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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark

Network Working Group                                       M. Chen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             L. Zheng, Ed.
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: July 27, 2016                                    G. Mirsky, Ed.
                                                                Ericsson
                                                        G. Fioccola, Ed.
                                                          Telecom Italia
                                                        January 24, 2016


               IP Flow Performance Measurement Framework
           draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-05

Abstract

   This document specifies a measurement method, the IP flow performance
   measurement (IPFPM).  With IPFPM, data packets are marked into
   different blocks of markers by changing one or more bits of packets.
   No additional delimiting packet is needed and the performance is
   measured in-service and in-band without the insertion of additional
   traffic.

Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 27, 2016.







Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Overview and Concept  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Consideration on Marking Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Reference Model and Functional Components . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Measurement Control Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Measurement Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Period Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Re-ordering Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Packet Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Packet Delay Measurement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   Performance Measurement (PM) is an important tool for service
   provider for Service Level Agreement (SLA) verification,
   troubleshooting (e.g., fault localization or fault delimitation) and
   network visualization.  Measurement methods could be roughly put into
   two categories - active measurement method and passive measurement
   method.  Active method measures performance or reliability parameters
   by the examination of traffic (IP Packets) injected into the network,
   expressly for the purpose of measurement by intended measurement



Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   point . On the contrary, passive method measures some performance or
   reliability parameter associated with the existing traffic (packets)
   on the network.  Both passive and active methods have their strengths
   and should be regarded as complementary.  There are certain scenarios
   where active measurements alone is not enough or applicable and
   passive measurements are
   desirable[I-D.deng-ippm-passive-wireless-usecase].

   With active measurement method, the rate, numbers and interval
   between the injected packets may affect the accuracy of the results.
   And for injected test packets it may not be guaranteed to always be
   in-band with the data traffic in the pure IP network due to Equal
   Cost Multi-Path (ECMP).

   The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) PM protocol [RFC6374] for
   packet loss could be considered an example of passive performance
   measurement method.  By periodically inserting auxiliary Operations,
   Administration and Maintenance (OAM) packets, the traffic is
   delimited by the OAM packets into consecutive blocks, and the
   receivers count the packets and calculate the packets loss each
   block.  However, solutions like [RFC6374] depend on the fixed
   positions of the delimiting OAM packets for packets counting, and
   thus are vulnerable to out-of-order arrival of packets.  This could
   happen particularly with out-of-band OAM channels, but might also
   happen with in-band OAM because of the presence of multipath
   forwarding within the network.  Out of order delivery of data and the
   delimiting OAM can give rise to inaccuracies in the performance
   measurement figures.  The scale of these inaccuracies will depend on
   data speeds and the variation in delivery, but with out-of-band OAM,
   this could result in significant differences between real and
   reported performance.

   This document specifies a different measurement method, the IP flow
   performance measurement (IPFPM).  With IPFPM, data packets are marked
   into different blocks of markers by changing one or more bits of
   packets without altering normal processing in the network.  No
   additional delimiting packet is needed and the performance can be
   measured in-service without the insertion of additional traffic.
   Furthermore, because marking based IP performance measurement does
   not require extra OAM packets for traffic delimitation, it can be
   used in situations where there is packets re-ordering.  IP Flow
   Information eXport (IPFIX) [RFC7011] is used for reporting the
   measurement data of IPFPM to a central calculation element for
   performance metrics calculation.  Several new Information Elements of
   IPFIX are defined for IPFPM.  These are described in the companion
   document [I-D.chen-ippm-ipfpm-report].





Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


2.  Terminology

   The acronyms used in this document will be listed here.

3.  Overview and Concept

   The concept of marking IP packets for performance measurement is
   described in [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m].  Marking of packets in a
   specific IP flow to different markings divides the flows into
   different consecutive blocks.  Packets in a block have same marking
   and consecutive blocks will have different markings.  This enables
   the measuring node to count and calculate packet loss and/or delay
   based on each block of markers without any additional auxiliary OAM
   packets.  The following figure (Figure 1) is an example that
   illustrates the different markings in a single IP flow in alternate 0
   and 1 blocks.

       |  0  Block  |   1  Block |  0  Block  |   1  Block |
        000000000000 111111111111 000000000000 111111111111

                    Figure 1: Packet Marking


   For packet loss measurement, there are two ways to mark packets:
   fixed packet numbers or fixed time period for each block of markers.
   This document considers only fixed time period method.  The sender
   and receiver nodes count the transmitted and received packets/octets
   based on each block of markers.  By counting and comparing the
   transmitted and received packets/octets, the packet loss can be
   detected.

   For packet delay measurement, there are three solutions.  One is
   similar to the packet loss, it still marks the IP flows to different
   blocks of markers and uses the time of the marking change as the
   reference time for delay calculations.  This solution requires that
   there must not be any out-of-order packets; otherwise, the result
   will not be accurate.  Because it uses the first packet of each block
   of markers for delay measurement, if there is packet reordering, the
   first packet of each block at the sender will be probably different
   from the first packet of the block at the receiver.  An alternate way
   is to periodically mark a single packet in the IP flow.  Within a
   given time period, there is only one packet that can be marked.  The
   sender records the timestamp when the marked packet is transmitted,
   the receiver records the timestamp when received the marked packet.
   With the two timestamps, the packet delay can be computed.  An
   additional method consists in taking into account the average arrival
   time of the packets within a single block (i.e. the same block of
   markers used for packet loss measurement).  The network device



Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   locally sums all the timestamps and divides by the total number of
   packets received, so the average arrival time for that block of
   packets can be calculated.  By subtracting the average arrival times
   of two adjacent devices it is possible to calculate the average delay
   between those nodes.  This method is robust to out of order packets
   and also to packet loss (only an error is introduced dependent from
   the number of lost packets).

   A centralized calculation element Measurement Control Point (MCP) is
   introduced in Section 5.2 of this document, to collect the packet
   counts and timestamps from the senders and receivers for metrics
   calculation.  The IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) [RFC7011]
   protocol is used for collecting the performance measurement statistic
   information [I-D.chen-ippm-ipfpm-report].  For the statistic
   information collected, the MCP has to know exactly what packet pair
   counts (one from the sender and the other is from the receiver) are
   based on the same block of markers and a pair of timestamps (one from
   the sender and the other is from the receiver) are based on the same
   marked packet.  In case of average delay calculation the MCP has to
   know in addition to the packet pair counters also the pair of average
   timestamps for the same block of markers.  The "Period Number" based
   solution Section 6 is introduced to achieve this.

   For a specific IP flow to be measured, there may be one or more
   upstream and downstream Measurement Agents (MAs)( Section 5.3).  An
   IP flow can be identified by the Source IP (SIP) and Destination IP
   (DIP) addresses, and it may combine the SIP and DIP with any or all
   of the Protocol number, the Source port, the Destination port, and
   the Type of Service (TOS) to identify an IP flow.  For each flow,
   there will be a flow identifier that is unique within a certain
   administrative domain.  To simplify the process description, the
   flows discussed in this document are all unidirectional.  A
   bidirectional flow can be seen as two unidirectional flows.

   IFPFM supports the measurement of Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP)
   model, which satisfy all the scenarios that include Point-to-Point
   (P2P), Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP), Multipoint-to-Point (MP2P), and
   MP2MP.  P2P scenario is obvious and can be used anywhere.  P2MP and
   MP2P are very common in mobile backhaul networks.  For example, a
   Cell Site Gateway (CSG) multi-homing to two Radio Network Controller
   (RNC) Site Gateways (RSGs) is a typical network design.  When there
   is a failure, there is a requirement to monitor the flows between the
   CSG and the two RSGs hence to determine whether the fault is in the
   transport network or in the wireless network (typically called "fault
   delimitation").  This is especially useful in the situation where the
   transport network belongs to one service provider and wireless
   network belongs to other service providers.




Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


4.  Consideration on Marking Bits

   The marking bits selection are encapsulation related, different bits
   for marking should be allocated by different encapsulations.  This
   document does not define any marking bits, the marking bits selection
   for specific encapsulation will be defined in the relevant documents.
   Also, in general, in order to support packet loss and delay
   measurement test simultaneously, at least two marking bits are
   needed.  One bit is for packet loss measurement, the other one is for
   packet delay measurement.

   In theory, so long as there are unused bits could be allocated for
   marking purpose, marking based measurement mechanism can be applied
   to any encapsulation.  It's relatively easier for new defined
   encapsulations to allocate marking bits.  Example of such case is Bit
   Indexed Explicit Replication (BIER).  Two marking bits for passive
   performance measurementand has been allocated in BIER encapsulation
   [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] (Section 3.).  But for
   sophisticated encapsulations, it's harder or even impossible to
   allocate bits for marking purpose.  IPv4 encapsulation is one of the
   examples.  IPv6 encapsulation is in the same situation, but for IPv6,
   an alternative solution is to leverage the IPv6 extension header for
   marking.

   Since marking will directly change some bits (of the header) of the
   real traffic packets, it MUST make sure that the marking operations
   will not affect the forwarding and process of the packets.
   Specifically, the marking bits MUST NOT be used for ECMP hashing.  In
   addition, to increase the accuracy of measurement, hardware based
   implementation is desired, so the marking bits SHOULD be easy for
   hardware implementation.  For example, the marking bits should be
   better at the fixed positions in a packet header.

5.  Reference Model and Functional Components

5.1.  Reference Model

   The outline of the measurement system of large-scale measurement
   platforms (LMAP) network is introduced in [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].
   It describes the main functional components of the LMAP measurement
   system, and the interactions between the components.  The Measurement
   Agent (MA) of IPFPM could be considered equivalent to the MA of LMAP.
   The Measurement Control Point (MCP) of IPFPM could be considered as
   the combined function of Controller and Collector.  IP Flow
   Information eXport (IPFIX) [RFC7011] protocol is used for collecting
   the performance measurement data on the MAs and reported to MCP.  The
   details are specified in the companion document




Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   [I-D.chen-ippm-ipfpm-report].  The control between MCP and MAs are
   left for future study.  Figure 1 gives the reference model of IPFPM.

                                     +-----+
                              +------| MCP |------+
                              |      +-----+      |
                    +-----+   |  +---/     \---+  |   +-----+
                    | MA1 |---+  |             |  +---| MA3 |
                    +-----+      |             |      +-----+
                    +-----+      |             |      +-----+
                    | MA2 |------+             +------| MA4 |
                    +-----+                           +-----+
                             Figure 1: IPFPM Reference Model

5.2.  Measurement Control Point

   The Measurement Control Point (MCP) is responsible for collecting the
   measurement data from the Measurement Agents (MAs) and calculating
   the performance metrics according to the collected measurement data.
   For packet loss, based on each block of markers, the difference
   between the total counts received from all upstream MAs and the total
   counts received from all downstream MAs are the lost packet numbers.
   The MCP must make sure that the counts from the upstream MAs and
   downstream MAs are related to the same marking/packets block.  For
   packet delay (e.g., one way delay), the difference between the
   timestamps from the downstream MA and upstream MA is the packet
   delay.  Similarly to packet loss, the MCP must make sure the two
   timestamps are based on the same marked packet.  This document
   introduces a Period Number (PN) based synchronization mechanism which
   is discussed in details in Section 6.

5.3.  Measurement Agent

   The Measurement Agent (MA) executes the measurement actions (e.g.,
   marks the packets, counts the packets, records the timestamps, etc.),
   and reports the data to the Measurement Control Point (MCP).  Each MA
   maintains two timers, one (C-timer, used at upstream MA) is for
   marking change, the other (R-timer, used at downstream MA) is for
   reading the packet counts and timestamps.  The two timers have the
   same time interval but are started at different time.  A MA can be
   either an upstream or a downstream MA: the role is specific to an IP
   flow to be measured.  For a specific IP flow, the upstream MA will
   change the marking and read the packet counts and timestamps when the
   C-timer expires, the downstream MA just reads the packets counts and
   timestamps when the R-timer expires.  The MA may delay the reading
   for certain time when R-timer expires, in order to tolerant certain
   degree of packet re-ordering.  Section 7 describes this in details.




Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   For each Measurement Task (corresponding to an IP flow)
   [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework], a MA maintains a pairs of packet counters
   and a timestamp counter for each block of markers.  As for the pair
   of packet counters, one is for counting packets and the other is for
   counting octets.

6.  Period Number

   When data are collected on the upstream MA and downstream MA, e.g.
   packet counts or timestamps, and periodically reported to the MCP,
   certain synchronization mechanism is required to ensure the data
   collected are correlated.  This document introduces the Period Number
   (PN) to help the MCP to determine whether any two or more packet
   counts (from distributed MAs) are related to the same block of
   markers or any two timestamps are related to the same marked packet.

   Period Number assures the data correlation by literally split the
   packets into different measurement period.  The PN is generated each
   time a MA reads the packet counts or timestamps, and is associated
   with Each packet count and timestamp reported to the MCP.  When the
   MCP see e.g.  two PN associated with two packet counts from a
   upstream and downstream MA, it consider this two packet counts are
   for the same measurement period by the same PN, i.e. this two packet
   counts are related to the same block of markers.  The assumption is
   that the upstream and downstream MAs are time synchronized.  This
   requires that the upstream and downstream MAs having a certain time
   synchronization capability (e.g., supporting the Network Time
   Protocol (NTP) [RFC5905], or the IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol
   (PTP) [IEEE1588].)  The PN is calculated as the modulo of the local
   time (when the counts or timestamps are read) and the interval of the
   marking time period.

7.  Re-ordering Tolerance

   In order to allow for a certain degree of packets re-ordering, the
   R-timer on downstream MA should be started delta-t (Dt) later after
   the C-timer is started.  Dt is a defined period of time and should
   satisfies the following conditions:

   (Time-L - Time-MRO ) < Dt < (Time-L + Time-MRO )

   Where

   Time-L: the link delay time between the sender and receiver;

   Time-MRO: the maximum re-ordering time difference; if a packet is
   expected to arrive at t1 but actually arrives at t2, then the Time-
   MRO = | t2 - t1|.



Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   So, the R-timer should be started at "t + Dt" (where the t is the
   time when C-timer started).

   For simplicity, the C-timer should be started at the beginning of
   each time period.  This document recommends the implementation to
   support at least these time periods (1s, 10s, 1min, 10min and 1h).
   So, if the time period is 10s, the C-timer should be started at the
   time of any multiples of 10 in seconds (e.g., 0s, 10s, 20s, etc.),
   then the R-timer should be started (e.g., 0s+Dt, 10s+Dt, 20s+Dt,
   etc.).  With this method, each MA can independently start its C-timer
   and R-timer given that the clocks have been synchronized.

8.  Packet Loss Measurement

   To simplify the process description, the flows discussed in this
   document are all unidirectional.  A bidirectional flow can be seen as
   two unidirectional flows.  For a specific flow, there will be
   upstream and downstream MAs and upstream and downstream packet
   counts/timestamp accordingly.

   For packet loss measurement, this document defines the following
   counters and quantities:

   U-CountP[n][m]: U-CountP is a two-dimensional array that stores the
   number of packets transmitted by each upstream MA in each marking
   time period.  Specifically, parameter "n" is the "period number" of
   measured blocks of markers while parameter "m" refers to the m-th MA
   of the upstream MAs.

   D-CountP[n][m]: D-CountP is a two-dimensional array that stores the
   number of packets received by each downstream MA in each marking time
   period.  Specifically, parameter "n" is the "period number" of
   measured blocks of markers while parameter "m" refers to the m-th MA
   of the downstream MAs.

   U-CountO[n][m]: U-CountO is a two-dimensional array that stores the
   number of octets transmitted by each upstream MA in each marking time
   period.  Specifically, parameter "n" is the "period number" of
   measured blocks of markers while parameter "m" refers to the m-th MA
   of the upstream MAs.

   D-CountO[n][m]: D-CountO is a two-dimensional array that stores the
   number of octets received by each downstream MA in each marking time
   period.  Specifically, parameter "n" is the "period number" of
   measured blocks of markers while parameter "m" refers to the m-th MA
   of the downstream MAs.





Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   LossP: the number of packets transmitted by the upstream MAs but not
   received at the downstream MAs.

   LossO: the total octets transmitted by the upstream MAs but not
   received at the downstream MAs.

   The total packet loss of a flow can be computed as follows:

   LossP = U-CountP[1][1] + U-CountP[1][2] + .... + U-CountP[n][m] -
   D-CountP[1][1] - D-CountP[1][2] - .... - D-CountP[n][m'].

   LossO = U-CountO[1][1] + U-CountO[1][2] + .... + U-CountO[n][m] -
   D-CountO[1][1] - D-CountO[1][2] - .... - D-CountO[n][m'].

   Where the m and m' are the number of upstream MAs and downstream MAs,
   respectively.

9.  Packet Delay Measurement

   For packet delay measurement, there will be only one upstream MA and
   may be one or more (P2MP) downstream MAs.  Although the marking based
   IPFPM supports P2MP model, this document only discusses P2P model,
   the P2MP model is left for future study.  This document defines the
   following timestamps and quantities:

   U-Time[n]: U-Time is a one-dimension array that stores the time when
   marked packets are sent; in case the "average delay" method is being
   used, U-Time stores the average of the time when the packets of the
   same block are sent; parameter "n" is the "period number" of marked
   packets.

   D-Time[n]: D-Time is a one-dimension array that stores the time when
   marked packets are received; in case the "average delay" method is
   being used, D-Time stores the average of the time when the packets of
   the same block are received; parameter "n" is the "period number" of
   marked packets.  This is only for P2P model.

   D-Time[n][m]: D-Time a two-dimension array that stores the time when
   the marked packet is received by downstream MAs at each marking time
   period; in case the "average delay" method is being used, D-Time
   stores the average of the times when the packets of the same block
   are received by downstream MAs at each marking time period.  Here,
   parameter "n" is the "period number" of marked packets while
   parameter "m" refers to the m-th MA of the downstream MAs.  This is
   for P2MP model which is left for future study.






Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   One-way Delay[n]: The one-way delay metric for packet networks is
   described in [RFC2679].  The "n" identifies the "period number" of
   the marked packet.

   One-way Delay[1] = D-Time[1] - U-Time[1].

   One-way Delay[2] = D-Time[2] - U-Time[2].

   ...

   One-way Delay[n] = D-Time[n] - U-Time[n].

   In the case of two-way delay, the delay is the sum of the two one-way
   delays of the two flows that have the same MAs but have opposite
   directions.

   Two-way Delay[1] = (D-Time[1] - U-Time[1]) + (D-Time'[1] -
   U-Time'[1]).

   Two-way Delay[2] = (D-Time[2] - U-Time[2]) + (D-Time'[2] -
   U-Time'[2]).

   ...

   Two-way Delay[n] = (D-Time[n] - U-Time[n]) + (D-Time'[n] -
   U-Time'[n]).

   Where the D-Time and U-Time are for one forward flow, the D-Time' and
   U-Time' are for reverse flow.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request to IANA.

11.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies a passive mechanism for measuring packet loss
   and delay within a Service Provider's network where the IP packets
   are marked with the unused bits in IP head field, and then inserting
   additional OAM packets during the measurement is avoided.  Obviously,
   such mechanism does not directly affect other applications running on
   the Internet but may lead to potential affects to the measurement
   itself.

   First, the measurement itself may be affected by routers (or other
   network devices) along the path of IP packets intentionally altering
   the value of marking bits of packets.  Just as mentioned before, the
   mechanism specified in this document is just in the context of one



Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   Service Provider's network, so the routers (or other network devices)
   are controllable and thus this kind of attack can be omitted.

   Second, the measurement can be harmed by attackers injecting
   artificial traffic.  Then authentication techniques, like digital
   signatures, may be used to guard against such kind of attack.

12.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for his review,
   suggestion and comments to this document.

13.  Contributing Authors






































Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


      Hongming Liu
      Huawei Technologies

      Email: liuhongming@huawei.com


      Yuanbin Yin
      Huawei Technologies

      Email: yinyuanbin@huawei.com


      Rajiv Papneja
      Huawei Technologies

      Email: Rajiv.Papneja@huawei.com

      Shailesh Abhyankar
      Vodafone
      Vodafone House, Ganpat Rao kadam Marg Lower Parel
      Mumbai  40003
      India

      Email: shailesh.abhyankar@vodafone.com


      Guangqing Deng
      CNNIC
      4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun, Haidian District
      Beijing
      China

      Email: dengguangqing@cnnic.cn


      Yongliang Huang
      China Unicom

      Email: huangyl@dipmt.com

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.



Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


14.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.chen-ippm-ipfpm-report]
              Chen, M., Zheng, L., Liu, H., Yin, Y., Papneja, R.,
              Abhyankar, S., Deng, G., and Y. Huang, "IP Flow
              Performance Measurement Report", draft-chen-ippm-ipfpm-
              report-00 (work in progress), July 2014.

   [I-D.deng-ippm-passive-wireless-usecase]
              Lingli, D., Zheng, L., and G. Mirsky, "Use-cases for
              Passive Measurement in Wireless Networks", draft-deng-
              ippm-passive-wireless-usecase-01 (work in progress),
              January 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]
              Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J., and
              S. Aldrin, "Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit
              Replication in MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-bier-mpls-
              encapsulation-02 (work in progress), August 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
              Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
              Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale
              Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", draft-ietf-
              lmap-framework-14 (work in progress), April 2015.

   [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m]
              Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., and A. Bonda,
              "A packet based method for passive performance
              monitoring", draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04 (work in
              progress), February 2014.

   [IEEE1588]
              IEEE, "1588-2008 IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
              Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
              Control Systems", March 2008.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.





Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   [RFC2679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
              Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, DOI 10.17487/RFC2679,
              September 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2679>.

   [RFC3260]  Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
              Diffserv", RFC 3260, DOI 10.17487/RFC3260, April 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3260>.

   [RFC4656]  Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
              Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
              (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>.

   [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
              Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
              RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.

   [RFC7011]  Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
              "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
              Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
              RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.

Authors' Addresses

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen (editor)
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com


   Lianshu Zheng (editor)
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com





Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               IPFPM Framework                January 2016


   Greg Mirsky  (editor)
   Ericsson
   USA

   Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com


   Giuseppe Fioccola (editor)
   Telecom Italia
   Via Reiss Romoli, 274
   Torino 10148
   Italy

   Email: giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it





































Chen, et al.              Expires July 27, 2016                [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/