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

Versions: 01 02

Network Working Group                                         P. Eardley
Internet-Draft                                              T. Burbridge
Intended status: Informational                                        BT
Expires: August 29, 2013                                       A. Morton
                                                                    AT&T
                                                       February 25, 2013


                A framework for large-scale measurements
                    draft-eardley-lmap-framework-01

Abstract

   Measuring broadband service on a large scale requires standardisation
   of the logical architecture and a description of the key protocols
   that coordinate interactions between the components.  The document
   presents an overall framework for large-scale measurements and
   discusses which elements could be standardised in the IETF.  It is
   intended to assist the discussions about the potential creation of
   the LMAP working group.

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 August 29, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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



Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Outline of framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Measurement system is under the direction of a single
           organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Each MA may only have a single Controller at any point
           in time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  A Measurement Agent acts autonomously  . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Work required in LMAP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Defining the Test and Report Schedules . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Defining the Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Related work required but out of scope of LMAP . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Standard measurement tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.2.  Characterisation plan  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  Other elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13























Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


1.  Introduction

   [use-cases] discusses several use cases have been proposed for large-
   scale measurements:

   o  Operators: to help plan their network and identify faults

   o  End Users: to run diagnostic checks, such as a network speed test

   o  Regulators: to benchmark several network operators

   The LMAP framework should be useful for all these.

   The key requirement is for large scale.  A measurement system might
   have at least ~100k Measurement Agents.

   There are existing measurement systems.  However, they typically lack
   some of the desirable features for a large-scale measurement system:

   o  Standardised - in terms of the tests that they perform, the
      components, the data models and protocols for transferring
      information between the components.  For example so that it is
      meaningful to compare measurements made of the same metric at
      different times and places.  Today's systems are proprietary in
      some or all of these aspects.

   o  Extensible - it should be easy to add or modify tests, for example
      an improved test methodology or to measure a performance metric
      not previously considered important (eg bufferbloat).

   o  Large-scale - [use-cases] envisages Measurement Agents in every
      home gateway and edge device such as set-top-boxes and tablet
      computers.  Existing systems have up to a few thousand Measurement
      Agents (without judging how much further they could scale).

   o  Diversity - a measurement system should handle different types of
      Measurement Agent - for example Measurement Agents may come from
      different vendors, be in wired and wireless networks and be on
      devices with IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.

   This section forms the problem statement / aim of the proposed LMAP
   working group, in the context of the constraints and scope given
   below.








Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


2.  Outline of framework

   The LMAP framework for large-scale measurements has three elements:

   o  Measurement Agent (MA)

   o  Controller

   o  Collector

   In addition there are some components that are outside LMAP but
   useful within the context of a large scale measurement system:

   o  Initialiser

   o  Subscriber Parameter Database

   o  Results Database

   o  Data Analysis Tools

   o  Operator's OAM (Operations Administration and Management)

   Two Measurement Agents (MAs) jointly perform an active measurement
   test, by generating test traffic and measuring some metric associated
   with its transfer over the path from one MA to the other; for example
   the time taken to transfer a 'test file'.  Some tests may involve
   more than two MAs; for example, to measure 'latency under load'.  A
   single MA may also conduct passive testing through the observation of
   traffic (ie without the involvement of a second MA); for example an
   end user's mix of applications.

   The MA functions are implemented either in specialised hardware or as
   code on general purpose devices like a PC, tablet or smartphone.

   o  Comment: It may be useful to distinguish two types of MA - a
      'complete MA' that interacts with the Controller and Collector,
      and a 'remote MA' that only takes part in active tests (and does
      not interact with the Controller and Collector).  This is for
      further study.

   o  Comment: A 'complete MA' may want to run a test against a normal,
      non-LMAP device, for example the time for a DNS response or a
      webpage download from www.example.com.

   The Controller manages a MA by instructing it which tests it should
   perform and when.  For example it may instruct a MA at a home
   gateway: "Run the 'download speed test' with the test server at the



Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


   end user's first IP point in the network; if the end user is active
   then delay the test and re-try 1 minute later, with up to 3 re-tries;
   repeat every hour at xx.05 + Unif[0,180] seconds".  The Controller
   also manages a MA by instructing it how to report the test results,
   for example: "Report results once a day in a batch at 4am +
   Unif[0,180] seconds; if the end user is active then delay the report
   5 minutes".  As well as regular tests, a Controller can initiate a
   one-off test ("Do test now", "Report as soon as possible").  These
   are called the Test and Report Schedule.

   The Collector accepts a Report from a MA with the results from its
   tests.  It may also do some processing on the results - for instance
   to eliminate outliers, as they can severely impact the aggregated
   results.

   Therefore the MA is a LMAP-specific device that initiates the test,
   gets instructions from the Controller and reports to the Collector.

   o  Comment: It is possible that communications between two
      Collectors, two Controllers and a Controller and Collector may be
      useful in some use cases, perhaps to help a measurement system
      scale.  It is for further study whether such communications should
      be in or out of scope of LMAP.

   o  Comment: The Initialiser, Subscriber Parameter Database, Results
      Database, Data Analysis Tools and OAM are out of scope of LMAP.
      They may be provided through existing protocols or applications
      and are likely to be part of a complete large-scale measurement
      system.

   An Initialiser configures a MA with details about its Controller,
   including authentication credentials.  Possible protocols are SNMP,
   NETCONF or (for Home Gateways) CPE WAN Management Protocol (CWMP)
   from the Auto Configuration Server (ACS) (as specified in TR-069).

   A Subscriber Parameter Database contains information about the line,
   for example the customer's broadband contract (2, 40 or 80Mb/s), the
   line technology (DSL or fibre), the time zone where the MA is
   located, and the type of home gateway and MA.  These are all factors
   which may affect the choice of Test Schedule.  For example, a
   download test suitable for a line with an 80Mb/s contract may
   overwhelm a 2Mb/s line.  Another example is if the Controller wants
   to run a one-off test to diagnose a fault, then it should understand
   what problem the customer is experiencing and what tests have already
   been run.

   A Results Database records all measurements in an equivalent form,
   for example an SQL database [schulzrinne], so that they can be easily



Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


   accessed by the Data Analysis Tools whilst the LMAP system
   implementor can choose local solutions for each component.

   The Data Analysis Tools receive the results from the Collector or via
   the Results Database.  They might visualise the data or identify
   which component or link is likely to be the cause of a fault or
   degradation.

   The operator's OAM (Operations, Administration and Management) uses
   the results from the tools.

+------------+                 +-----------+               +-----------+
|            | Test & Report   |           | test traffic  | (remote)  |
| Controller | --------------> |Measurement| ............. |Measurement|
|            | Schedule        |Agent (MA) |               |Agent (MA) |
+------------+                 +-----------+               +-----------+
                                     |
                                     | Report
                                     |
                                     V
                               +-------------+
                               |  Collector  |
                               +-------------+

Figure 1: Schematic of main elements of LMAP framework


3.  Constraints

3.1.  Measurement system is under the direction of a single organisation

   Explanation: In the LMAP framework the measurement system is under
   the direction of a single organisation that is responsible both for
   the data and the quality of experience delivered to its users.  Clear
   responsibility is critical given that a misbehaving large-scale
   measurement system could potentially harm user privacy and network
   security.

   Given the novelty of large-scale measurement efforts, the expectation
   is that inter-organization coordination is an out-of-band
   consideration.  There could be scenarios where measurement data, or a
   suitably anonymised version of it, is shared between organisations,
   via their Data Analysis Tools for instance.  Consideration is outside
   the scope of LMAP.







Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


3.2.  Each MA may only have a single Controller at any point in time

   Explanation: The constraint avoids different Controllers giving a MA
   conflicting instructions and so means that the MA does not have to
   manage contention between multiple Test (or Report) Schedules.  This
   simplifies the design of MAs (critical for a large-scale
   infrastructure) and allows a Test Schedule to be tested on specific
   types of MA before deployment to ensure that the home user experience
   is not impacted (due to CPU, memory or broadband-product
   constraints).

   An operator may have several Controllers, perhaps with a Controller
   for different types of MA (home gateways, tablets) or location
   (Ipswich, Edinburgh).

   To avoid problems with NAT and firewalls, the MA 'pulls' the
   configuration from its Controller, as identified by the Initialiser.

   o  Open issue: Should there be negotiation between a Controller and
      its MA, or should the Controller simply instruct the MA by sending
      its Test and Report Schedules?

      *  The argument for negotiation is that occasionally the MA may be
         updated with enhanced with versions of existing tests.  It is
         easier for the Controller to learn the MA's capabilities
         directly from the MA than from a management system.  It avoids
         any mis-synchronisation.

      *  The argument against negotiation is that it makes the
         Controller-MA protocol more complicated, increases the MA's
         resource requirements and increases the complexity of the
         Controller when it decides how to schedule tests across
         numerous MAs or when it deploys a new Test Schedule to
         potentially millions of MAs.

   o  Open issue: what happens if a Controller fails, how is the MA is
      homed onto a new one?

3.3.  A Measurement Agent acts autonomously

   Once the MA gets its Test and Report Schedules from its Controller
   then it acts autonomously, in terms of operation of the tests and
   reporting of the result.

   Firstly, this means that the MA initiates measurement tests.  For the
   typical case where the MA is on a home gateway or edge device, this
   means that the MA initiates a 'download speed test' by asking a
   remote MA to send the file.  The main rationale is that, for a test



Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


   that should be performed when there is no user traffic on the link,
   the MA knows whether the end user is active and therefore whether to
   start the test or delay it.  Having the Schedule on the MA also
   avoids it having to check frequently with the Controller.  Further,
   if the MA is behind a NAT then the remote MA naturally learns its
   public-facing IP address.

   Secondly, it is easier to secure the reporting process, for example
   with a unique certificate for each MA-Collector pair, so that the
   Collector is confident the results really do originate from the MA.
   All measurement results are sent from the MA.


4.  Work required in LMAP

   This Section considers the work that the prospective LMAP working
   group would tackle.  Section 5 considers other work that needs doing
   that would be beyond the scope of the LMAP WG.

4.1.  Defining the Test and Report Schedules

   The Test and Report Schedules contain the instructions sent by the
   Controller to the MA.  The Schedules could be combined into a single
   Schedule, this is for further study.

   The Test Schedule would include things like:

   o  Which tests to operate and (if applicable) to which remote MAs

   o  The testing schedule

   o  Any test or environmental parameters

   o  How to react to the presence of user or other test traffic (if not
      inherent in the test design)

   The Report Schedule would include things like:

   o  How often to report results (e.g. time or volume of data)

   o  Where to report results

   o  What to do if reporting fails

   Defining Test and Report Schedule(s) is in scope of LMAP:






Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


   o  Information model: the abstract definition of the Schedule

   o  Data model: which instantiates the information model in a
      particular language.  It could be done using an existing IETF data
      modeling language, for example YANG as sketched in [lmap-yang].

   o  Protocol: how the Test and Report Schedule(s) are delivered from
      the Controller to the MA.  Possibilities would include NETCONF
      [RFC6241] as discussed in [lmap-netconf] or a RESTful interface
      [yang-api].

4.2.  Defining the Report

   The Report contain the measurement results sent by the Controller to
   the MA.  The Report includes things like:

   o  The results of the test (typically at least all the singleton
      measurements, including the time they were measured)

   o  The MA's identifier

   o  The test and its parameters (essentially an 'echo' of the Test
      Schedule with the parameters actually used, which avoids the
      Collector having to ask the Controller).

   Defining the Report is in scope of LMAP:

   o  Information model: the abstract definition of the Report

   o  Data model: which instantiates the information model in a
      particular language.  It could be done using an existing IETF data
      modeling language, for example IPFIX, as sketched in [lmap-ipfix]
      or

   o  Protocol: how the Report is delivered from the MA to the
      Collector.  Possibilities would include IPFIX, as sketched in
      [lmap-ipfix] or a RESTful interface.


5.  Related work required but out of scope of LMAP

   This section considers the items that need to be agreed between
   deployers of large-scale measurement systems, but that are out of
   scope of the prospective LMAP WG (Section 4 considers items within
   its scope).






Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


5.1.  Standard measurement tests

   Standardised methods are needed for each metric that is measured.  A
   registry for commonly-used metrics [registry] is also required, so
   that a test can be defined simply by its identifier in the registry.
   The methods and registry would hopefully also be referenced by other
   standards organisations.

   o  Such activities are in scope of the IPPM working group (possibly
      re-chartered) and not LMAP.

   A new (or revised) test may need to be uploaded to MAs.  How this is
   done is out of scope of the IETF; it could be as a firmware upgrade
   for a home hub, or new app for a PC, etc and may be device-specific.

5.2.  Characterisation plan

   Each organisation operating an LMAP system and collecting
   measurements for comparison purposes needs to conduct the same
   measurements according to the same sampling plan (ie size and
   schedule) and make the results available in the same format.  The
   scope of comparison determines the set of organisations needing to
   agree on the common characterisation plan; for example those falling
   within the same regulatory environment in a particular country or
   region.  Such agreements are certainly facilitated by IETF's work,
   but the details of the plan are beyond the scope of work in IETF.

5.3.  Other elements

   The other elements discussed in Section 2 may also benefit from
   standardisation: Initialiser, Subscriber Parameter Database, Results
   Database, Data Analysis Tools and operator's OAM.

   The Initialiser-MA protocol is likely to be technology specific and
   so for different types of device could be defined by the Broadband
   Forum, DOCSIS or IEEE.  The Data Analysis Tools and operator's OAM
   are also beyond the scope of the IETF.  For the Subscriber Parameter
   Database and Results Database, it is possible that there could be
   work to define a data model - it is suggested that this is for later
   study and should be out of the initial scope of IETF work.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.



Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


7.  Security Considerations

   The security of the LMAP framework should protect the interests of
   the measurement operator(s), the network user(s) and other actors who
   could be impacted by a compromised measurement deployment.

   We assume that each Measurement Agent will receive test
   configuration, scheduling and reporting instructions from a single
   organisation (operator of the Controller).  These instructions must
   be authenticated (to ensure that they come from the trusted
   Controller), checked for integrity (to ensure no-one has tampered
   with them) and be prevented from replay.  If a malicious party can
   gain control of the Measurement Agent they can use the MA
   capabilities to launch DoS attacks at targets, reduce the network
   user experience and corrupt the measurement results that are reported
   to the Collector.  By altering the tests that are operated and/or the
   Collector address they can also compromise the confidentiality of the
   network user and the MA environment (such as information about the
   location of devices or their traffic).

   The reporting of the MA must also be secured to maintain
   confidentiality.  The results must be encrypted such that only the
   authorised Collector can decrypt the results to prevent the leakage
   of confidential or private information.  In addition it must be
   authenticated that the results have come from the expected MA and
   that they have not been tampered with.  It must not be possible to
   spoof an MA to inject falsified data into the measurement platform or
   to corrupt the results of a real MA.

   Availability should also be considered.  While the loss of some MAs
   may not be considered critical, the unavailability of the Collector
   could mean that valuable business data or data critical to a
   regulatory process is lost.  Similarly, the unavailability of a
   Controller could mean that the MAs continue to operate an incorrect
   test schedule or fail to initiate.

   Concerning privacy and data protection, the role of the LMAP
   framework should be to ensure that only authorised data is collected
   and that this data is returned securely to the framework operator.
   Data should be stored securely and onward sharing of data to other
   parties should be controlled according to local data protection
   regulations.  Depending upon the ownership/placement of the MA, local
   data protection laws, the tests being operated and existing user
   agreements, it is possible that additional consent may need to be
   secured from parties such as the home broadband user.  Having the
   measurement system under the direction of a single organisation
   clarifies the responsibility for data protection.




Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


   The next versions of [lmap-yang] and [lmap-ipfix] will also include
   further consideration of security.


8.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to numerous people for much discussion, directly and on the
   LMAP list.  This document tries to capture the current conclusions.

   Philip Eardley and Trevor Burbridge work in part on the Leone
   research project, which receives funding from the European Union
   Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement
   number 317647.


9.  Informative References

   [RFC6241]  "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
              <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241>.

   [lmap-ipfix]
              "An LMAP application for IPFIX",
              <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bagnulo-lmap-ipfix>.

   [lmap-netconf]
              "Considerations on using NETCONF with LMAP Measurement
              Agents",
              <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-lmap-netconf>.

   [lmap-yang]
              "A YANG Data Model for LMAP Measurement Agents",
              <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-lmap-yang>.

   [registry]
              "A registry for commonly used metrics. Independent
              registries", <http://tools.ietf.org/html/
              draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-registry-independent>.

   [schulzrinne]
              "Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance: Use
              Cases, Architecture and Protocol Requirements", <http://
              tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements>.

   [use-cases]
              "Large-Scale Broadband Measurement Use Cases",
              <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-linsner-lmap-use-cases>.

   [yang-api]



Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               LMAP Framework                February 2013


              "YANG-API Protocol", <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241>.


Authors' Addresses

   Philip Eardley
   BT


   Trevor Burbridge
   BT


   Al Morton
   AT&T




































Eardley, et al.          Expires August 29, 2013               [Page 13]


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