--- 1/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-00.txt 2015-09-06 09:16:13.421669176 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-01.txt 2015-09-06 09:16:13.453669942 -0700 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Network Working Group A. Morton Internet-Draft AT&T Labs -Intended status: Informational June 30, 2015 -Expires: January 1, 2016 +Intended status: Informational September 6, 2015 +Expires: March 9, 2016 Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and everything in-between, or Hybrid) - draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-00 + draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-01 Abstract This memo provides clear definitions for Active and Passive performance assessment. The construction of Metrics and Methods can be described as Active or Passive. Some methods may use a subset of both active and passive attributes, and we refer to these as Hybrid Methods. Status of This Memo @@ -24,21 +24,21 @@ 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 January 1, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on March 9, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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 @@ -55,31 +55,31 @@ 2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Performance Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Observation Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4. Active Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.5. Active Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.6. Passive Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.7. Passive Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4.1. Graphical Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4.2. Discussion of PDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4.1. Graphical Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4.2. Discussion of PDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Introduction The adjectives "active" and "passive" have been used for many years to distinguish two different classes of Internet performance assessment. The first Passive and Active Measurement (PAM) Conference was held in 2000, but the earliest proceedings available on-line are from the second PAM conference in 2001 [https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/pam-2001]. @@ -95,21 +95,23 @@ present whether measurements take place or not. As new techniques for assessment emerge it is helpful to have clear definitions of these notions. This memo provides more detailed definitions, defines a new category for combinations of traditional active and passive techniques, and discusses means to evaluate new techniques as they emerge. This memo provides definitions for Active and Passive Metrics and Methods based on long usage in the Internet measurement community, - and especially the Internet Engineering Task Force. + and especially the Internet Engineering Task Force. This memo also + describes the comnination of fundamental Active and Passive + categories, which are called Hybrid Methods and Metrics. 1.1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2. Purpose and Scope The scope of this memo is to define and describe Active and Passive @@ -122,21 +124,21 @@ Hybrid methods. Further, this memo's purpose includes describing multiple dimensions in which to evaluate methods as they emerge. 3. Terms and Definitions This section defines the key terms of the memo. Some definitions use the notion of "stream of interest" which is synonymous with "population of interest" defined in clause 6.1.1 of ITU-T - Recommendation Y.1540. The definitions are consistent with + Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540]. The definitions are consistent with [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive]. 3.1. Performance Metric The standard definition of a quantity, produced in an assessment of performance and/or reliability of the network, which has an intended utility and is carefully specified to convey the exact meaning of a measured value. (This definition is consistent with that of Performance Metric in RFC 2330 and RFC 6390). @@ -229,47 +231,85 @@ 3.7. Passive Metric Passive Metrics apply to observations of packet traffic (traffic flows in [RFC7011]). Passive performance metrics are assessed independent of the packets or traffic flows, and solely through observation. Some refer to such assessments as "out-of-band". One example of passive performance metrics for IP packet transfer can - be found in ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, where the metrics are - defined on the basis of reference events as packet pass reference + be found in ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540], where the metrics + are defined on the basis of reference events as packet pass reference points, so the metrics are agnostic to the distinction between active and passive when the necessary packet correspondence can be derived - from the observed stream of interest when required. + from the observed stream of interest as required. 3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics - Methods of Measurement which use a combination of Active Methods and - Passive Methods, to assess Active Metrics, Passive Metrics, or new - metrics derived from the a' priori knowledge and observations of the - stream of interest. ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 defines metrics are - applicable to the hybrid category, since packet correspondence at - different observation/reference points could be derived from "fields - which are dedicated to measurement", but otherwise the methods are - passive. + Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement which use a combination of + Active Methods and Passive Methods, to assess Active Metrics, Passive + Metrics, or new metrics derived from the a' priori knowledge and + observations of the stream of interest. ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 + [Y.1540] defines metrics are applicable to the hybrid category, since + packet correspondence at different observation/reference points could + be derived from "fields which are dedicated to measurement", but + otherwise the methods are passive. - With respect to the stream of interest, Hybrid methods fit in the - continuum as follows, in terms of what happens at the Source(or - Observation Point nearby): + There are several types of Hybrid methods, as categorized below. + + With respect to a *single* stream of interest, Hybrid Type I methods + fit in the continuum as follows, in terms of what happens at the + Source (or Observation Point nearby): o If you generate the stream of interest => Active - o If you augment of modify a stream of interest => Hybrid + o If you augment of modify a stream of interest => Hybrid Type I o If you solely observe a stream of interest => Passive + We define Hybrid Type II as follows: Methods that employ two or more + different streams of interest with some degree of mutual coordination + (one or more Active streams and one or more undisturbed and + unmodified packet streams) to collect both Active and Passive Metrics + and enable enhanced characterization from additional joint analysis. + [I-D.trammell-ippm-hybrid-ps] presents a problem statement for Hybrid + Type II methods and metrics. Note that one or more Hybrid Type I + streams could be substituted for the Active streams or undisturbed + streams in the mutually coordinated set. It is the Type II Methods + where unique Hybrid Metrics are atnticipated to emerge. + + Methods based on a combination of a single (generated) Active stream + and Passive observations applied to the stream of interest at + intermediate observation points are also a type of Hybrid Methods. + However, [RFC5644] already defines these as Spatial Metrics and + Methods. It is possible to replace the Active stream of [RFC5644] + with a Hybrid Type I stream and measure Spatial Metrics (but this was + un-anticipated when [RFC5644] was developed). + + The Table below illustrates the categorization of methods (where + "Synthesis" refers to a combination of Active and Passive Method + attributes). + + | Single Stream | Multiple Simultaneous + | of Interest | Streams of Interest + | | from Different Methods + ==================================================================== + Single Fundamental | Active or Passive | + Method | | + + Synthesis of | Hybrid Type I | + Fundamental Methods | | + + Multiple Methods | Spatial Metrics | Hybrid Type II + | [RFC 5644] | + 4. Discussion This section illustrates the definitions and presents some examples. 4.1. Graphical Representation If we compare the Active and Passive Methods, there are at least two dimensions on which methods can be evaluated. This evaluation space may be useful when a method is a combination of the two alternative methods. @@ -379,21 +419,21 @@ supports performance measurements. This method processes a user traffic stream and adds "fields which are dedicated to measurement". Thus: o The method may have a small effect on the measured stream and other streams in the network. o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is processed to add the PDM Option header. - We conclude that this is a Hybrid method, having at least one + We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one characteristic of both active and passive methods. 4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method Draft [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], proposed to color packets by re- writing a field of the stream at strategic interfaces to support performance measurements. This method processes a user traffic stream and inserts "fields which are dedicated to measurement". Thus: @@ -402,21 +442,21 @@ o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is processed to add the coloring in the header, and the stream could be measured and time-stamped during that process. We note that [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] proposes a method similar to [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], and ippm-list discussion indicates [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] may be covered by the same IPR as [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m]. - We conclude that this is a Hybrid method, having at least one + We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one characteristic of both active and passive methods. 5. Security considerations When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those whose traffic is measured, there is sensitive information communicated and observed at observation and measurement points described above. We refer the reader to the privacy considerations described in the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework], which covers active and @@ -424,48 +464,61 @@ context. 6. IANA Considerations This memo makes no requests for IANA consideration. 7. Acknowledgements Thanks to Mike Ackermann for asking the right question, and for several suggestions on terminology. Brian Trammell provided key - terms and references for the passive category. Tiziano Ionta - reviewed the draft and suggested the classification for the + terms and references for the passive category, and suggested ways to + expand the Hybrid description and types. Phil Eardley suggested some + hybrid scenaios for categorization as part of his review. Tiziano + Ionta reviewed the draft and suggested the classification for the "coloring" method of measurement. Nalini Elkins identified several - areas for clarification following her review. Bill Jouris reviewed - 01 editorially and suggested several improvements. + areas for clarification following her review. Bill Jouris suggested + several editorial improvements. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, - "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May - 1998. + "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, + . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, - November 2002. + DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, + . - [RFC5835] Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for Metric - Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010. + [RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance + Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009, + . - [RFC7011] Claise, B., Trammell, B., and P. Aitken, "Specification of - the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the - Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, September - 2013. + [RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for + Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April + 2010, . + + [RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, + "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) + Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, + RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013, + . 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", draft-ietf- lmap-framework-14 (work in progress), April 2015. [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option] @@ -475,28 +528,37 @@ [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m] Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., and A. Bonda, "A packet based method for passive performance monitoring", draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04 (work in progress), February 2014. [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and G. Fioccola, "IP Flow Performance Measurement Framework", draft-chen-ippm- - coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-03 (work in progress), - February 2015. + coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-04 (work in progress), July + 2015. [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive] Zheng, L., Elkins, N., Lingli, D., Ackermann, M., and G. Mirsky, "Framework for IP Passive Performance Measurements", draft-zheng-ippm-framework-passive-03 (work in progress), February 2015. + [I-D.trammell-ippm-hybrid-ps] + Trammell, B., Zheng, L., Berenguer, S., and M. Bagnulo, + "Hybrid Measurement using IPPM Metrics", draft-trammell- + ippm-hybrid-ps-01 (work in progress), February 2014. + + [Y.1540] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, , "Internet protocol data + communication service - IP packet transfer and + availability performance parameters", March 2011. + Author's Address Al Morton AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue South Middletown, NJ USA Email: acmorton@att.com