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

Versions: (draft-linsner-lmap-use-cases) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 7536

INTERNET-DRAFT                                              Marc Linsner
Intended Status: Informational                             Cisco Systems
Expires: May 14, 2015                                     Philip Eardley
                                                        Trevor Burbridge
                                                                      BT
                                                          Frode Sorensen
                                                                     NPT
                                                       November 10, 2014


              Large-Scale Broadband Measurement Use Cases
                      draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-05


Abstract

   Measuring broadband performance on a large scale is important for
   network diagnostics by providers and users, as well as for public
   policy.  Understanding the various scenarios and users of measuring
   broadband performance is essential to development of the Large-scale
   Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) framework, information
   model and protocol. This document details two use cases that can
   assist to developing that framework.  The details of the measurement
   metrics themselves are beyond the scope of this document.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html






Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                  [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1 Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2 Regulator Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3  Details of ISP Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1 Understanding the quality experienced by customers . . . . .  5
     3.2 Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and
         technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3 Design and planning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4 Monitoring Service Level Agreements  . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.5 Identifying, isolating and fixing network problems . . . . .  7
   4  Details of Regulator Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1 Promoting competition through transparency . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2 Promoting broadband deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3 Monitoring "net neutrality"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5  Implementation Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17










Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                  [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


1  Introduction

   This document describes two use cases for the Large-scale Measurement
   of Broadband Performance (LMAP). The use cases contained in this
   document are (1) the Internet Service Provider Use Case and (2) the
   Regulator Use Case. In the first, a network operator wants to
   understand the performance of the network and the quality experienced
   by customers, whilst in the second, a regulator wants to provide
   information on the performance of the ISPs in their jurisdiction.
   There are other use cases that are not the focus of the initial LMAP
   work, for example end users would like to use measurements to help
   identify problems in their home network and to monitor the
   performance of their broadband provider; it is expected that the same
   mechanisms are applicable.


2  Use Cases

   From the LMAP perspective, there is no difference between fixed
   service and mobile (cellular) service used for Internet access.
   Hence, like measurements will take place on both fixed and mobile
   networks.  Fixed services include technologies like Digital
   Subscriber Line (DSL), Cable, and Carrier Ethernet.  Mobile services
   include all those advertised as 2G, 3G, 4G, and Long-Term Evolution
   (LTE).  A metric defined to measure end-to-end services will execute
   similarly on all access technologies. Other metrics may be access
   technology specific. The LMAP architecture covers both IPv4 and IPv6
   networks.

2.1 Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case

   A network operator needs to understand the performance of their
   networks, the performance of the suppliers (downstream and upstream
   networks), the performance of Internet access services, and the
   impact that such performance has on the experience of their
   customers. Largely, the processes that ISPs operate (which are based
   on network measurement) include:

      o Identifying, isolating and fixing problems, which may be in the
      network, with the service provider, or in the end user equipment.
      Such problems may be common to a point in the network topology
      (e.g. a single exchange), common to a vendor or equipment type
      (e.g. line card or home gateway) or unique to a single user line
      (e.g. copper access). Part of this process may also be helping
      users understand whether the problem exists in their home network
      or with a third party application service instead of with their
      broadband (BB) product.




Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                  [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


      o Design and planning. Through monitoring the end user experience
      the ISP can design and plan their network to ensure specified
      levels of user experience. Services may be moved closer to end
      users, services upgraded, the impact of QoS assessed or more
      capacity deployed at certain locations. Service Level Agreements
      (SLAs) may be defined at network or product boundaries.

      o Understanding the quality experienced by customers. Alongside
      benchmarking competitors, gaining better insight into the user's
      service through a sample panel of the operator's own customers.
      The ISP requires a performance viewpoint of the end-to-end
      perspective, which includes: home/enterprise networks; peering
      points; Content Delivery Networks (CDNs); etc.

      o Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and
      technology. As a new product is deployed, or a new technology
      introduced into the network, it is essential that its operation
      and its impact is measured. This also helps to quantify the
      advantage that the new technology is bringing and support the
      business case for larger roll-out.

2.2 Regulator Use Case

   Regulators in jurisdictions around the world are responding to
   consumers' adoption of Internet access services for traditional
   telecommunications and media services by promoting competition among
   providers of electronic communications, to ensure that users derive
   maximum benefit in terms of choice, price, and quality.

   Competition is more effective with better information, so some
   regulators have developed large-scale measurement programs. For
   example, programs such as the U.S. Federal Communications
   Commission's (FCC) Measuring Broadband America (MBA), European
   Commission's Quality of Broadband Services in the EU reports and a
   growing list of other programs employ a diverse set of operational
   and technical approaches to gathering data to perform analysis and
   reporting on diverse aspects of broadband performance.

   While each jurisdiction responds to distinct consumer, industry, and
   regulatory concerns, much commonality exists in the need to produce
   datasets that can be used to compare multiple Internet access service
   providers, diverse technical solutions, geographic and regional
   distributions, and marketed and provisioned levels and combinations
   of broadband Internet access services. In some jurisdictions, the
   role of measuring is provided by a measurement provider.

   Measurement providers measure network performance from users towards
   multiple content and application providers, including dedicated test



Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                  [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   measurement servers, to show the performance of the actual Internet
   access service provided by different ISPs. Users need to know the
   performance that they are achieving from their own ISP. In addition,
   they need to know the performance of other ISPs of same location as
   background information for selecting their ISP. Measurement providers
   will provide measurement results with associated measurement methods
   and measurement metrics.

   From a consumer perspective, the differentiation between fixed and
   mobile (cellular) Internet access services is blurring as the
   applications used are very similar. Hence, regulators are measuring
   both fixed and mobile Internet access services.

   A regulator's role in the development and enforcement of broadband
   Internet access service policies also requires that the measurement
   approaches meet a high level of verifiability, accuracy and provider-
   independence to support valid and meaningful comparisons of Internet
   access service performance.

   LMAP standards could answer regulators shared needs by providing
   scalable, cost-effective, scientifically robust solutions to the
   measurement and collection of broadband Internet access service
   performance information.

3  Details of ISP Use Case

3.1 Understanding the quality experienced by customers

   Operators want to understand the quality of experience (QoE) of their
   broadband customers. The understanding can be gained through a
   "panel", i.e. measurement probes deployed to a few 100 or 1000
   customers. The panel needs to include a representative sample for
   each of the operator's technologies (fiber, Hybrid Fibre-coaxial
   (HFC), DSL...) and broadband speeds (80Mb/s, 20Mb/s, basic...). For
   reasonable statistical validity, approximately 100 probes are needed
   for each ISP product. The operator would like the end-to-end view of
   the service, rather than (say) just the access portion. So as well as
   simple network statistics like speed and loss rates, they want to
   understand what the service feels like to the customer. This involves
   relating the pure network parameters to something like a 'mean
   opinion score' which will be service dependent (for instance web
   browsing QoE is largely determined by latency above a few Mb/s).

   An operator will also want compound metrics such as "reliability",
   which might involve packet loss, DNS failures, re-training of the
   line, video streaming under-runs etc.

   The operator really wants to understand the end-to-end service



Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                  [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   experience. However, the home network (Ethernet, WiFi, powerline) is
   highly variable and outside its control. To date, operators (and
   regulators) have instead measured performance from the home gateway.
   However, mobile operators clearly must include the wireless link in
   the measurement.

   Active measurements are the most obvious approach, i.e., special
   measurement traffic is sent by - and to - the probe. In order not to
   degrade the service of the customer, the measurement data should only
   be sent when the user is silent, and it shouldn't reduce the
   customer's data allowance. The other approach is passive measurements
   on the customer's ordinary traffic; the advantage is that it measures
   what the customer actually does, but it creates extra variability
   (different traffic mixes give different results) and especially it
   raises privacy concerns. RFC6973] discusses privacy considerations
   for Internet protocols in general, whilst [framework] discusses them
   specifically for large-scale measurement systems.


   From an operator's viewpoint, understanding customer experience
   enables it to offer better services. Also, simple metrics can be more
   easily understood by senior managers who make investment decisions
   and by sales and marketing.

3.2 Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and technology

   Another type of measurement is to test new capabilities before they
   are rolled out. For example, the operator may want to:

      o Check whether a customer can be upgraded to a new broadband
      option

      o Understand the impact of IPv6 before it makes it available to
      customers (will v6 packets get through, what will the latency be
      to major websites, what transition mechanisms will be most
      appropriate?)

      o Check whether a new capability can be signaled using TCP options
      (how often it will be blocked by a middlebox? - along the lines of
      the experiments described in [ExtendTCP]);

      o Investigate a quality of service mechanism (e.g. checking
      whether Diffserv markings are respected on some path); and so on.

3.3 Design and planning

   Operators can use large scale measurements to help with their network
   planning - proactive activities to improve the network.



Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                  [Page 6]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   For example, by probing from several different vantage points the
   operator can see that a particular group of customers has performance
   below that expected during peak hours, which should help capacity
   planning. Naturally operators already have tools to help this - a
   network element reports its individual utilization (and perhaps other
   parameters). However, making measurements across a path rather than
   at a point may make it easier to understand the network. There may
   also be parameters like bufferbloat that aren't currently reported by
   equipment and/or that are intrinsically path metrics.

   With information gained from measurement results, capacity planning
   and network design can be more effective. Such planning typically
   uses simulations to emulate the measured performance of the current
   network and understand the likely impact of new capacity and
   potential changes to the topology. Simulations, informed by data from
   a limited panel of probes, can help quantify the advantage that a new
   technology brings and support the business case for larger roll-out.

   It may also be possible to use probes to run stress tests for risk
   analysis. For example, an operator could run a carefully controlled
   and limited experiment in which probing is used to assess the
   potential impact if some new application becomes popular.

3.4 Monitoring Service Level Agreements

   Another example is that the operator may want to monitor performance
   where there is a service level agreement (SLA). This could be with
   its own customers, especially enterprises may have an SLA. The
   operator can proactively spot when the service is degrading near to
   the SLA limit, and get information that will enable more informed
   conversations with the customer at contract renewal.

   An operator may also want to monitor the performance of its
   suppliers, to check whether they meet their SLA or to compare two
   suppliers if it is dual-sourcing. This could include its transit
   operator, CDNs, peering, video source, local network provider (for a
   global operator in countries where it doesn't have its own network),
   even the whole network for a virtual operator.

   Through a better understanding of its own network and its suppliers,
   the operator should be able to focus investment more effectively - in
   the right place at the right time with the right technology.

3.5 Identifying, isolating and fixing network problems

   Operators can use large scale measurements to help identify a fault
   more rapidly and decide how to solve it.




Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                  [Page 7]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   Operators already have Test and Diagnostic tools, where a network
   element reports some problem or failure to a management system.
   However, many issues are not caused by a point failure but something
   wider and so will trigger too many alarms, whilst other issues will
   cause degradation rather than failure and so not trigger any alarm.
   Large-scale measurements can help provide a more nuanced view that
   helps network management to identify and fix problems more rapidly
   and accurately. The network management tools may use simulations to
   emulate the network and so help identify a fault and assess possible
   solutions.

   An operator can obtain useful information without measuring the
   performance on every broadband line. By measuring a subset, the
   operator can identify problems that affect a group of customers. For
   example, the issue could be at a shared point in the network topology
   (such as an exchange), or common to a vendor, or equipment type; for
   instance, [IETF85-Plenary] describes a case where a particular home
   gateway upgrade had caused a (mistaken!) drop in line rate.

   A more extensive deployment of the measurement capability to every
   broadband line would enable an operator to identify issues unique to
   a single customer. Overall, large-scale measurements can help an
   operator help an operator fix the fault more rapidly and/or allow the
   affected customers to be informed what's happening. More accurate
   information enables the operator to reassure customers and take more
   rapid and effective action to cure the problem.

   Often customers experience poor broadband due to problems in the home
   network - the ISP's network is fine. For example they may have moved
   too far away from their wireless access point. Perhaps 80% of
   customer calls about fixed BB problems are due to in-home wireless
   issues. These issues are expensive and frustrating for an operator,
   as they are extremely hard to diagnose and solve. The operator would
   like to narrow down whether the problem is in the home (with the home
   network or edge device or home gateway), in the operator's network,
   or with an application service. The operator would like two
   capabilities. Firstly, self-help tools that customers use to improve
   their own service or understand its performance better, for example
   to re-position their devices for better WiFi coverage. Secondly, on-
   demand tests that can the operator can run instantly - so the call
   center person answering the phone (or e-chat) could trigger a test
   and get the result whilst the customer is still in an on-line
   session.

4  Details of Regulator Use Case

4.1 Promoting competition through transparency




Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                  [Page 8]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   Competition plays a vital role in regulation of the electronic
   communications markets. For competition to successfully discipline
   operators' behavior in the interests of their customers, end users
   must be fully aware of the characteristics of the ISPs' access
   offers. In some jurisdictions regulators mandate that transparent
   information imade available about service offers.

   End users need effective transparency to be able to make informed
   choices throughout the different stages of their relationship with
   ISPs, when selecting Internet access service offers, and when
   considering switching service offer within an ISP or to an
   alternative ISP. Quality information about service offers could
   include speed, delay, and jitter. Regulators can publish such
   information to facilitate end users' choice of service provider and
   offer. It may also encourage ISPs to use the same metrics in their
   service level contracts, which would further help end users to choose
   an ISP. Finally, transparency may help content, application, service
   and device providers develop their Internet offerings.


   The published information needs to be:

      o  Accurate - the measurement results must be correct and not
      influenced by errors or side effects. The results should be
      reproducible and consistent over time.

      o  Comparable - common metrics should be used across different
      ISPs and service offerings so that measurement results can be
      compared.

      o  Meaningful - the metrics used for measurements need to reflect
      what end users value about their broadband Internet access service

      o  Reliable - the number and distribution of measurement agents,
      and the statistical processing of the raw measurement data, needs
      to be appropriate

   A set of measurement parameters and associated measurement methods
   are used over time, e.g. speed, delay, and jitter. Then the
   measurement raw data are collected and go through statistical post-
   processing before the results can be published in an Internet access
   service quality index to facilitate end users' choice of service
   provider and offer.

   The regulator can also promote competition through transparency by
   encouraging end users to monitor the performance of their own
   broadband Internet access service. They might use this information to
   check that the performance meets that specified in their contract or



Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                  [Page 9]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   to understand whether their current subscription is the most
   appropriate.

4.2 Promoting broadband deployment

   Governments sometimes set strategic goals for high-speed broadband
   penetration as an important component of the economic, cultural and
   social development of the society. To evaluate the effect of the
   stimulated growth over time, broadband Internet access take-up and
   penetration of high-speed access can be monitored through measurement
   campaigns.

   An example of such an initiative is the "Digital Agenda for Europe"
   which was adopted in 2010, to achieve universal broadband access. The
   goal is to achieve by 2020, access for all Europeans to Internet
   access speeds of 30 Mbps or above, and 50% or more of European
   households subscribing to Internet connections above 100 Mbps.

   To monitor actual broadband Internet access performance in a specific
   country or a region, extensive measurement campaigns are needed. A
   panel can be built based on operators and packages in the market,
   spread over urban, suburban and rural areas. Probes can then be
   distributed to the participants of the campaign.

   Periodic tests running on the probes can for example measure actual
   speed at peak and off-peak hours, but also other detailed quality
   metrics like delay and jitter. Collected data goes afterwards through
   statistical analysis, deriving estimates for the whole population
   which can then be presented and published regularly.

   Using a harmonized or standardized measurement methodology, or even a
   common quality measurement platform, measurement results could also
   be used for benchmarking of providers and/or countries.

4.3 Monitoring "net neutrality"

   Regulatory approaches related to net neutrality and the open Internet
   has been introduced in some jurisdictions. Examples of such efforts
   are the Internet policy as outlined by the Body of European
   Regulators for Electronic Communications Guidelines for quality of
   service [BEREC Guidelines] and US FCC Preserving the Open Internet
   Report and Order [FCC R&O].  Although legal challenges can change the
   status of policy such as the court action negating the FCC R&O, the
   take-away for LMAP purposes is that policy-makers are looking for
   measurement solutions to assist them in discovering biased treatment
   of traffic flows.  The exact definitions and requirements vary from
   one jurisdiction to another; the comments below provide some hints
   about the potential role of measurements.



Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                 [Page 10]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   Net neutrality regulations do not necessarily require every packet to
   be treated equally. Typically they allow "reasonable" traffic
   management (for example if there is exceptional congestion) and allow
   "specialized services" in parallel to, but separate from, ordinary
   Internet access (for example for facilities-based IPTV). A regulator
   may want to monitor such practices as input to the regulatory
   evaluation. However, these concepts are evolving and differ across
   jurisdictions, so measurement results should be assessed with
   caution.

   A regulator could monitor departures from application agnosticism
   such as blocking or throttling of traffic from specific applications,
   and preferential treatment of specific applications. A measurement
   system could send, or passively monitor, application-specific traffic
   and then measure in detail the transfer of the different packets.
   Whilst it is relatively easy to measure port blocking, it is a
   research topic how to detect other types of differentiated treatment.
    The paper, "Glasnost: Enabling End Users to Detect Traffic
   Differentiation" [M-Labs NSDI 2010] and follow-on tool "Glasnost"
   [Glasnost] are examples of work in this area.

   A regulator could also monitor the performance of the broadband
   service over time, to try and detect if the specialized service is
   provided at the expense of the Internet access service. Comparison
   between ISPs or between different countries may also be relevant for
   this kind of evaluation.

5  Implementation Options

   There are several ways of implementing a measurement system. The
   choice may be influenced by the details of the particular use case
   and what the most important criteria are for the regulator, ISP or
   third party operating the measurement system.

   One way involves a special hardware device that is connected directly
   to the home gateway. The devices are deployed to a carefully selected
   panel of end users and they perform measurements according to a
   defined schedule. The schedule can run throughout the day, to allow
   continuous assessment of the network. Careful design ensures that
   measurements do not detrimentally impact the home user experience or
   corrupt the results by testing when the user is also using the
   broadband line. The system is therefore tightly controlled by the
   operator of the measurement system. One advantage of this approach is
   that it is possible to get reliable benchmarks for the performance of
   a network with only a few devices. One disadvantage is that it would
   be expensive to deploy hardware devices on a mass scale sufficient to
   understand the performance of the network at the granularity of a
   single broadband user.



Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                 [Page 11]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   Another approach involves implementing the measurement capability as
   a webpage or an "app" that end users are encouraged to download onto
   their mobile phone or computing device. Measurements are triggered by
   the end user, for example the user interface may have a button to
   "test my broadband now". One advantage of this approach is that the
   performance is measured to the end user, rather than to the home
   gateway, and so includes the home network. Another difference is that
   the system is much more loosely controlled, as the panel of end users
   and the schedule of tests are determined by the end users themselves
   rather than the measurement system. It would be easier to get large-
   scale, however it is harder to get comparable benchmarks as the
   measurements are affected by the home network and also the population
   is self-selecting and so potentially biased towards those who think
   they have a problem. This could be alleviated by stimulating
   widespread downloading of the app and careful post-processing of the
   results to reduce biases.

   There are several other possibilities. For example, as a variant on
   the first approach, the measurement capability could be implemented
   as software embedded in the home gateway, which would make it more
   viable to have the capability on every user line. As a variant on the
   second approach, the end user could initiate measurements in response
   to a request from the measurement system.

   The operator of the measurement system should be careful to ensure
   that measurements do not detrimentally impact users. Potential issues
   include:

      * Measurement traffic generated on a particular user's line may
      impact that end user's quality of experience. The danger is
      greater for measurements that generate a lot of traffic over a
      lengthy period.

      * The measurement traffic may impact that particular user's bill
      or traffic cap.

      * The measurement traffic from several end users may, in
      combination, congest a shared link.

      * The traffic associated with the control and reporting of
      measurements may overload the network. The danger is greater where
      the traffic associated with many end users is synchronized.

6  Conclusions

   Large-scale measurements of broadband performance are useful for both
   network operators and regulators. Network operators would like to use
   measurements to help them better understand the quality experienced



Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                 [Page 12]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   by their customers, identify problems in the network and design
   network improvements. Regulators would like to use measurements to
   help promote competition between network operators, stimulate the
   growth of broadband access and monitor 'net neutrality'. There are
   other use cases that are not the focus of the initial LMAP charter
   (although it is expected that the mechanisms developed would be
   readily applied), for example end users would like to use
   measurements to help identify problems in their home network and to
   monitor the performance of their broadband provider.

   From consideration of the various use cases, several common themes
   emerge whilst there are also some detailed differences. These
   characteristics guide the development of LMAP's framework,
   information model and protocol.

   A measurement capability is needed across a wide number of
   heterogeneous environments. Tests may be needed in the home network,
   in the ISP's network or beyond; they may be measuring a fixed or
   wireless network; they may measure just the access network or across
   several networks; at least some of which are not operated by the
   measurement provider.

   There is a role for both standardized and non-standardized
   measurements. For example, a regulator would like to publish
   standardized performance metrics for all network operators, whilst an
   ISP may need their own tests to understand some feature special to
   their network. Most use cases need active measurements, which create
   and measure specific test traffic, but some need passive measurements
   of the end user's traffic.

   Regardless of the tests being operated, there needs to be a way to
   demand or schedule the tests. Most use cases need a regular schedule
   of measurements, but sometimes ad hoc testing is needed, for example
   for troubleshooting. It needs to be ensured that measurements do not
   affect the user experience and are not affected by user traffic
   (unless desired). In addition there needs to be a common way to
   collect the results. Standardization of this control and reporting
   functionality allows the operator of a measurement system to buy the
   various components from different vendors.

   After the measurement results are collected, they need to be
   understood and analyzed. Often it is sufficient to measure only a
   small subset of end users, but per-line fault diagnosis requires the
   ability to test every individual line. Analysis requires accurate
   definition and understanding of where the test points are, as well as
   contextual information about the topology, line, product and the
   subscriber's contract. The actual analysis of results is beyond the
   scope of LMAP, as is the key challenge of how to integrate the



Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                 [Page 13]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   measurement system into a network operator's existing tools for
   diagnostics and network planning.

   Finally the test data, along with any associated network, product or
   subscriber contract data is commercial or private information and
   needs to be protected.

7  Security Considerations

   Large-scale measurements raise several potential security, privacy
   (data protection) and business sensitivity issues. Both the network
   operator and regulator use cases potentially raise the following
   issues:


      1. a malicious party that gains control of Measurement Agents to
      launch DoS attacks at a target, or to alter (perhaps subtly)
      Measurement Tasks in order to compromise the end user's privacy,
      the business confidentiality of the network, or the accuracy of
      the measurement system.

      2. a malicious party that gains control of Measurement Agents to
      create a platform for pervasive monitoring [RFC7258], in order to
      attack the privacy of Internet users and organisations.

      3. a malicious party that intercepts or corrupts the Measurement
      Results &/or other information about the Subscriber, for similar
      nefarious purposes.

      4. a malicious party that uses fingerprinting techniques to
      identify individual end users, even from anonymized data

      5. a measurement system that does not obtain the end user's
      informed consent, or fails to specify a specific purpose in the
      consent, or uses the collected information for secondary uses
      beyond those specified.

      6. a measurement system that is vague about who is responsible for
      privacy (data protection); this role is often termed the "data
      controller".

   In addition, the regulator use case has the following potential
   issue:

      7. a malicious network operator could try to identify the
      broadband lines that the regulator was measuring and prioritise
      that traffic ("game the system").




Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                 [Page 14]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   The [framework] also considers some potential mitigations of these
   issues. They will need to be considered by an LMAP protocol and more
   generally by any measurement system.



8  IANA Considerations

   None

Contributors

   The information in this document is partially derived from text
   written by the following contributors:

   James Miller         jamesmilleresquire@gmail.com

   Rachel Huang         rachel.huang@huawei.com


Informative References

   [IETF85-Plenary] Crawford, S., "Large-Scale Active Measurement of
              Broadband Networks",
              http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-iesg-
              opsandtech-7.pdf 'example' from slide 18

   [Extend TCP] Michio Honda, Yoshifumi Nishida, Costin Raiciu, Adam
              Greenhalgh, Mark Handley and Hideyuki Tokuda. "Is it Still
              Possible to Extend TCP?" Proc. ACM Internet Measurement
              Conference (IMC), November 2011, Berlin, Germany.
              http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/IRTF-1.pdf

   [framework] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
              Aitken, P., Akhter, A.  "A framework for large-scale
              measurement platforms (LMAP)",
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-framework/

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H.z., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
              2013.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S., Tschofenig, H., "PPervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", RFC 7258, May 2014.






Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                 [Page 15]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


   [FCC R&O]  United States Federal Communications Commission, 10-201,
              "Preserving the Open Internet, Broadband Industries
              Practices, Report and Order",
              http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-
              201A1.pdf

   [BEREC Guidelines] Body of European Regulators for Electronic
              Communications, "BEREC Guidelines for quality of service
              in the scope of net neutrality",
              http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/
              subject_matter/berec/download/0/1101-berec-guidelines-for-
              quality-of-service-_0.pdf

   [M-Labs NSDI 2010] M-Lab, "Glasnost: Enabling End Users to Detect
              Traffic Differentiation",
              http://www.measurementlab.net/download/AMIfv945ljiJXzG-
              fgUrZSTu2hs1xRl5Oh-rpGQMWL305BNQh-
              BSq5oBoYU4a7zqXOvrztpJhK9gwk5unOe-fOzj4X-vOQz_HRrnYU-
              aFd0rv332RDReRfOYkJuagysstN3GZ__lQHTS8_UHJTWkrwyqIUjffVeDxQ/

   [Glasnost] M-Lab tool "Glasnost", http://mlab-live.appspot.com/tools/
              glasnost

   [P.800] ITU-T, "SERIES P: TELEPHONE TRANSMISSION QUALITY Methods for
              objective and subjective assessment of quality",
              https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC-
              P.800-199608-I!!PDF-E&type=items
























Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                 [Page 16]


INTERNET DRAFT               LMAP Use Cases            November 10, 2014


Authors' Addresses


              Marc Linsner
              Cisco Systems, Inc.
              Marco Island, FL
              USA

              EMail: mlinsner@cisco.com

              Philip Eardley
              BT
              B54 Room 77, Adastral Park, Martlesham
              Ipswich, IP5 3RE
              UK

              Email: philip.eardley@bt.com

              Trevor Burbridge
              BT
              B54 Room 77, Adastral Park, Martlesham
              Ipswich, IP5 3RE
              UK

              Email: trevor.burbridge@bt.com

              Frode Sorensen
              Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT)
              Lillesand
              Norway

              Email: frode.sorensen@npt.no



















Linsner, et al.           Expires May 14, 2015                 [Page 17]


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