuses on packets with



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   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.

8.7.  Collector Destination

   When exporting to a remote Collector, the Collector is identified by
   IP address, transport protocol, and transport port number.

8.8.  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 directly 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, including those for selection and
   Packet Reports, and of the Exporting Process.  An important example
   is to support measurement-based applications that want to adaptively
   drill-down on traffic detail in real time.

   To facilitate retrieval and monitoring of parameters, they are to
   reside in a Management Information Base (MIB).  Mandatory monitoring
   objects will cover all mandatory PSAMP functionality.  Alarming of
   specific parameters could be triggered with thresholding mechanisms
   such as the RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) event and alarm
   [RFC2819] or the event MIB [RFC2981].


   For configuring parameters of the Metering Process, several
   alternatives are available including a MIB module with writeable
   objects, as well as other configuration protocols.  For configuring
   parameters of the Exporting Process, the Packet Report, and the
   Report Interpretation, which is an IFPIX task, the IPFIX
   configuration method(s) should be used.





Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   Although management and configuration of Collectors is out of scope,
   a PSAMP Device, to the extent that it employs IPFIX as an export
   protocol, inherits from IPFIX the capability to detect and recover
   from Collector failure; see Section 8.2 of [RFC5470].

10.  Feasibility and Complexity

   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 document.  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 sufficiently 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



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   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.  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

   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
   Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (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) 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.




Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   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 Check (CRC), for example, is
   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 32 bit ADD operations per 16 bytes of
   input processed.  Consider processing 10 Gb/sec at 100 MHz (this
   processing rate appears to be currently available).  This requires
   processing 12.5 bytes/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 11), 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.









Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 28]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


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 the Attained Selection
   Fraction (as derived from input packet counters included in the
   Report Stream).

   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 these packets 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 by matching either 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].





Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 29]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


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].

   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 is through the appropriate SNMP MIBs (MIB-II [RFC1213]
   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 DoS attack, a flash crowd, or 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,



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 30]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   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 operator should be able to examine in detail the traffic
   from that source prefix that 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

12.1.  Relation of PSAMP and IPFIX Security for Exporting Process

   As detailed in Section 4.3, PSAMP shares with IPFIX security
   requirements for export, namely, confidentiality, integrity, and
   authenticity of the exported data; see also Sections 6.3 and 10 of
   [RFC3917].  Since PSAMP will use IPFIX for export, it can employ the
   IPFIX protocol [RFC5101] to meet its requirements.

12.2.  PSAMP Specific Privacy Considerations

   In distinction with IPFIX, a PSAMP Device may, in some
   configurations, report some number of initial bytes of the packet,
   which may include some part of a packet payload.  This option is
   conformant with the requirements of [RFC2804] since it does not



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 31]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   mandate configurations that would enable capture of an entire Packet
   Stream of a Flow: neither a unit Sampling rate (1 in 1 Sampling) nor
   reporting a specific number of initial bytes is required by the PSAMP
   protocol.

   To preserve privacy of any users acting as sender or receiver of the
   observed traffic, the contents of the Packet Reports must be able to
   remain confidential in transit between the exporting PSAMP Device and
   the Collector.  PSAMP will use IPFIX as the exporting protocol, and
   the IPFIX protocol must provide mechanisms to ensure confidentiality
   of the Exporting Process, for example, encryption of Export Packets
   [RFC5101].

12.3.  Security Considerations for Hash-Based Selection

12.3.1.  Modes and Impact of Vulnerabilities

   A concern for Hash-based Selection is whether some large set of
   related packets could be disproportionately sampled, either

         (i) through unanticipated behavior in the hash function, or

        (ii) because the packets had been deliberately crafted to have
             this property.

   As detailed below, only cryptographic hash functions (e.g., one based
   on MD5) employing a private parameter are sufficiently strong to
   withstand the range of conceivable attacks.  However, implementation
   considerations may preclude operating the strongest hash functions at
   line rate.  For this reason, PSAMP is not expected to standardize
   around a cryptographic hash function at the present time.  The
   purpose of this section is to inform discussion of the
   vulnerabilities and trade-offs associated with different hash
   function choices.  Section 6.2.2 of [RFC5475] does this in more
   detail.

   An attacker able to predict packet Sampling outcomes could craft a
   Packet Stream that could evade selection, or another that could
   overwhelm the measurement infrastructure with all its packets being
   selected.  An attacker may attempt to do this based on knowledge of
   the hash function.  An attacker could employ knowledge of selection
   outcomes of a known Packet Stream to reverse engineer parameters of
   the hash function.  This knowledge could be gathered, e.g., from
   billing information, reactions of intrusion detection systems, or
   observation of a Report Stream.

   Since Hash-based Selection is deterministic, it is vulnerable to
   replay attacks.  Repetition of a single packet may be noticeable to



Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 32]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   other measurement methods if employed (e.g., collection of Flow
   statistics), whereas a set of distinct packets that appears
   statistically similar to regular traffic may be less noticeable.  The
   impact of replay attacks on Hash-based Selection may be mitigated by
   repeated changing of hash function parameters.

12.3.2.  Use of Private Parameters in Hash Functions

   Because hash functions for Hash-based Selection are to be
   standardized and hence public, the packet selection decision must be
   controlled by some private quantity associated with the Hash-based
   Selection Selector.  Making private the range of hash values for
   which packets are selected is not alone sufficient to prevent an
   attacker crafting a stream of distinct packets that are
   disproportionately selected.  A private parameter must be used within
   the hash function, for example, a private modulus in a hash function,
   or by concatenating the hash input with a private string prior to
   hashing.

12.3.3.  Strength of Hash Functions

   The specific choice of hash function and its usage determines the
   types of potential vulnerability:

   * Cryptographic hash functions: when a private parameter is used,
     future selection outcomes cannot be predicted even by an attacker
     with knowledge of past selection outcomes.

   * Non-cryptographic hash functions:

     Using knowledge of past selection outcomes: some well-known hash
     functions, e.g., CRC-32, are vulnerable to attacks, in the sense
     that their private parameter can be determined with knowledge of
     sufficiently many past selections, even when a private parameter is
     used; see [GoRe07].

     No knowledge of past selection outcomes: using a private parameter
     hardened the hash function to classes of attacks that work when the
     parameter is public, although vulnerability to future attacks is
     not precluded.

12.4.  Security Guidelines for Configuring PSAMP

   Hash function parameters configured in a PSAMP Device are sensitive
   information, which must be kept private.  As well as using probing
   techniques to discover parameters of non-cryptographic hash functions
   as described above, implementation and procedural weaknesses may lead




Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 33]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   to attackers discovering parameters, whatever class of hash function
   is used.  The following measures may prevent this from occurring:

   Hash function parameters must not be displayable in cleartext on
   PSAMP Devices.  This reduces the chance for the parameters to be
   discovered by unauthorized access to the PSAMP Device.

   Hash function parameters must not be remotely set in cleartext over a
   channel that may be eavesdropped.

   Hash function parameters must be changed regularly.  Note that such
   changes must be synchronized over all PSAMP Devices in a domain under
   which trajectory Sampling is employed in order to maintain consistent
   Sampling of packets over the domain.

   Default hash function parameter values should be initialized
   randomly, in order to avoid predictable values that attackers could
   exploit.

13.  Contributors

   Sharon Goldberg contributed to Section 12.3 on security
   considerations for Hash-based Selection.

   Sharon Goldberg
   Department of Electrical Engineering
   Princeton University
   F210-K EQuad
   Princeton, NJ 08544
   USA
   EMail: goldbe@princeton.edu

14.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Peram Marimuthu and Ganesh Sadasivan
   for their input in early working drafts of this document.

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC5476]  Claise. B., Ed., "Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol
              Specifications", RFC 5476, March 2009.

   [RFC5477]  Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
              Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
              RFC 5477, March 2009.




Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 34]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   [RFC5101]  Claise, B., Ed., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
              Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
              Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
              1981.

   [RFC5102]  Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
              Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
              RFC 5102, January 2008.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.

   [RFC3758]  Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
              Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
              Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.

   [RFC5475]  Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S., and F.
              Raspall, " Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet
              Selection", RFC 5475, March 2009.

15.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3704]  Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
              Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [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.

   [DuGr08]   N. G. Duffield and M. Grossglauser, "Trajectory Sampling
              with Unreliable Reporting", IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking,
              16(1), February 2008.





Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 35]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   [RFC2914]  Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
              2914, September 2000.

   [GoRe07]   S. Goldberg, J. Rexford, "Security Vulnerabilities and
              Solutions for Packet Sampling", IEEE Sarnoff Symposium,
              Princeton, NJ, May 2007.

   [RFC2804]  IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804, May
              2000.

   [RFC2981]  Kavasseri, R., Ed., "Event MIB", RFC 2981, October 2000.

   [RFC1213]  McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
              for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:MIB-II",
              STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.

   [RFC3176]  Phaal, P., Panchen, S., and N. McKee, "InMon Corporation's
              sFlow: A Method for Monitoring Traffic in Switched and
              Routed Networks", RFC 3176, September 2001.

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

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              August 1980.

   [RFC3917]  Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander,
              "Requirements for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC
              3917, October 2004.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January
              2006.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC5470]  Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J. Quittek,
              "Architecture for IP Flow Information Export", RFC 5470,
              March 2009.

   [RFC2819]  Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
              Information Base", STD 59, RFC 2819, May 2000.







Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 36]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   [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.

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, Editor
   AT&T Labs - Research
   Room B139
   180 Park Ave
   Florham Park NJ 07932
   USA

   Phone: +1 973-360-8726
   EMail: duffield@research.att.com


   Albert Greenberg
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052-6399
   USA

   Phone: +1 425-722-8870
   EMail: albert@microsoft.com





Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 37]

RFC 5474             Packet Selection and Reporting           March 2009


   Matthias Grossglauser
   School of Computer and Communication Sciences
   EPFL
   1015 Lausanne
   Switzerland

   EMail: matthias.grossglauser@epfl.ch


   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

































Duffield, et al.             Informational                     [Page 38]


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