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

Versions: 01 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 2679

Network Working Group                                           G. Almes
Internet Draft                                              S. Kalidindi
Expiration Date: March 1999                                 M. Zekauskas
                                             Advanced Network & Services
                                                             August 1998



                    A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM
                     <draft-ietf-ippm-delay-04.txt>


1. Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months, and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts shadow
   directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Northern
   Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific
   Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

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


2. Introduction

   This memo defines a metric for one-way delay of packets across
   Internet paths.  It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the
   IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330 [1]; the reader is assumed to be
   familiar with that document.

   This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a companion
   document for Packet Loss ("A Packet Loss Metric for IPPM"
   <draft-ietf-ippm-loss-04.txt>) [2].

   The structure of the memo is as follows:




Almes et al.                                                    [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


   +  A 'singleton' analytic metric, called Type-P-One-way-Delay, will
      be introduced to measure a single observation of one-way delay.

   +  Using this singleton metric, a 'sample', called Type-P-One-way-
      Delay-Poisson-Stream, will be introduced to measure a sequence of
      singleton delays measured at times taken from a Poisson process.

   +  Using this sample, several 'statistics' of the sample will be
      defined and discussed.

   This progression from singleton to sample to statistics, with clear
   separation among them, is important.

   Whenever a technical term from the IPPM Framework document is first
   used in this memo, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.  For
   example, "term*" indicates that "term" is defined in the Framework.


2.1. Motivation:

   One-way delay of a Type-P* packet from a source host* to a
   destination host is useful for several reasons:

   +  Some applications do not perform well (or at all) if end-to-end
      delay between hosts is large relative to some threshold value.

   +  Erratic variation in delay makes it difficult (or impossible) to
      support many real-time applications.

   +  The larger the value of delay, the more difficult it is for
      transport-layer protocols to sustain high bandwidths.

   +  The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the
      delay due only to propagation and transmission delay.

   +  The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the
      delay that will likely be experienced when the path* traversed is
      lightly loaded.

   +  Values of this metric above the minimum provide an indication of
      the congestion present in the path.

   It is outside the scope of this document to say precisely how delay
   metrics would be applied to specific problems.







Almes et al.                                                    [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


2.2. General Issues Regarding Time

   Whenever a time (i.e., a moment in history) is mentioned here, it is
   understood to be measured in seconds (and fractions) relative to UTC.

   As described more fully in the Framework document, there are four
   distinct, but related notions of clock uncertainty:

   synchronization*

        measures the extent to which two clocks agree on what time it
        is.  For example, the clock on one host might be 5.4 msec ahead
        of the clock on a second host.

   accuracy*

        measures the extent to which a given clock agrees with UTC.  For
        example, the clock on a host might be 27.1 msec behind UTC.

   resolution*

        measures the precision of a given clock.  For example, the clock
        on an old Unix host might tick only once every 10 msec, and thus
        have a resolution of only 10 msec.

   skew*

        measures the change of accuracy, or of synchronization, with
        time.  For example, the clock on a given host might gain 1.3
        msec per hour and thus be 27.1 msec behind UTC at one time and
        only 25.8 msec an hour later.  In this case, we say that the
        clock of the given host has a skew of 1.3 msec per hour relative
        to UTC, and this threatens accuracy.  We might also speak of the
        skew of one clock relative to another clock, and this threatens
        synchronization.


3. A Singleton Definition for One-way Delay


3.1. Metric Name:

   Type-P-One-way-Delay








Almes et al.                                                    [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


3.2. Metric Parameters:

   +  Src, the IP address of a host

   +  Dst, the IP address of a host

   +  T, a time



3.3. Metric Units:

   The value of a Type-P-One-way-Delay is either a non-negative real
   number, or an undefined (informally, infinite) number of seconds.


3.4. Definition:

   For a non-negative real number dT, >>the *Type-P-One-way-Delay* from
   Src to Dst at T is dT<< means that Src sent the first bit of a Type-P
   packet to Dst at wire-time* T and that Dst received the last bit of
   that packet at wire-time T+dT.

   >>The *Type-P-One-way-Delay* from Src to Dst at T is undefined
   (informally, infinite)<< means that Src sent the first bit of a Type-
   P packet to Dst at wire-time T and that Dst did not receive that
   packet.

   Suggestions for what to report along with metric values appear in
   Section 3.8 after a discussion of the metric, methodologies for
   measuring the metric, and error analysis.


3.5. Discussion:

   Type-P-One-way-Delay is a relatively simple analytic metric, and one
   that we believe will afford effective methods of measurement.

   The following issues are likely to come up in practice:

   +  Since delay values will often be as low as the 100 usec to 10 msec
      range, it will be important for Src and Dst to synchronize very
      closely.  GPS systems afford one way to achieve synchronization to
      within several 10s of usec.  Ordinary application of NTP may allow
      synchronization to within several msec, but this depends on the
      stability and symmetry of delay properties among those NTP agents
      used, and this delay is what we are trying to measure.  A
      combination of some GPS-based NTP servers and a conservatively



Almes et al.                                                    [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


      designed and deployed set of other NTP servers should yield good
      results, but this is yet to be tested.

   +  A given methodology will have to include a way to determine
      whether a delay value is infinite or whether it is merely very
      large (and the packet is yet to arrive at Dst).  As noted by
      Mahdavi and Paxson [4], simple upper bounds (such as the 255
      seconds theoretical upper bound on the lifetimes of IP
      packets [5]) could be used, but good engineering, including an
      understanding of packet lifetimes, will be needed in practice.
      {Comment: Note that, for many applications of these metrics, the
      harm in treating a large delay as infinite might be zero or very
      small.  A TCP data packet, for example, that arrives only after
      several multiples of the RTT may as well have been lost.}


   +  If the packet is duplicated along the path (or paths) so that
      multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the
      packet is counted as received, and the first copy to arrive
      determines the packet's one-way delay.

   +  If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason,
      reassembly does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost.


3.6. Methodologies:

   As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend
   on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size,
   precedence).

   Generally, for a given Type-P, the methodology would proceed as
   follows:

   +  Arrange that Src and Dst are synchronized; that is, that they have
      clocks that are very closely synchronized with each other and each
      fairly close to the actual time.

   +  At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test
      packet of Type-P with these addresses.  Any 'padding' portion of
      the packet needed only to make the test packet a given size should
      be filled with randomized bits to avoid a situation in which the
      measured delay is lower than it would otherwise be due to
      compression techniques along the path.

   +  At the Dst host, arrange to receive the packet.





Almes et al.                                                    [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


   +  At the Src host, place a timestamp in the prepared Type-P packet,
      and send it towards Dst.

   +  If the packet arrives within a reasonable period of time, take a
      timestamp as soon as possible upon the receipt of the packet.  By
      subtracting the two timestamps, an estimate of one-way delay can
      be computed.  Error analysis of a given implementation of the
      method must take into account the closeness of synchronization
      between Src and Dst.  If the delay between Src's timestamp and the
      actual sending of the packet is known, then the estimate could be
      adjusted by subtracting this amount; uncertainty in this value
      must be taken into account in error analysis.  Similarly, if the
      delay between the actual receipt of the packet and Dst's timestamp
      is known, then the estimate could be adjusted by subtracting this
      amount; uncertainty in this value must be taken into account in
      error analysis.  See the next section, "Errors and Uncertainties",
      for a more detailed discussion.


   +  If the packet fails to arrive within a reasonable period of time,
      the one-way delay is taken to be undefined (informally, infinite).
      Note that the threshold of 'reasonable' is a parameter of the
      methodology.

   Issues such as the packet format, the means by which Dst knows when
   to expect the test packet, and the means by which Src and Dst are
   synchronized are outside the scope of this document.  {Comment: We
   plan to document elsewhere our own work in describing such more
   detailed implementation techniques and we encourage others to as
   well.}


3.7. Errors and Uncertainties:

   The description of any specific measurement method should include an
   accounting and analysis of various sources of error or uncertainty.
   The Framework document provides general guidence on this point, but
   we note here the following specifics related to delay metrics:

   +  Errors or uncertainties due to uncertainties in the clocks of the
      Src and Dst hosts.

   +  Errors or uncertainties due to the difference between 'wire time'
      and 'host time'.

   In addition, the loss threshold may affect the results.  Each of
   these are discussed in more detail below, along with a section
   ("Calibration") on accounting for these errors and uncertainties.



Almes et al.                                                    [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


3.7.1. Errors or uncertainties related to Clocks

   The uncertainty in a measurement of one-way delay is related, in
   part, to uncertainties in the clocks of the Src and Dst hosts.  In
   the following, we refer to the clock used to measure when the packet
   was sent from Src as the source clock, we refer to the clock used to
   measure when the packet was received by Dst as the dest clock, we
   refer to the observed time when the packet was sent by the source
   clock as Tsource, and the observed time when the packet was received
   by the dest clock as Tdest.  Alluding to the notions of
   synchronization, accuracy, resolution, and skew mentioned in the
   Introduction, we note the following:

   +  Any error in the synchronization between the source clock and the
      dest clock will contribute to error in the delay measurement.  We
      say that the source clock and the dest clock have a
      synchronization error of Tsynch if the source clock is Tsynch
      ahead of the dest clock.  Thus, if we know the value of Tsynch
      exactly, we could correct for clock synchronization by adding
      Tsynch to the uncorrected value of Tdest-Tsource.

   +  The accuracy of a clock is important only in identifying the time
      at which a given delay was measured.  Accuracy, per se, has no
      importance to the accuracy of the measurement of delay.  When
      computing delays, we are interested only in the differences
      between clock values, not the values themselves.

   +  The resolution of a clock adds to uncertainty about any time
      measured with it.  Thus, if the source clock has a resolution of
      10 msec, then this adds 10 msec of uncertainty to any time value
      measured with it.  We will denote the resolution of the source
      clock and the dest clock as Rsource and Rdest, respectively.

   +  The skew of a clock is not so much an additional issue as it is a
      realization of the fact that Tsynch is itself a function of time.
      Thus, if we attempt to measure or to bound Tsynch, this needs to
      be done periodically.  Over some periods of time, this function
      can be approximated as a linear function plus some higher order
      terms; in these cases, one option is to use knowledge of the
      linear component to correct the clock.  Using this correction, the
      residual Tsynch is made smaller, but remains a source of
      uncertainty that must be accounted for.  We use the function
      Esynch(t) to denote an upper bound on the uncertainty in
      synchronization.  Thus, |Tsynch(t)| <= Esynch(t).

   Taking these items together, we note that naive computation Tdest-
   Tsource will be off by Tsynch(t) +/- (|Rsource|+|Rdest|).  Using the
   notion of Esynch(t), we note that these clock-related problems



Almes et al.                                                    [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


   introduce a total uncertainty of Esynch(t)+|Rsource|+|Rdest|.  This
   estimate of total clock-related uncertainty should be included in the
   error/uncertainty analysis of any measurement implementation.


3.7.2. Errors or uncertainties related to Wire-time vs Host-time

   As we have defined one-way delay, we would like to measure the time
   between when the test packet leaves the network interface of Src and
   when it (completely) arrives at the network interface of Dst, and we
   refer to this as 'wire time'.  If the timings are themselves
   performed by software on Src and Dst, however, then this software can
   only directly measure the time between when Src grabs a timestamp
   just prior to sending the test packet and when Dst grabs a timestamp
   just after having received the test packet, and we refer to this as
   'host time'.

   To the extent that the difference between wire time and host time is
   accurately known, this knowledge can be used to correct for host time
   measurements and the corrected value more accurately estimates the
   desired (wire time) metric.

   To the extent, however, that the difference between wire time and
   host time is uncertain, this uncertainty must be accounted for in an
   analysis of a given measurement method.  We denote by Hsource an
   upper bound on the uncertainty in the difference between wire time
   and host time on the Src host, and similarly define Hdest for the Dst
   host.  We then note that these problems introduce a total uncertainty
   of Hsource+Hdest.  This estimate of total wire-vs-host uncertainty
   should be included in the error/uncertainty analysis of any
   measurement implementation.


3.7.3. Calibration

   Generally, the measured values can be decomposed as follows:

       measured value = true value + systematic error + random error

   If the systematic error (the constant bias in measured values) can be
   determined, it can be compensated for in the reported results.

       reported value = measured value - systematic error

   therefore

       reported value = true value + random error




Almes et al.                                                    [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


   The goal of calibration is to determine the systematic and random
   error in as much detail as possible.  At a minimum, a bound ("e")
   should be found such that the reported value is in the range (true
   value - e) to (true value + e) at least 95 percent of the time.  We
   call "e" the error bar for the measurements.  {Comment: 95 percent
   was chosen because (1) some confidence level is desirable to be able
   to remove outliers which will be found in measuring any physical
   property; (2) a particular confidence level should be specified so
   that the results of independent implementations can be compared; and
   (3) even with a prototype user-level implementation, 95% was loose
   enough to exclude outliers.}

   From the discussion in the previous two sections, the error in
   measurements could be bounded by determining all the individual
   uncertainties, and adding them together to form
       Esynch(t) + |Rsource| + |Rdest| + Hsource + Hdest.
   However, reasonable bounds on both the clock-related uncertainty
   captured by the first three terms and the host-related uncertainty
   captured by the last two terms should be possible by careful design
   techniques and calibrating the instruments using a known, isolated,
   network in a lab.

   For example, the clock-related uncertainties are greatly reduced
   through the use of a GPS time source.  The sum of Esynch(t) +
   |Rsource| + |Rdest| is small, and is also bounded for the duration of
   the measurement because of the global time source.

   The host-related uncertainties, Hsource + Hdest, could be bounded by
   connecting two instruments back-to-back with a high-speed serial link
   or isolated LAN (depending on the intended network connection for
   actual measurement), and performing repeated measurements.  In this
   case, unlike measuring live networks, repeated measurements are
   measuring the same wire time.  (When measuring live networks, the
   wire time is what you are measuring, and varies with the load
   encountered on the path traversed by the test packets.)

   If the test packets are small, such a network connection has a
   minimal wire time that may be approximated by zero.  The measured
   delay therefore contains only systematic and random error in the
   instrumentation.  The "average value" of repeated measurements is the
   systematic error, and the variation is the random error.

   One way to compute the systematic error, and the random error to a
   95% confidence is to repeat the experiment many times - at least
   hundreds of tests.  The systematic error would then be the median,
   and likely the mode (the most frequently occuring value).  {Comment:
   It's likely the systematic error is represented by the minimum value
   (which is also the median and the mode); with unloaded instruments on



Almes et al.                                                    [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


   a single test path all the random error will tend to be increased
   time due to host processing.  The only error resulting an a delay
   less than the systematic error would be due to clock-related
   uncertainties (resolution and relative skew).} The random error could
   then be found by removing the systematic error from the measured
   values.  The 95% confidence interval would be the range from the 2nd
   percentile to the 97th percentile of these deviations from the true
   value.  The error bar "e" could then be taken to be the largest
   absolute value of these two numbers, plus the clock-related
   uncertainty.  If all of the deviations are positive, then the 95%
   confidence interval is simply the 95th percentile, and that value
   should be used instead of the larger of the 2nd and 97th percentiles.
   {Comment: as described, this bound is relatively loose since the
   uncertainties are added, and the absolute value of the largest
   deviation is used.  As long as the resulting value is not a
   significant fraction of the measured values, it is a reasonable
   bound.  If the resulting value is a significant fraction of the
   measured values, then more exact methods will be needed to compute an
   error bar.}

   Note that random error is a function of measurement load.  For
   example, if many paths will be measured by one instrument, this might
   increase interrupts, process scheduling, and disk I/O (for example,
   recording the measurements), all of which may increase the random
   error in measured singletons.  Therefore, in addition to minimal load
   measurements to find the systematic error, calibration measurements
   should be performed with the same measurement load that the
   instruments will see in the field.

   In addition to calibrating the instruments for finite one-way delay,
   two checks should be made to ensure that packets reported as losses
   were really lost.  First, the threshold for loss should be verified.
   In particular, ensure the "reasonable" threshold is reasonable: that
   it is very unlikely a packet will arrive after the threshold value,
   and therefore the number of packets lost over an interval is not
   sensitive to the error bound on measurements.  Second, consider the
   probability that a packet arrives at the network interface, but is
   lost due to congestion on that interface or to other resource
   exhaustion (e.g. buffers) in the instrument.


3.8. Reporting the metric:

   The calibration and context in which the metric is measured must be
   carefully considered, and should always be reported along with metric
   results.  We now present four items to consider: the Type-P of test
   packets, the threshold of infinite delay (if any), error calibration,
   and the path traversed by the test packets.  This list is not



Almes et al.                                                   [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


   exhaustive; any additional information that could be useful in
   interpreting applications of the metrics should also be reported.


3.8.1. Type-P

   As noted in the Framework document [1], the value of the metric may
   depend on the type of IP packets used to make the measurement, or
   "type-P".  The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the
   protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special
   treatment (e.g., IP precedence or RSVP) changes.  The exact Type-P
   used to make the measurements must be accurately reported.


3.8.2. Loss threshold

   In addition, the threshold (or methodology to distinguish) between a
   large finite delay and loss should be reported.


3.8.3. Calibration results


   +  If the systematic error can be determined, it should be removed
      from the measured values.


   +  Report an error bar, e, such that the true value is the reported
      value plus or minus e, with 95% confidence.


   +  If possible, report the probability that a test packet with finite
      delay is reported as lost due to resource exhaustion on the
      measurement instrument.




3.8.4. Path

   Finally, the path traversed by the packet should be reported, if
   possible.  In general it is impractical to know the precise path a
   given packet takes through the network.  The precise path may be
   known for certain Type-P on short or stable paths.  If Type-P
   includes the record route (or loose-source route) option in the IP
   header, and the path is short enough, and all routers* on the path
   support record (or loose-source) route, then the path will be
   precisely recorded.  This is impractical because the route must be



Almes et al.                                                   [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


   short enough, many routers do not support (or are not configured for)
   record route, and use of this feature would often artificially worsen
   the performance observed by removing the packet from common-case
   processing.  However, partial information is still valuable context.
   For example, if a host can choose between two links* (and hence two
   separate routes from src to dst), then the initial link used is
   valuable context.  {Comment: For example, with Merit's NetNow setup,
   a Src on one NAP can reach a Dst on another NAP by either of several
   different backbone networks.}



4. A Definition for Samples of One-way Delay

   Given the singleton metric Type-P-One-way-Delay, we now define one
   particular sample of such singletons.  The idea of the sample is to
   select a particular binding of the parameters Src, Dst, and Type-P,
   then define a sample of values of parameter T.  The means for
   defining the values of T is to select a beginning time T0, a final
   time Tf, and an average rate lambda, then define a pseudo-random
   Poisson arrival process of rate lambda, whose values fall between T0
   and Tf.  The time interval between successive values of T will then
   average 1/lambda.


4.1. Metric Name:

   Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream


4.2. Metric Parameters:

   +  Src, the IP address of a host

   +  Dst, the IP address of a host

   +  T0, a time

   +  Tf, a time

   +  lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds










Almes et al.                                                   [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


4.3. Metric Units:

   A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:

   +  T, a time, and

   +  dT, either a non-negative real number or an undefined number of
      seconds.

   The values of T in the sequence are monotonic increasing.  Note that
   T would be a valid parameter to Type-P-One-way-Delay, and that dT
   would be a valid value of Type-P-One-way-Delay.


4.4. Definition:

   Given T0, Tf, and lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
   beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and
   ending at or after Tf.  Those time values greater than or equal to T0
   and less than or equal to Tf are then selected.  At each of the times
   in this process, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-Delay at this
   time.  The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the
   resulting <time, delay> pairs.  If there are no such pairs, the
   sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty.


4.5. Discussion:

   Note first that, since a pseudo-random number sequence is employed,
   the sequence of times, and hence the value of the sample, is not
   fully specified.  Pseudo-random number generators of good quality
   will be needed to achieve the desired qualities.

   The sample is defined in terms of a Poisson process both to avoid the
   effects of self-synchronization and also capture a sample that is
   statistically as unbiased as possible.  {Comment: there is, of
   course, no claim that real Internet traffic arrives according to a
   Poisson arrival process.}

   All the singleton Type-P-One-way-Delay metrics in the sequence will
   have the same values of Src, Dst, and Type-P.

   Note also that, given one sample that runs from T0 to Tf, and given
   new time values T0' and Tf' such that T0 <= T0' <= Tf' <= Tf, the
   subsequence of the given sample whose time values fall between T0'
   and Tf' are also a valid Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream sample.





Almes et al.                                                   [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


4.6. Methodologies:

   The methodologies follow directly from:

   +  the selection of specific times, using the specified Poisson
      arrival process, and

   +  the methodologies discussion already given for the singleton Type-
      P-One-way-Delay metric.


   Care must, of course, be given to correctly handle out-of-order
   arrival of test packets; it is possible that the Src could send one
   test packet at TS[i], then send a second one (later) at TS[i+1],
   while the Dst could receive the second test packet at TR[i+1], and
   then receive the first one (later) at TR[i].


4.7. Errors and Uncertainties:

   In addition to sources of errors and uncertainties associated with
   methods employed to measure the singleton values that make up the
   sample, care must be given to analyze the accuracy of the Poisson
   arrival process of the wire-time of the sending of the test packets.
   Problems with this process could be caused by several things,
   including problems with the pseudo-random number techniques used to
   generate the Poisson arrival process, or with jitter in the value of
   Hsource (mentioned above as uncertainty in the singleton delay
   metric).  The Framework document shows how to use the Anderson-
   Darling test to verify the accuracy of the Poisson process.


4.8. Reporting the metric:

   You should report the calibration and context for the underlying
   singletons along with the stream.  (See "Reporting the metric" for
   Type-P-One-way-Delay.)



5. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Delay

   Given the sample metric Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, we now
   offer several statistics of that sample.  These statistics are
   offered mostly to be illustrative of what could be done.






Almes et al.                                                   [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


5.1. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile

   Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream and a percent X between
   0% and 100%, the Xth percentile of all the dT values in the Stream.
   In computing this percentile, undefined values are treated as
   infinitely large.  Note that this means that the percentile could
   thus be undefined (informally, infinite).  In addition, the Type-P-
   One-way-Delay-Percentile is undefined if the sample is empty.

   Example: suppose we take a sample and the results are:
      Stream1 = <
      <T1, 100 msec>
      <T2, 110 msec>
      <T3, undefined>
      <T4, 90 msec>
      <T5, 500 msec>
      >
   Then the 50th percentile would be 110 msec, since 90 msec and 100
   msec are smaller and 110 msec and 'undefined' are larger.


   Note that if the probability that a finite packet is reported as lost
   is significant, then a high percentile (90th or 95th) might be
   reported as infinite instead of finite.


5.2. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median

   Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, the median of all the dT
   values in the Stream.  In computing the median, undefined values are
   treated as infinitely large.

   As noted in the Framework document, the median differs from the 50th
   percentile only when the sample contains an even number of values, in
   which case the mean of the two central values is used.

   Example: suppose we take a sample and the results are:
      Stream2 = <
      <T1, 100 msec>
      <T2, 110 msec>
      <T3, undefined>
      <T4, 90 msec>
      >
   Then the median would be 105 msec, the mean of 100 msec and 110 msec,
   the two central values.






Almes et al.                                                   [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


5.3. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minumum

   Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, the minimum of all the
   dT values in the Stream.    In computing this, undefined values are
   treated as infinitely large.  Note that this means that the minimum
   could thus be undefined (informally, infinite) if all the dT values
   are undefined.  In addition, the Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minimum is
   undefined if the sample is empty.

   In the above example, the minimum would be 90 msec.


5.4. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile

   Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream and a non-negative time
   duration threshold, the fraction of all the dT values in the Stream
   less than or equal to the threshold.  The result could be as low as
   0% (if all the dT values exceed threshold) or as high as 100%.

   In the above example, the Inverse-Percentile of 103 msec would be
   50%.


6. Security Considerations

   Conducting Internet measurements raises both security and privacy
   concerns.  This memo does not specify an implementation of the
   metrics, so it does not directly affect the security of the Internet
   nor of applications which run on the Internet.  However,
   implementations of these metrics must be mindful of security and
   privacy concerns.

   There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by
   the measurements, and potential harm to the measurements.  The
   measurements could cause harm because they are active, and inject
   packets into the network.  The measurement parameters must be
   carefully selected so that the measurements inject trivial amounts of
   additional traffic into the networks they measure.  If they inject
   "too much" traffic, they can skew the results of the measurement, and
   in extreme cases cause congestion and denial of service.

   The measurements themselves could be harmed by routers giving
   measurement traffic a different priority than "normal" traffic, or by
   an attacker injecting artificial measurement traffic.  If routers can
   recognize measurement traffic and treat it separately, the
   measurements will not reflect actual user traffic.  If an attacker
   injects artificial traffic that is accepted as legitimate, the loss
   rate will be artificially lowered.  Therefore, the measurement



Almes et al.                                                   [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


   methodologies should include appropriate techniques to reduce the
   probability measurement traffic can be distinguished from "normal"
   traffic.  Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may
   be used where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks.

   The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active
   measurements described in this memo.  Unlike passive measurements,
   there can be no release of existing user data.


7. Acknowledgements

   Special thanks are due to Vern Paxson of Lawrence Berkeley Labs for
   his helpful comments on issues of clock uncertainty and statistics.
   Thanks also to Will Leland, Sean Shapira, and Roland Wittig for
   several useful suggestions.


8. References

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

   [2]  G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas, "A Packet Loss Metric
        for IPPM", Internet-Draft <draft-ietf-ippm-loss-04.txt>, August
        1998.

   [3]  D. Mills, "Network Time Protocol (v3)", RFC 1305, April 1992.

   [4]  J. Mahdavi and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
        Connectivity", Internet-Draft <draft-ietf-ippm-
        connectivity-02.txt>, August 1998.

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




9. Authors' Addresses












Almes et al.                                                   [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT            One-way Delay Metric               August 1998


   Guy Almes
   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.
   200 Business Park Drive
   Armonk, NY  10504
   USA

   Phone: +1 914 765 1120
   EMail: almes@advanced.org


   Sunil Kalidindi
   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.
   200 Business Park Drive
   Armonk, NY  10504
   USA

   Phone: +1 914 765 1128
   EMail: kalidindi@advanced.org


   Matthew J. Zekauskas
   Advanced Network & Services, Inc.
   200 Buisiness Park Drive
   Armonk, NY 10504
   USA

   Phone: +1 914 765 1112
   EMail: matt@advanced.org

   Expiration date: March, 1999





















Almes et al.                                                   [Page 18]


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