draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-02.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-03.txt 
Network Working Group E. Stephan Network Working Group E. Stephan
Internet-Draft France Telecom Internet-Draft France Telecom
Intended status: Informational L. Liang Intended status: Informational L. Liang
Expires: April 25, 2007 University of Surrey Expires: September 2, 2007 University of Surrey
A. Morton A. Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
October 22, 2006 March 1, 2007
IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) for spatial and multicast IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) for spatial and multicast
draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-02 draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-03
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group has standardized The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group has standardized
metrics for measuring end-to-end performance between 2 points. This metrics for measuring end-to-end performance between 2 points. This
memo defines 2 sets of metrics to extend these end-to-end ones. It memo defines 2 sets of metrics to extend these end-to-end ones. It
defines spatial metrics for measuring the performance of segments defines spatial metrics for measuring the performance of segments
along a path and metrics for measuring the performance of a group of along a path and metrics for measuring the performance of a group of
users in multiparty communications. users in multiparty communications.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Multiparty metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Multiparty metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Spatial metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Spatial metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Spatial metric points of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Spatial metric points of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. One-to-group metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. One-to-group metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. One-to-group metric points of interest . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.5. One-to-group metric points of interest . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Reference point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.6. Reference point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7. Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.7. Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.8. Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.8. Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Motivations for spatial and one-to-group metrics . . . . . . . 7 3. Motivations for spatial and one-to-group metrics . . . . . . . 8
3.1. spatial metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. spatial metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. One-to-group metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. One-to-group metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Discussion on Group-to-one and Group-to-group metrics . . 9 3.3. Discussion on Group-to-one and Group-to-group metrics . . 10
4. Spatial metrics definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Spatial metrics definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. A Definition for Spatial One-way Delay Vector . . . . . . 10 4.1. A Definition for Spatial One-way Delay Vector . . . . . . 10
4.2. A Definition of a sample of One-way Delay of a sub path . 12 4.2. A Definition of a sample of One-way Delay of a sub path . 13
4.3. A Definition for Spatial One-way Packet Loss Vector . . . 15 4.3. A Definition for Spatial One-way Packet Loss Vector . . . 16
4.4. A Definition for Spatial One-way Jitter Vector . . . . . . 16 4.4. A Definition for Spatial One-way Jitter Vector . . . . . . 17
4.5. Pure Passive Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.5. Pure Passive Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.6. Discussion on spatial statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.6. Discussion on spatial statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. One-to-group metrics definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5. One-to-group metrics definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Delay . . . . . . . 20 5.1. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Delay . . . . . . . 21
5.2. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Packet Loss . . . . 21 5.2. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Packet Loss . . . . 22
5.3. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Jitter . . . . . . . 21 5.3. A Definition for one-to-group One-way Jitter . . . . . . . 22
5.4. Discussion on one-to-group statistics . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. One-to-Group Sample Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. Extension from one-to-one to one-to-many measurement . . . . . 26 6.1. Discussion on the Impact of packet loss on statistics . . 26
7. Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.2. General Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.3. One-to-Group one-way Delay Statistics . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.4. One-to-Group one-way Loss Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.5. One-to-Group one-way Delay Variation Statistics . . . . . 33
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. Measurement Methods: Scaleability and Reporting . . . . . . . 33
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.1. Computation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.2. Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.3. effect of Time and Space Aggregation Order on Group
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 30 Stats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.4. effect of Time and Space Aggregation Order on Spatial
Stats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8. Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9.1. passive measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9.2. one-to-group metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 45
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The metrics specified in this memo are built on notions introduced The metrics specified in this memo are built on notions introduced
and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330 [RFC2330]. and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330 [RFC2330].
The reader should be familiar with these documents. The reader should be familiar with these documents.
This memo makes use of definitions of end-to-end One-way Delay This memo makes use of definitions of end-to-end One-way Delay
Metrics defined in the RFC 2679 [RFC2679] to define metrics for Metrics defined in the RFC 2679 [RFC2679] to define metrics for
decomposition of end-to-end one-way delays measurements. decomposition of end-to-end one-way delays measurements.
This memo makes use of definitions of end-to-end One-way Packet loss This memo makes use of definitions of end-to-end One-way Packet loss
Metrics defined in the RFC 2680 [RFC2680] to define metrics for Metrics defined in the RFC 2680 [RFC2680] to define metrics for
decomposition of end-to-end one-way packet loss measurements. decomposition of end-to-end one-way packet loss measurements.
The IPPM WG defined a framework for metric definitions and end-to-end The IPPM WG defined a framework for metric definitions and end-to-end
measurements: measurements:
o A general framework for defining performance metrics, described in o A general framework for defining performance metrics, described in
the Framework for IP Performance Metrics, RFC 2330 [RFC2330]; the Framework for IP Performance Metrics [RFC2330];
o A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Requirements, RFC 3763 o A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Requirements [RFC3763];
[RFC3763];
o A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [work in progress]; o A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656];
o An IP Performance Metrics Registry , RFC 4148 [RFC4148]; o An IP Performance Metrics Registry [RFC4148];
It specified a set of end-to-end metrics, which conform to this It specified a set of end-to-end metrics, which conform to this
framework: framework:
o The IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity, RFC 2678 [RFC2678]; o The IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity [RFC2678];
o The One-way Delay Metric for IPPM, RFC 2679 [RFC2679]; o The One-way Delay Metric for IPPM [RFC2679];
o The One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM, RFC 2680 [RFC2680]; o The One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM [RFC2680];
o The Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM, RFC 2681 [RFC2681]; o The Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM [RFC2681];
o A Framework for Defining Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics o A Framework for Defining Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics
RFC 3148 [RFC3148]; [RFC3148];
o One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics, RFC 3357 [RFC3357]; o One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics [RFC3357];
o IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IPPM, RFC 3393 [RFC3393]; o IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IPPM [RFC3393];
o Network performance measurement for periodic streams, RFC 3432 o Network performance measurement for periodic streams [RFC3432];
[RFC3432];
o Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM [Work in progress];
o Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM [RFC4737][Work in progress];
Based on these works, this memo defines 2 kinds of multi party Based on these works, this memo defines 2 kinds of multi party
metrics. metrics.
Firstly it defines spatial metrics: Firstly it defines spatial metrics:
o A 'sample', called Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector, will be o A 'sample', called Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector, will be
introduced to divide an end-to-end Type-P-One-way-Delay in a introduced to divide an end-to-end Type-P-One-way-Delay in a
spatial sequence of one-way delays. spatial sequence of one-way delays.
o A 'sample', called Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector, will o A 'sample', called Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector, will
skipping to change at page 5, line 31 skipping to change at page 6, line 28
2.2. Spatial metric 2.2. Spatial metric
A metric is said to be spatial if one of the hosts involved is A metric is said to be spatial if one of the hosts involved is
neither the source nor the destination of the metered packet. neither the source nor the destination of the metered packet.
2.3. Spatial metric points of interest 2.3. Spatial metric points of interest
Points of interest of a spatial metric are the routers or sibling in Points of interest of a spatial metric are the routers or sibling in
the path between source and destination (in addition to the source the path between source and destination (in addition to the source
and the destination themself). and the destination themselves).
2.4. One-to-group metric 2.4. One-to-group metric
A metric is said to be one-to-group if the measured packet is sent by A metric is said to be one-to-group if the measured packet is sent by
one source and (potentially) received by several destinations. Thus, one source and (potentially) received by several destinations. Thus,
the topology of the communication group can be viewed as a centre- the topology of the communication group can be viewed as a centre-
distributed or server-client topology with the source as the centre/ distributed or server-client topology with the source as the centre/
server in the topology. server in the topology.
2.5. One-to-group metric points of interest 2.5. One-to-group metric points of interest
skipping to change at page 6, line 19 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
calculation will be carried out. calculation will be carried out.
2.7. Vector 2.7. Vector
A group of singletons is the set of results of the observation of the A group of singletons is the set of results of the observation of the
behaviour of the same packet at different places of a network. behaviour of the same packet at different places of a network.
A Vector is a set of singletons, which are a set of results of the A Vector is a set of singletons, which are a set of results of the
observation of the behaviour of the same packet at different places observation of the behaviour of the same packet at different places
of a network at different time. For instance, if One-way delay of a network at different time. For instance, if One-way delay
singletons abserved at N receivers for Packet P sent by the source singletons observed at N receivers for Packet P sent by the source
Src are dT1, dT2,..., dTN, it can be say that a vector V with N Src are dT1, dT2,..., dTN, it can be say that a vector V with N
elements can be orgnized as {dT1, dT2,..., dTN}. The elements in one elements can be organized as {dT1, dT2,..., dTN}. The elements in
vector are singletons distinct with each other in terms of both one vector are singletons distinct with each other in terms of both
measurement point and time. Given the vector V as an example, the measurement point and time. Given the vector V as an example, the
element dT1 is distinct from the rest by measured at receiver 1 at element dT1 is distinct from the rest by measured at receiver 1 at
time T1. Additional to a singleton, Vector gives information over a time T1. Additional to a singleton, Vector gives information over a
space dimension. space dimension.
2.8. Matrix 2.8. Matrix
Several vectors can orgnize form up a Matrix, which contains results Several vectors can organize form up a Matrix, which contains results
observed in a sampling interval at different place of a network at observed in a sampling interval at different place of a network at
different time. For instance, given One-way delay vectors V1={dT11, different time. For instance, given One-way delay vectors V1={dT11,
dT12,..., dT1N}, V2={dT21, dT22,..., dT2N},..., Vm={dTm1, dTm2,..., dT12,..., dT1N}, V2={dT21, dT22,..., dT2N},..., Vm={dTm1, dTm2,...,
dTmN} for Packet P1, P2,...,Pm, we can have a One-way delay Matrix dTmN} for Packet P1, P2,...,Pm, we can have a One-way delay Matrix
{V1, V2,...,Vm}. Additional to the information given by a Vector, a {V1, V2,...,Vm}. Additional to the information given by a Vector, a
Matrix is more powerful to present network performance in both space Matrix is more powerful to present network performance in both space
and time dimensions. It normally corresponding to a sample. and time dimensions. It normally corresponds to a sample.
The relation among Singleton, Vector and Matrix can be shown in the The relation among Singleton, Vector and Matrix can be shown in the
following Fig 1. following Figure 1.
one to group Singleton one-to-group Singleton
/ Sample / Sample
Src Rcvr .............................. Src Recv ..............................
..................R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 R1dT4 .................... 1 R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 R1dT4
`:=-.._ `:=-.._
T `._ ``-..__ T `._ ``-..__
`. `- R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 R2dT4 `. `-... 2 R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 R2dT4
`-. `-.
`-. `-.
`._R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 R3dT4 `.... N R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 R3dT4
Vector Matrix Vector Matrix
(space) (time) (space) (time)
Figure 1. Figure 1: Relation beween Singletons, vectors and matrix
3. Motivations for spatial and one-to-group metrics 3. Motivations for spatial and one-to-group metrics
All IPPM metrics are defined for end-to-end measurement. These All IPPM metrics are defined for end-to-end measurement. These
metrics provide very good guides for measurement in the pair metrics provide very good guides for measurement in the pair
communications. However, further efforts should be put to define communications. However, further efforts should be put to define
metrics for multiparty measurements such as one to one trajectory metrics for multiparty measurements such as one to one trajectory
metrics and one to multipoint metrics. metrics and one to multipoint metrics.
3.1. spatial metrics 3.1. spatial metrics
Decomposition of instantaneous end-to-end measures is needed: Decomposition of instantaneous end-to-end measures is needed:
o The PCE WG is extending existing protocols to permit remote path o Decomposing the performance of interdomain path is desirable in
computation and path computation quality, including inter domain. interdomain to qualify per AS contribution to the performance. So
One may say that in intra domain the decomposing the performance it is necessary to define standard spatial metrics before going
of a path is not whished. However such decomposition is desirable further in the computation of inter domain path with QoS
in interdomain to qualify each AS computation with the initial constraint.
request. So it is necessary to define standard spatial metrics
before going further in the computation of inter domain path with
QoS constraint.
o Traffic engineering and troubleshooting applications require o Traffic engineering and troubleshooting applications require
spatial views of the one-way delay consumption, identification of spatial views of the one-way delay consumption, identification of
the location of the lost of packets and the decomposition of the the location of the lost of packets and the decomposition of the
jitter over the path. jitter over the path.
o Monitoring the QoS of a multicast tree, of MPLS point-to- o Monitoring the QoS of a multicast tree, of MPLS point-to-
multipoint and inter-domain communication require spatial multipoint and inter-domain communication require spatial
decomposition of the one-way delay, of the packet loss and of the decomposition of the one-way delay, of the packet loss and of the
jitter. jitter.
o Composition of metrics is a need to scale in the measurement o Composition of metrics is a need to scale in the measurement
plane. The definition of composition metrics is a work in plane. Spatial measure give typically the individual performance
progress [I-D.ietf-ippm-spatial-composition]; . Spatial measure of an intra domain segment. It is the elementary piece of
give typically the individual performance of an intra domain information to exchange for measuring interdomain performance
segment. It is the elementary piece of information to exchange based on composition of metrics.
for measuring interdomain performance based on composition of
metrics.
o The PSAMP WG defines capabilities to sample packets in a way to to o The PSAMP WG defines capabilities to sample packets in a way to to
support measurement. [I-D.boschi-ipfix-reducing-redundancy]; support instantaneous measurement respecful of the IPPM framework
defines a method to collect packets information to measure the [RFC2330]. Consequently it is necessary to define a set of
instantaneous spatial performance without injecting test traffic. spatial metrics for passive and active techniques.
Consequently it is urgent to define a set of common spatial
metrics for passive and active techniques which respect the IPPM
framework [RFC2330]. This need is emphases by the fact that end-
to-end spatial measurement involves the 2 techniques;
3.2. One-to-group metrics 3.2. One-to-group metrics
While the node-to-node based spatial measures can provide very useful While the node-to-node based spatial measures can provide very useful
data in the view of each connection, we also need measures to present data in the view of each connection, we also need measures to present
the performance of a multiparty communication in the view of a group the performance of a multiparty communication in the view of a group
with consideration that it involves a group of people rather than with consideration that it involves a group of people rather than
two. As a consequence a simple one-way metric cannot describe the two. As a consequence a simple one-way metric cannot describe the
multi-connection situation. We need some new metrics to collect multi-connection situation. We need some new metrics to collect
performance of all the connections for further statistics analysis. performance of all the connections for further statistics analysis.
skipping to change at page 9, line 18 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
the multiparty communications. the multiparty communications.
To understand the connection situation between one source and any one To understand the connection situation between one source and any one
receiver in the multiparty communication group, we need the receiver in the multiparty communication group, we need the
collection of instantaneous end-to-end measures. It will give us collection of instantaneous end-to-end measures. It will give us
very detailed insight into each branch of the multicast tree in terms very detailed insight into each branch of the multicast tree in terms
of end-to-end absolute QoS. It can provide clear and helpful of end-to-end absolute QoS. It can provide clear and helpful
information for engineers to identify the connection with problems in information for engineers to identify the connection with problems in
a complex multiparty routing tree. a complex multiparty routing tree.
The one-to-group metrics described in this memo introduce one-to-many
concerns to the IPPM working group to measure the performance of a
group of users who receiving data from the same source. The concept
extends the "path" in the one-way measurement to "path tree" to cover
both one-to-one and one-to-many communications. Nevertheless,
applied to one-to-one communications they provide exactly the same
results as the corresponding one-to-one metrics.
3.3. Discussion on Group-to-one and Group-to-group metrics 3.3. Discussion on Group-to-one and Group-to-group metrics
We note that points of interest can also be selected to define We note that points of interest can also be selected to define
measurements on Group-to-one and Group-to-group topologies. These measurements on Group-to-one and Group-to-group topologies. These
topologies are currently beyond the scope of this memo, because they topologies are currently beyond the scope of this memo, because they
would involve multiple packets launched from different sources. would involve multiple packets launched from different sources.
However, we can give some clues here on these two cases. However, we can give some clues here on these two cases.
The measurements for group-to-one topology can be easily derived from The measurements for group-to-one topology can be easily derived from
the one-to-group measurement. The measurement point is the reference the one-to-group measurement. The measurement point is the reference
skipping to change at page 9, line 49 skipping to change at page 10, line 44
one-to-group communications as < ha, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, < hb, Ha, one-to-group communications as < ha, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, < hb, Ha,
Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, <hc, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, ..., < hn, Ha, Hb, Hc, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, <hc, Ha, Hb, Hc, ..., Hm >, ..., < hn, Ha, Hb, Hc,
..., Hm >. ..., Hm >.
4. Spatial metrics definitions 4. Spatial metrics definitions
Spatial decomposition metrics are based on standard end-to-end Spatial decomposition metrics are based on standard end-to-end
metrics. metrics.
The definition of a spatial metric is coupled with the corresponding The definition of a spatial metric is coupled with the corresponding
end-to-end metric. The methodoly is based on the measure of the same end-to-end metric. The methodology is based on the measure of the
test packet and parameters of the corresponding end-to-end metric. same test packet and parameters of the corresponding end-to-end
metric.
4.1. A Definition for Spatial One-way Delay Vector 4.1. A Definition for Spatial One-way Delay Vector
This section is coupled with the definition of Type-P-One-way-Delay. This section is coupled with the definition of Type-P-One-way-Delay.
When a parameter from section 3 of [RFC2679] is first used in this When a parameter from section 3 of [RFC2679] is first used in this
section, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk. section, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.
Sections 3.5 to 3.8 of [RFC2679] give requirements and applicability Sections 3.5 to 3.8 of [RFC2679] give requirements and applicability
statements for end-to-end one-way-delay measurements. They are statements for end-to-end one-way-delay measurements. They are
applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure. applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure.
skipping to change at page 11, line 29 skipping to change at page 12, line 22
4.1.5. Discussion 4.1.5. Discussion
Following are specific issues which may occur: Following are specific issues which may occur:
o the delay looks to decrease: dTi > DTi+1. this seem typically du o the delay looks to decrease: dTi > DTi+1. this seem typically du
to some clock synchronisation issue. this point is discussed in to some clock synchronisation issue. this point is discussed in
the section 3.7.1. "Errors or uncertainties related to Clocks" of the section 3.7.1. "Errors or uncertainties related to Clocks" of
of [RFC2679]; of [RFC2679];
o The location of the point of interest in the device influences the o The location of the point of interest in the device influences the
result (see [I-D.quittek-ipfix-middlebox]). If the packet is not result. If the packet is not observed on the input interface the
observed on the input interface the delay includes buffering time delay includes buffering time and consequently an uncertainty due
and consequently an uncertainty due to the difference between to the difference between 'wire time' and 'host time';
'wire time' and 'host time';
4.1.6. Interference with other test packet 4.1.6. Interference with other test packet
To avoid packet collision it is preferable to include a sequence To avoid packet collision it is preferable to include a sequence
number in the packet. number in the packet.
4.1.7. loss threshold 4.1.7. loss threshold
To determine if a dTi is defined or undefined it is necessary to To determine if a dTi is defined or undefined it is necessary to
define a period of time after which a packet is considered loss. define a period of time after which a packet is considered loss.
skipping to change at page 12, line 26 skipping to change at page 13, line 18
It is out of the scope of this document to define how each Hi detects It is out of the scope of this document to define how each Hi detects
the packet. the packet.
4.1.9. Reporting the metric 4.1.9. Reporting the metric
Section 3.6 of [RFC2679] indicates the items to report. Section 3.6 of [RFC2679] indicates the items to report.
4.1.10. Path 4.1.10. Path
It is clear that a end-to-end Type-P-One-way-Delay can't determine It is clear that a end-to-end Type-P-One-way-Delay can't determine
the list of hosts the packet passes throught. Section 3.8.4 of the list of hosts the packet passes through. Section 3.8.4 of
[RFC2679] says that the path traversed by the packet SHOULD be [RFC2679] says that the path traversed by the packet SHOULD be
reported but is practically impossible to determine. reported but is practically impossible to determine.
This part of the job is provide by Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay- This part of the job is provide by Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-
Vector metric because each points of interest Hi which capture the Vector metric because each points of interest Hi which capture the
packet is part of the path. packet is part of the path.
4.2. A Definition of a sample of One-way Delay of a sub path 4.2. A Definition of a sample of One-way Delay of a sub path
This metric is similar to the metric Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson- This metric is similar to the metric Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-
skipping to change at page 14, line 20 skipping to change at page 15, line 20
o When b is Dst <Tk,dTk.b - dTk.a> is the measure of the last hop. o When b is Dst <Tk,dTk.b - dTk.a> is the measure of the last hop.
o the delay looks to decrease: dTi > DTi+1: o the delay looks to decrease: dTi > DTi+1:
* This is typically du to clock synchronisation issue. this point * This is typically du to clock synchronisation issue. this point
is discussed in the section 3.7.1. "Errors or uncertainties is discussed in the section 3.7.1. "Errors or uncertainties
related to Clocks" of of [RFC2679]; related to Clocks" of of [RFC2679];
* This may occurs too when the clock resolution of one probe is * This may occurs too when the clock resolution of one probe is
bigger than the minimun delay of a path. As an example this bigger than the minimum delay of a path. As an example this
happen when measuring the delay of a path which is 500 km long happen when measuring the delay of a path which is 500 km long
with one probe synchronized using NTP having a clock resolution with one probe synchronized using NTP having a clock resolution
of 8ms. of 8ms.
o The location of the point of interest in the device influences the o The location of the point of interest in the device influences the
result (see [I-D.quittek-ipfix-middlebox]). If the packet is not result. If the packet is not observed on the input interface the
observed on the input interface the delay includes buffering time delay includes buffering time and consequently an uncertainty due
and consequently an uncertainty due to the difference between to the difference between 'wire time' and 'host time';
'wire time' and 'host time';
o dTk.b may be observed and not dTk.a. o dTk.b may be observed and not dTk.a.
o Tk is unknown if the flow is made of end user packets, that is o Tk is unknown if the flow is made of end user packets, that is
pure passive measure. In this case Tk may be forced to Tk+dTk.a. pure passive measure. In this case Tk may be forced to Tk+dTk.a.
This motivate separate metrics names for pure passive measurement This motivate separate metrics names for pure passive measurement
or specific reporting information. or specific reporting information.
o Pure passive measure should consider packets of the same size and o Pure passive measure should consider packets of the same size and
of the same Type-P. of the same Type-P.
skipping to change at page 15, line 21 skipping to change at page 16, line 21
4.3. A Definition for Spatial One-way Packet Loss Vector 4.3. A Definition for Spatial One-way Packet Loss Vector
This section is coupled with the definition of Type-P-One-way-Packet- This section is coupled with the definition of Type-P-One-way-Packet-
Loss. Then when a parameter from the section 2 of [RFC2680] is first Loss. Then when a parameter from the section 2 of [RFC2680] is first
used in this section, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk. used in this section, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.
Sections 2.5 to 2.8 of [RFC2680] give requirements and applicability Sections 2.5 to 2.8 of [RFC2680] give requirements and applicability
statements for end-to-end one-way-Packet-Loss measurements. They are statements for end-to-end one-way-Packet-Loss measurements. They are
applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure. applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure.
Spatial packet loss measurement SHOULD be respectful of them, Spatial packet loss measurement SHOULD be respectful of them,
especially those related to methodology, clock, uncertainities and especially those related to methodology, clock, uncertainties and
reporting. reporting.
Following we define the spatial metric, then we adapt some of the Following we define the spatial metric, then we adapt some of the
points above and introduce points specific to spatial measurement. points above and introduce points specific to spatial measurement.
4.3.1. Metric Name 4.3.1. Metric Name
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector
4.3.2. Metric Parameters 4.3.2. Metric Parameters
skipping to change at page 15, line 50 skipping to change at page 16, line 50
+ T*, a time, the sending (or initial observation) time for + T*, a time, the sending (or initial observation) time for
a measured packet. a measured packet.
+ dT1,..., dTn, dT, a list of delay. + dT1,..., dTn, dT, a list of delay.
+ P*, the specification of the packet type. + P*, the specification of the packet type.
+ <Src, H1, H2,..., Hn, Dst>, a path digest. + <Src, H1, H2,..., Hn, Dst>, a path digest.
+ B1, B2, ..., Bi, ..., Bn, a list of boolean values. + B1, B2, ..., Bi, ..., Bn, a list of Boolean values.
4.3.3. Metric Units 4.3.3. Metric Units
A sequence of boolean values. A sequence of Boolean values.
4.3.4. Definition 4.3.4. Definition
Given a Type-P packet sent by the sender Src at time T to the Given a Type-P packet sent by the sender Src at time T to the
receiver Dst in the path <H1, H2, ..., Hn>. Given the sequence of receiver Dst in the path <H1, H2, ..., Hn>. Given the sequence of
times <T+dT1,T+dT2,...,T+dTn,T+dT> the packet passes <H1, H2 ..., Hn, times <T+dT1,T+dT2,...,T+dTn,T+dT> the packet passes <H1, H2 ..., Hn,
Dst>, Dst>,
Type-P-One-way-Packet-Lost-Vector metric is defined as the sequence Type-P-One-way-Packet-Lost-Vector metric is defined as the sequence
of values <B1, B2, ..., Bn> such that for each Hi of the path, a of values <B1, B2, ..., Bn> such that for each Hi of the path, a
value of Bi of 0 means that dTi is a finite value, and a value of 1 value of Bi of 0 means that dTi is a finite value, and a value of 1
means that dTi is undefined. means that dTi is undefined.
4.3.5. Discussion 4.3.5. Discussion
Following are specific issues wich may occur: Following are specific issues which may occur:
o the result includes the sequence 1,0. This case means that the o the result includes the sequence 1,0. This case means that the
packet was seen by a host but not by it successor on the path; packet was seen by a host but not by it successor on the path;
o o
The location of the meter in the device influences the result: The location of the meter in the device influences the result:
o Even if the packet is received by a device, it may be not observed o Even if the packet is received by a device, it may be not observed
by a meter located after a buffer; by a meter located after a buffer;
skipping to change at page 16, line 49 skipping to change at page 17, line 49
4.4. A Definition for Spatial One-way Jitter Vector 4.4. A Definition for Spatial One-way Jitter Vector
This section uses parameters from the definition of Type-P-One-way- This section uses parameters from the definition of Type-P-One-way-
ipdv. When a parameter from section 2 of [RFC3393] is first used in ipdv. When a parameter from section 2 of [RFC3393] is first used in
this section, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk. this section, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk.
Sections 3.5 to 3.7 of [RFC3393] give requirements and applicability Sections 3.5 to 3.7 of [RFC3393] give requirements and applicability
statements for end-to-end one-way-ipdv measurements. They are statements for end-to-end one-way-ipdv measurements. They are
applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure. applicable to each point of interest Hi involved in the measure.
Spatial one-way-ipdv measurement SHOULD be respectful of them, Spatial one-way-ipdv measurement SHOULD be respectful of them,
especially those related to methodology, clock, uncertainities and especially those related to methodology, clock, uncertainties and
reporting. reporting.
Following we adapt some of them and introduce points specific to Following we adapt some of them and introduce points specific to
spatial measurement. spatial measurement.
4.4.1. Metric Name 4.4.1. Metric Name
Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Jitter-Vector Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Jitter-Vector
4.4.2. Metric Parameters 4.4.2. Metric Parameters
skipping to change at page 18, line 35 skipping to change at page 19, line 35
at least one of them never passes Hi. T2-T1 is the inter-packet at least one of them never passes Hi. T2-T1 is the inter-packet
emission interval and dT2-dT1 is ddT* the Type-P-One-way-ipdv at emission interval and dT2-dT1 is ddT* the Type-P-One-way-ipdv at
T1,T2*. T1,T2*.
4.4.5. Sections in progress 4.4.5. Sections in progress
See sections 3.5 to 3.7 of [RFC3393]. See sections 3.5 to 3.7 of [RFC3393].
4.5. Pure Passive Metrics 4.5. Pure Passive Metrics
Spatial metrics may be measured without injecting test traffic as Spatial metrics may be measured without injecting test traffic.
described in [I-D.boschi-ipfix-reducing-redundancy] .
4.5.1. Discussion on Passive measurement 4.5.1. Discussion on Passive measurement
One might says that most of the operational issues occur in the last One might says that most of the operational issues occur in the last
mile and that consequently such measure are less useful than active mile and that consequently such measure are less useful than active
measuremeent. Nevertheless they are usable for network TE and measurement. Nevertheless they are usable for network TE and
interdomain QoS monitoring, and composition of metric. interdomain QoS monitoring, and composition of metric.
Such a technique have some limitations that are discussed below. Such a technique have some limitations that are discussed below.
4.5.1.1. Passive One way delay 4.5.1.1. Passive One way delay
As the packet is not a test packet, it does not include the time it As the packet is not a test packet, it does not include the time it
was sent. was sent.
Consequently a point of interest Hi ignores the time the packet was Consequently a point of interest Hi ignores the time the packet was
skipping to change at page 19, line 32 skipping to change at page 20, line 31
An alternative to these issues consist in considering sample spatial An alternative to these issues consist in considering sample spatial
One-way delay that T is the time when H1 (the first passive probe of One-way delay that T is the time when H1 (the first passive probe of
the path) observed the packet. the path) observed the packet.
4.5.2. Reporting and composition 4.5.2. Reporting and composition
To avoid misunderstanding and to address specific reporting To avoid misunderstanding and to address specific reporting
constraint a proposal consists in defining distinct metrics for pure constraint a proposal consists in defining distinct metrics for pure
passive measurement based on the definition above. passive measurement based on the definition above.
It is crucial to know the methodologie used because of the difference It is crucial to know the methodologies used because of the
of method of detection (expecting Seq++); because of the difference difference of method of detection (expecting Seq++); because of the
of source of time (H1 vs Src) and because of the difference of difference of source of time (H1 vs Src) and because of the
behavior of the source (Poisson/unknown). difference of behaviour of the source (Poisson/unknown).
4.5.3. naming and registry 4.5.3. naming and registry
Having distinct metrics identifiers for spatial metrics and passive Having distinct metrics identifiers for spatial metrics and passive
spatial metrics in the [RFC4148] will avoid interoperabily issues spatial metrics in the [RFC4148] will avoid interoperability issues
especially during composition of metrics. especially during composition of metrics.
4.5.4. Passive One way delay metrics 4.5.4. Passive One way delay metrics
4.5.5. Passive One way PacketLoss metrics 4.5.5. Passive One way PacketLoss metrics
4.5.6. Passive One way jitter metrics 4.5.6. Passive One way jitter metrics
4.6. Discussion on spatial statistics 4.6. Discussion on spatial statistics
skipping to change at page 22, line 38 skipping to change at page 23, line 38
singletons metrics Type-P-One-way-ipdv [RFC3393]. singletons metrics Type-P-One-way-ipdv [RFC3393].
5.3.4. Definition 5.3.4. Definition
Given a Type P packet stream, Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Jitter- Given a Type P packet stream, Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Jitter-
Vector is defined for two packets from the source Src to the N hosts Vector is defined for two packets from the source Src to the N hosts
{Recv1,...,RecvN },which are selected by the selection function F, as {Recv1,...,RecvN },which are selected by the selection function F, as
the difference between the value of the Type-P-one-to-group-One-way- the difference between the value of the Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-
Delay-Vector from Src to { Recv1,..., RecvN } at time T1 and the Delay-Vector from Src to { Recv1,..., RecvN } at time T1 and the
value of the Type-P-one-to-group- One-way-Delay-Vector from Src to { value of the Type-P-one-to-group- One-way-Delay-Vector from Src to {
Recv1,...,RecvN } at time T2. T1 is the wire-time at which Scr sent Recv1,...,RecvN } at time T2. T1 is the wire-time at which Src sent
the first bit of the first packet, and T2 is the wire-time at which the first bit of the first packet, and T2 is the wire-time at which
Src sent the first bit of the second packet. This metric is derived Src sent the first bit of the second packet. This metric is derived
from the Type-P-one-to- group-One-way-Delay-Vector metric. from the Type-P-one-to- group-One-way-Delay-Vector metric.
Therefore, for a set of real number {ddT1,...,ddTn},Type-P-one- to- Therefore, for a set of real number {ddT1,...,ddTn},Type-P-one- to-
group-One-way-Jitter-Vector from Src to { Recv1,...,RecvN } at T1, T2 group-One-way-Jitter-Vector from Src to { Recv1,...,RecvN } at T1, T2
is {ddT1,...,ddTn} means that Src sent two packets, the first at is {ddT1,...,ddTn} means that Src sent two packets, the first at
wire-time T1 (first bit), and the second at wire-time T2 (first bit) wire-time T1 (first bit), and the second at wire-time T2 (first bit)
and the packets were received by { Recv1,...,RecvN } at wire-time and the packets were received by { Recv1,...,RecvN } at wire-time
{dT1+T1,...,dTn+T1}(last bit of the first packet), and at wire-time {dT1+T1,...,dTn+T1}(last bit of the first packet), and at wire-time
{dT'1+T2,...,dT'n+T2} (last bit of the second packet), and that {dT'1+T2,...,dT'n+T2} (last bit of the second packet), and that
{dT'1-dT1,...,dT'n-dTn} ={ddT1,...,ddTn}. {dT'1-dT1,...,dT'n-dTn} ={ddT1,...,ddTn}.
5.4. Discussion on one-to-group statistics 6. One-to-Group Sample Statistics
The defined one-to-group metrics above can all be directly achieved The defined one-to-group metrics above can all be directly achieved
from the relevant unicast one-way metrics. They managed to collect from the relevant unicast one-way metrics. They managed to collect
all unicast measurement results of one-way metrics together in one all unicast measurement results of one-way metrics together in one
profile and sort them by receivers and packets in a multicast group. profile and sort them by receivers and packets in a multicast group.
They can provide sufficient information regarding the network They can provide sufficient information regarding the network
performance in terms of each receiver and guide engineers to identify performance in terms of each receiver and guide engineers to identify
potential problem happened on each branch of a multicast routing potential problem happened on each branch of a multicast routing
tree. However, these metrics can not be directly used to tree. However, these metrics can not be directly used to
conveniently present the performance in terms of a group and neither conveniently present the performance in terms of a group and neither
to identify the relative performance situation. to identify the relative performance situation.
One may say that no matter how many people join the communication,
the connections can still be treated as a set of one-to-one
connection. However, we might not describe a multiparty
communication by a set of one-way measurement metrics because of the
difficulty for understanding and the lack of convenience. For
instance, an engineer might not describe the connections of a
multiparty online conference in terms of one-to-group one-way delay
for user A and B, B and C, and C and A because people might be
confused. If there are more users in the same communication, the
description might be very long. And he might use the one-way metrics
with worst and the best value to give users an idea of the
performance range of the service they are providing. But it is not
clear enough and might not be accurate in a large multiparty
communication scenario.
From the performance point of view, the multiparty communication From the performance point of view, the multiparty communication
services not only require the absolute performance support but also services not only require the absolute performance support but also
the relative performance. The relative performance means the the relative performance. The relative performance means the
difference between absolute performance of all users. Directly using difference between absolute performance of all users. Directly using
the one-way metrics cannot present the relative performance the one-way metrics cannot present the relative performance
situation. However, if we use the variations of all users one-way situation. However, if we use the variations of all users one-way
parameters, we can have new metrics to measure the difference of the parameters, we can have new metrics to measure the difference of the
absolute performance and hence provide the threshold value of absolute performance and hence provide the threshold value of
relative performance that a multiparty service might demand. A very relative performance that a multiparty service might demand. A very
good example of the high relative performance requirement is the good example of the high relative performance requirement is the
online gaming. A very light worse delay will result in failure in online gaming. A very light difference in delay might result in
the game. We have to use the new statistic metrics to define exactly failure in the game. We have to use multicast specific statistic
how small the relative delay the online gaming requires. There are metrics to define exactly how small the relative delay the online
many other services, e.g. online biding, online stock market, etc., gaming requires. There are many other services, e.g. online biding,
need a rule to judge the relative performance requirement. online stock market, etc., that require multicast metrics in order to
Therefore, we can see the importance of new statistic metrics to feed evaluate the network against their requirements. Therefore, we can
this need. see the importance of new, multicast specific, statistic metrics to
feed this need.
We might use some one-to-group statistic conceptions to present and We might also use some one-to-group statistic conceptions to present
report the group performance and relative performance to save the and report the group performance and relative performance to save the
report transmission bandwidth. Statistics have been defined for One- report transmission bandwidth. Statistics have been defined for One-
way metrics in corresponding FRCs. They provide the foundation of way metrics in corresponding FRCs. They provide the foundation of
definition for performance statistics. For instance, there are definition for performance statistics. For instance, there are
definitions for minimum and maximum One-way delay in [RFC2679] and definitions for minimum and maximum One-way delay in [RFC2679].
One-way delay mean in [I-D.ietf-ippm-spatial-composition]. However, However, there is a dramatic difference between the statistics for
there is a dramatic difference between the statistics for one-to-one one-to-one communications and for one-to-many communications. The
communications and for one-to-many communications. The former one former one only has statistics over the time dimension while the
only has statistics over the time dimension while the later one can later one can have statistics over both time and space dimensions.
have statistics over both time dimension and space dimention. This This space dimension is introduced by the Matrix concept as
space dimension is introduced by the Matrix concept. For a Matrix M illustrated in Figure 7. For a Matrix M each row is a set of One-way
shown in the Fig. 2, each row is a set of One-way singletons singletons spreading over the time dimension and each column is
spreading over the space dimension and each colume is another set of another set of One-way singletons spreading over the space dimension.
One-way singletons spreading over the time dimension.
(preamble) Receivers
/ \ Space
| dT11, dT12,..., dT1N | ^
| dT21, dT22,..., dT2N | 1 | / R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R3dTk \
| : | | | |
| : | 2 | | R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 ... R3dTk |
| dTm1, dTm2,..., dTmN | | | |
\ / 3 | | R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 ... R3dTk |
. | | |
. | | |
. | | |
n | \ RndT1 RndT2 RndT3 ... RndTk /
+--------------------------------------------> time
T0
Fig. 2 Matrix M (m*N) Figure 7: Matrix M (n*m)
In Matrix M, each element is a One-way delay singleton. Each row is In Matrix M, each element is a One-way delay singleton. Each column
a delay vector contains the One-way delays of the same packet is a delay vector contains the One-way delays of the same packet
observed at N points of interest. It implies the geographical factor observed at M points of interest. It implies the geographical factor
of the performance within a group. Each colume is a set of One-way of the performance within a group. Each row is a set of One-way
delays observed during a sampling interval at one of the points of delays observed during a sampling interval at one of the points of
interest. It presents the delay performance at a receiver over the interest. It presents the delay performance at a receiver over the
time dimension. time dimension.
Therefore, one can either calculate statistics by rows over the space Therefore, one can either calculate statistics by rows over the space
dimension or by columes over the time dimension. It's up to the dimension or by columns over the time dimension. It's up to the
operators or service provides which dimension they are interested in. operators or service provides which dimension they are interested in.
For example, a TV broadcast service provider might want to know the For example, a TV broadcast service provider might want to know the
statistical performance of each user in a long term run to make sure statistical performance of each user in a long term run to make sure
their services are acceptable and stable. While for an online gaming their services are acceptable and stable. While for an online gaming
service provider, he might be more interested to know if all users service provider, he might be more interested to know if all users
are served farely by calculating the statistics over the space are served fairly by calculating the statistics over the space
dimension. This memo does not intent to recommend which of the dimension. This memo does not intend to recommend which of the
statistics are better than the other. statistics are better than the other.
To save the report transmission bandwidth, each point of interest can To save the report transmission bandwidth, each point of interest can
send statistics in a pre-defined time interval to the reference point send statistics in a pre-defined time interval to the reference point
rather than sending every One-way singleton it observed. As long as rather than sending every One-way singleton it observed. As long as
an appropriate time interval is decided, appropriate stantistics can an appropriate time interval is decided, appropriate statistics can
represent the performance in a certain accurate scale. How to decide represent the performance in a certain accurate scale. How to decide
the time interval and how to bootstrap all points of interest and the the time interval and how to bootstrap all points of interest and the
reference point depend on applications. For instance, applications reference point depend on applications. For instance, applications
with lower transmission rate can have the time interval longer and with lower transmission rate can have the time interval longer and
ones with higher transmission rate can have the time interval ones with higher transmission rate can have the time interval
shorter. However, this is out of the scope of this memo. shorter. However, this is out of the scope of this memo.
Moreover, after knowing the statistics over the time dimension, one Moreover, after knowing the statistics over the time dimension, one
might want to know how this statistics distributed over the space might want to know how this statistics distributed over the space
dimension. For instance, a TV broadcast service provider had the dimension. For instance, a TV broadcast service provider had the
skipping to change at page 25, line 29 skipping to change at page 26, line 21
group of users during a sampling interval in terms of delay. It group of users during a sampling interval in terms of delay. It
needs twice calculation to have this statistic over both time and needs twice calculation to have this statistic over both time and
space dimensions. We name this kind of statistics 2-level statistics space dimensions. We name this kind of statistics 2-level statistics
to distinct with those 1-level statistics calculated over either to distinct with those 1-level statistics calculated over either
space or time dimension. It can be easily prove that no matter over space or time dimension. It can be easily prove that no matter over
which dimension a 2-level statistic is calculated first, the results which dimension a 2-level statistic is calculated first, the results
are the same. I.e. one can calculate the 2-level delay mean using are the same. I.e. one can calculate the 2-level delay mean using
the Matrix M by having the 1-level delay mean over the time dimension the Matrix M by having the 1-level delay mean over the time dimension
first and then calculate the mean of the obtained vector to find out first and then calculate the mean of the obtained vector to find out
the 2-level delay mean. Or, he can do the 1-level statistic the 2-level delay mean. Or, he can do the 1-level statistic
calculation over the space dimention first and then have the 2-level calculation over the space dimension first and then have the 2-level
delay mean. Both two results will be exactly the same. Therefore, delay mean. Both two results will be exactly the same. Therefore,
when define a 2-level statistic, it is no need to specify in which when define a 2-level statistic, there is no need to specify in which
procedure the calculation should follow. procedure the calculation should follow.
There are many statistics can be defined for the proposed one-to- Comment: The above statement depends on whether the order of
group metrics over either the space dimension or the time dimension operations has any affect on the outcome.
or both. In this memo, we define one-to-group mean and one-to-group
variation over the space dimension. These statistics are offered
mostly to be illustrative of what could be done.
One-to-group mean are trying to measure the overall performance for a Many statistics can be defined for the proposed one-to-group metrics
multicast group associated to one source. It is a reflection of the over either the space dimension or the time dimension or both. This
absolute performance of a multiparty communication service when we memo treats the case where a stream of packets from the Source
treat all receivers as one customer. It can also present the trend results in a sample at each of the Receivers in the Group, and these
of the absolute performance of all receivers, i.e., it shows that samples are each summarized with the usual statistics employed in
most of the receivers in the multiparty communication service trend one-to-one communication. New statistic definitions are presented,
to receive an absolute performance close to the mean. which summarize the one-to-one statistics over all the Receivers in
the Group.
One-to-group variation streams are trying to measure how the 6.1. Discussion on the Impact of packet loss on statistics
performance varies among all of the users in a multicast group
associated to one source. The word "variation" in this memo is the
population standard deviation. It reflects the relative
performancesituation in a multiparty communication service, i.e., the
level of the difference between the absolute performanceof each
receivers.
Using the one-to-group mean and one-to-group variation concepts, we The packet loss does have effects on one-way metrics and their
can have a much clear understand on the performanceof a multiparty statistics. For example, the lost packet can result an infinite one-
communication service in terms of its trend and range. There can be way delay. It is easy to handle the problem by simply ignoring the
mean and variation stream definitions for each of the three one-to- infinite value in the metrics and in the calculation of the
group metrics defined above. We only present the definition of Type- corresponding statistics. However, the packet loss has so strong
P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Space-Mean and Type-P-one-to-group- One- impact on the statistics calculation for the one-to-group metrics
way-Delay-Space-Variation as examples in this memo. that it can not be solved by the same method used for one-way
metrics. This is due to the complex of building a Matrix, which is
needed for calculation of the statistics proposed in this memo.
5.4.1. Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Space-Mean The situation is that measurement results obtained by different end
users might have different packet loss pattern. For example, for
User1, packet A was observed lost. And for User2, packet A was
successfully received but packet B was lost. If the method to
overcome the packet loss for one-way metrics is applied, the two
singleton sets reported by User1 and User2 will be different in terms
of the transmitted packets. Moreover, if User1 and User2 have
different number of lost packets, the size of the results will be
different. Therefore, for the centralized calculation, the reference
point will not be able to use these two results to build up the group
Matrix and can not calculate the statistics. In an extreme
situation, no single packet arrives all users in the measurement and
the Matrix will be empty. One of the possible solutions is to
replace the infinite/undefined delay value by the average of the two
adjacent values. For example, if the result reported by user1 is {
R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R1dTK-1 UNDEF R1dTK+1... R1DM } where "UNDEF"
is an undefined value, the reference point can replace it by R1dTK =
{(R1dTK-1)+( R1dTK+1)}/2. Therefore, this result can be used to
build up the group Matrix with an estimated value R1dTK. There are
other possible solutions such as using the overall mean of the whole
result to replace the infinite/undefined value, and so on. It is out
of the scope of this memo.
Given a Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Vector, the mean { dT1, For the distributed calculation, the reported statistics might have
dT2,...,dTN } for the packet from Src at time T to { Recv1,...,RecvN different "weight" to present the group performance, which is
}. especially true for delay and jitter relevant metrics. For example,
User1 calculates the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean R1DM as shown
in Figure. 8 without any packet loss and User2 calculates the R2DM
with N-2 packet loss. The R1DM and R2DM should not be treated with
equal weight because R2DM was calculated only based on 2 delay values
in the whole sample interval. One possible solution is to use a
weight factor to mark every statistic value sent by users and use
this factor for further statistic calculation.
For example, suppose we take a delay vector and the results is: 6.2. General Metric Parameters
Delay_Vector = {dT1,...,dTN} o Src, the IP address of a host
Then the mean over space dimension would be: o G, the Group IP address
Delay_Space_Mean = DsM = sum{dT1,...,dTN}/N o N, the number of Receivers (Recv1, Recv2, ... RecvN)
5.4.2. Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Variation-Stream o T, a time (start of test interval)
Given a Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Vector, the variation { o Tf, a time (end of test interval)
dT1, dT2,...,dTN } for the packet from Src at time T to {
Recv1,...,RecvN }.
We still take the above Delay_Vector as an sample and the variation o K, the number of packets sent from the source during the test
would be: interval
o J[n], the number of packets received at a particular Receiver, n,
where 1<=n<=N
Delay_Variation_Stream = {SUM[(dT1-DsM)^2,...,(dTN- o lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds (for Poisson Streams)
DsM)^2)}/N)^(1/2)
6. Extension from one-to-one to one-to-many measurement o incT, the nominal duration of inter-packet interval, first bit to
first bit (for Periodic Streams)
The above one-to-group metrics were defined to compose measurement o T0, a time that MUST be selected at random from the interval [T,
results of a group of users who receive the same data from one T+I] to start generating packets and taking measurements (for
source. Moreover, this is one of efforts to introducing the one-to- Periodic Streams)
many concern to the IPPM working group with respect to the fact that
all existing documents in the group are unicast oriented, which talk
about only one-to-one single "path" in measurements. This concept
can be extended from the "path" to "path tree" to cover both one-to-
one and one-to-many communications. Actually, the one-to-one
communications can be viewed as a special case of one-to-many from
the routing point of view. The one-to-many communications build up a
routing tree in the networks and one-to-one can be viewed as a
special simplified tree without branches but only the "trunk".
Therefore, the one-to-group metrics described in this memo can even o TstampSrc, the wire time of the packet as measured at MP(Src) (the
be viewed as general metrics to measure the delay, jitter and packet Source Measurement Point)
loss in IP networks. When it applies to one-to-one communications,
the metrics will have N receivers while N equal to 1. And the
statistic metrics for one-to-one communications are exactly the one-
to-group metrics themselves when calculated using the methods given.
7. Open issues o TstampRecv, the wire time of the packet as measured at MP(Recv),
assigned to packets that arrive within a "reasonable" time
8. Security Considerations o Tmax, a maximum waiting time for packets at the destination, set
sufficiently long to disambiguate packets with long delays from
packets that are discarded (lost), thus the distribution of delay
is not truncated
Active measumrement: see security section in owd pl, jitter rfcs o dT, shorthand notation for a one-way delay singleton value
(editor notes: add references).
passive measurement: o L, shorthand notation for a one-way loss singleton value, either
zero or one, where L=1 indicates loss and L=0 indicates arrival at
the destination within TstampSrc + Tmax, may be indexed over n
Receivers
o DV, shorthand notation for a one-way delay variation singleton
value
6.3. One-to-Group one-way Delay Statistics
This section defines the overall one-way delay statistics for an
entire Group or receivers. For example, we can define the group mean
delay, as illustrated below. This is a metric designed to summarize
the entire Matrix.
Recv /----------- Sample -------------\ Stats Group Stat
1 R1dT1 R1dT2 R1dT3 ... R1dTk R1DM \
|
2 R2dT1 R2dT2 R2dT3 ... R2dTk R2DM |
|
3 R3dT1 R3dT2 R3dT3 ... R3dTk R2DM > GMD
. |
. |
. |
n RndT1 RndT2 RndT3 ... RndTk RnDM /
Figure 8: One-to-GroupGroup Mean Delay
where:
R1dT1 is the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay singleton evaluated at
Receiver 1 for packet 1.
R1DM is the Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean evaluated at Receiver 1
for the sample of packets (1,...K).
GMD is the mean of the sample means over all Receivers (1, ...N).
6.3.1. Definition and Metric Units
Using the parameters above, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-
Delay singleton for all packets sent during the test interval at each
Receiver (Destination), as per [RFC2679]. For each packet that
arrives within Tmax of its sending time, TstampSrc, the one-way delay
singleton (dT) will be a finite value in units of seconds.
Otherwise, the value of the singleton is Undefined.
For each packet [i] that has a finite One-way Delay at Receiver n (in
other words, excluding packets which have undefined one-way delay):
Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Receiver-n-[i] =
= TstampRecv[i] - TstampSrc[i]
The units of Finite one-way delay are seconds, with sufficient
resolution to convey 3 significant digits.
6.3.2. Sample Mean Statistic
This section defines the Sample Mean at each of N Receivers.
Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean-Receiver-n = RnDM =
J[n]
---
1 \
--- * > Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Receiver-n-[i]
J[n] /
---
i = 1
Figure 9: Type-P-Finite-One-way-Delay-Mean-Receiver-n
where all packets i= 1 through J[n] have finite singleton delays.
6.3.3. One-to-Group Mean Delay Statistic
This section defines the Mean One-way Delay calculated over the
entire Group (or Matrix).
Type-P-One-to-Group-Mean-Delay = GMD =
N
---
1 \
- * > RnDM
N /
---
n = 1
Figure 10: Type-P-One-to-Group-Mean-Delay
Note that the Group Mean Delay can also be calculated by summing the
Finite one-way Delay singletons in the Matrix, and dividing by the
number of Finite One-way Delay singletons.
6.3.4. One-to-Group Range of Mean Delays
This section defines a metric for the range of mean delays over all N
receivers in the Group, (R1DM, R2DM,...RnDM).
Type-P-One-to-Group-Range-Mean-Delay = GRMD = max(RnDM) - min(RnDM)
6.3.5. One-to-Group Maximum of Mean Delays
This section defines a metrics for the maximum of mean delays over
all N receivers in the Group, (R1DM, R2DM,...RnDM).
Type-P-One-to-Group-Max-Mean-Delay = GMMD = max(RnDM)
6.4. One-to-Group one-way Loss Statistics
This section defines the overall 1-way loss statistics for an entire
Group. For example, we can define the group loss ratio, as
illustrated below. This is a metric designed to summarize the entire
Matrix.
Recv /----------- Sample ----------\ Stats Group Stat
1 R1L1 R1L2 R1L3 ... R1Lk R1LR \
|
2 R2L1 R2L2 R2L3 ... R2Lk R2LR |
|
3 R3L1 R3L2 R3L3 ... R3Lk R3LR > GLR
. |
. |
. |
n RnL1 RnL2 RnL3 ... RnLk RnLR /
Figure 11: One-to-Group Loss Ratio
where:
R1L1 is the Type-P-One-way-Loss singleton (L) evaluated at Receiver 1
for packet 1.
R1LR is the Type-P-One-way-Loss-Ratio evaluated at Receiver 1 for the
sample of packets (1,...K).
GLR is the loss ratio over all Receivers (1, ..., N).
6.4.1. One-to-Group Loss Ratio
The overall Group loss ratio id defined as
Type-P-One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio =
K,N
---
1 \
= --- * > L(k,n)
K*N /
---
k,n = 1
Figure 12
ALL Loss ratios are expressed in units of packets lost to total
packets sent.
6.4.2. One-to-Group Loss Ratio Range
Given a Matrix of loss singletons as illustrated above, determine the
Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Average for the sample at each receiver,
according to the definitions and method of [RFC2680]. The Type-P-
One-way-Packet-Loss-Average, RnLR for receiver n, and the Type-P-One-
way-Loss-Ratio illustrated above are equivalent metrics. In terms of
the parameters used here, these metrics definitions can be expressed
as
Type-P-One-way-Loss-Ratio-Receiver-n = RnLR =
K
---
1 \
- * > RnLk
K /
---
k = 1
Figure 13: Type-P-One-way-Loss-Ratio-Receiver-n
The One-to-Group Loss Ratio Range is defined as
Type-P-One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio-Range = max(RnLR) - min(RnLR)
It is most effective to indicate the range by giving both the max and
minimum loss ratios for the Group, rather than only reporting the
difference between them.
6.4.3. Comparative Loss Ratio
Usually, the number of packets sent is used in the denominator of
packet loss ratio metrics. For the comparative metrics defined here,
the denominator is the maximum number of packets received at any
receiver for the sample and test interval of interest.
The Comparative Loss Ratio is defined as
Type-P-Comp-Loss-Ratio-Receiver-n = RnCLR =
K
---
\
> Ln(k)
/
---
k=1
= -----------------------------
/ K \
| --- |
| \ |
K - Min | > Ln(k) |
| / |
| --- |
\ k=1 / N
Figure 14: Type-P-Comp-Loss-Ratio-Receiver-n
6.5. One-to-Group one-way Delay Variation Statistics
There is are two delay variation (DV) statistics to summarize the
performance over the Group: the maximum DV over all receivers and the
range of DV over all receivers.
The detailed definitions are T0 BE PROVIDED.
7. Measurement Methods: Scaleability and Reporting
Virtually all the guidance on measurement processes supplied by the
earlier IPPM RFCs (such as [RFC2679] and [RFC2680]) for one-to-one
scenarios is applicable here in the spatial and multiparty
measurement scenario. The main difference is that the spatial and
multiparty configurations require multiple measurement points where a
stream of singletons will be collected. The amount of information
requiring storage grows with both the number of metrics and the
number of measurement points, so the scale of the measurement
architecture multiplies the number of singleton results that must be
collected and processed.
It is possible that the architecture for results collection involves
a single aggregation point with connectivity to all the measurement
points. In this case, the number of measurement points determines
both storage capacity and packet transfer capacity of the host acting
as the aggregation point. However, both the storage and transfer
capacity can be reduced if the measurement points are capable of
computing the summary statistics that describe each measurement
interval. This is consistent with many operational monitoring
architectures today, where even the individual singletons may not be
stored at each measurement point.
In recognition of the likely need to minimize form of the results for
storage and communication, the Group metrics above have been
constructed to allow some computations on a per-Receiver basis. This
means that each Receiver's statistics would normally have an equal
weight with all other Receivers in the Group (regardless of the
number of packets received).
7.1. Computation methods
The scalability issue can be raised when there are thousands of
points of interest in a group who are trying to send back the
measurement results to the reference point for further processing and
analysis. The points of interest can send either the whole measured
sample or only the calculated statistics. The former one is a
centralized statistic calculation method and the latter one is a
distributed statistic calculation method. The sample should include
all metrics parameters, the values and the corresponding sequence
numbers. The transmission of the whole sample can cost much more
bandwidth than the transmission of the statistics that should include
all statistic parameters specified by policies and the additional
information about the whole sample, such as the size of the sample,
the group address, the address of the point of interest, the ID of
the sample session, and so on. Apparently, the centralized
calculation method can require much more bandwidth than the
distributed calculation method when the sample size is big. This is
especially true when the measurement has huge number of the points of
interest. It can lead to a scalability issue at the reference point
by over load the network resources. The distributed calculation
method can save much more bandwidth and release the pressure of the
scalability issue at the reference point side. However, it can
result in the lack of information because not all measured singletons
are obtained for building up the group matrix. The performance over
time can be hidden from the analysis. For example, the loss pattern
can be missed by simply accepting the loss ratio as well as the delay
pattern. This tradeoff between the bandwidth consuming and the
information acquiring has to be taken into account when design the
measurement campaign to optimize the measurement results delivery.
The possible solution could be to transit the statistic parameters to
the reference point first to obtain the general information of the
group performance. If the detail results are required, the reference
point should send the requests to the points of interest, which could
be particular ones or the whole group. This procedure can happen in
the off peak time and can be well scheduled to avoid delivery of too
many points of interest at the same time. Compression techniques can
also be used to minimize the bandwidth required by the transmission.
This could be a measurement protocol to report the measurement
results. It is out of the scope of this memo.
7.2. Measurement
To prevent any biais in the result, the configuration of a one-to-
many measure must take in consideration that implicitly more packets
will to be routed than send and selects a test packets rate that will
not impact the network performance.
7.3. effect of Time and Space Aggregation Order on Group Stats
This section presents the impact of the aggregation order on the
scalability of the reporting and of the the computation. It makes
the hypothesis that receivers are managed remotly and not co-located.
2 methods are available to compute group statistics:
Figure 8and (Figure 11) illustrate the method method choosen: the
one-to-one statistic is computed per interval of time before the
computation of the mean over the group of receivers [method1];
Figure 15 presents the second one, metric is computed over space
and then over time [method2].
They differ only by the order of the time and of the space
aggregation. View as a matrix this order is neutral as it does not
impact the result, but the impact on a measurement deployement is
critical.
Recv
1 R1S1 R1S1 R1S1 ... R1Sk \
|
2 R2S1 R2S2 R2S3 ... R2Sk |
|
3 R3S1 R3S2 R3S3 ... R3Sk > sample over space
. |
. |
. |
n RnS1 RnS2 RnS3 ... RnSk /
S1M S2M S3M ... SnM Stats over space
\------------- ------------/
\/
Group Stat over space and time
Figure 15: Impact of space aggregation on Group Stat
In both cases the volume of data to report is proportional to the
number of probes. But there is a major difference between these 2
methods:
method2: In space and time aggregation mode the volume of data to
collect is proportionnal to the number of test packets received;
Each received packet RiSi triggers out a block of data that must
be reported to a common place for computing the stat over space;
method1: In time and space aggregation mode the volume of data to
collect is proportionnal to the period of aggregation, so it does
not depend on the number of packet received;
Method 2 property has severe drawbacks in terms of security and
dimensionning:
The increasing of the rate of the test packets may result in a
sort of DoS toward the computation points;
The dimensioning of a measurement system is quite impossible to
validate.
The time agregation interval provides the reporting side with a
control of various collecting aspects such as bandwidth and
computation and storage capacities. So this draft defines metrics
based on method 1.
Note: In some specific cases one may need sample of singletons over
space. To adress this need it is suggested firstly to limit the
number of test and the number of test packets per seconds. Then
reducing the size of the sample over time to one packet give sample
of singleton over space..
7.4. effect of Time and Space Aggregation Order on Spatial Stats
TBD
8. Open issues
9. Security Considerations
Active measurement: (TODO: security considerations of owd pl, jitter
rfcs applies (editor notes: add references).
9.1. passive measurement
The generation of packets which match systematically the hash The generation of packets which match systematically the hash
function may lead to a DoS attack toward the collector. function may lead to a DoS attack toward the collector.
The generation of packets with spoofing adresses may corrupt the The generation of packets with spoofing addresses may corrupt the
results without any possibility to detect the spoofing. results without any possibility to detect the spoofing.
one-to-group metrics require collection of singletons which may 9.2. one-to-group metric
overload the network the measurement controller is attach to.
9. Acknowledgments The configuration of a measure must take in consideration that
implicitly more packets will to be routed than send and selects a
test packets rate accordingly.
Collecting statistics from a huge number of probes may overload any
combination of the network the measurement controller is attach to,
measurement controller network interfaces and measurement controller
computation capacities.
one-to-group metrics:
10. Acknowledgments
Lei would like to acknowledge Zhili Sun from CCSR, University of Lei would like to acknowledge Zhili Sun from CCSR, University of
Surrey, for his instruction and helpful comments on this work. Surrey, for his instruction and helpful comments on this work.
10. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
Metrics defined in this memo will be registered in the IANA IPPM Metrics defined in this memo Metrics defined in this memo are
METRICS REGISTRY as described in initial version of the registry designed to be registered in the IANA IPPM METRICS REGISTRY as
[RFC4148]. described in initial version of the registry [RFC4148] :
11. References IANA is asked to register the following metrics in the IANA-IPPM-
METRICS-REGISTRY-MIB :
11.1. Normative References Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Delay-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
subpath-One-way-Delay-Stream OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-subpath-One-way-Delay-Stream"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Spatial-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
Spatial-One-way-Jitter-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-Spatial-One-way-Jitter-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 4.4."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Delay-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
one-to-group-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Packet-Loss-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
one-to-group-One-way-Jitter-Vector OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-one-to-group-One-way-Jitter-Vector"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 5.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
One-to-Group-Mean-Delay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.3.3."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
One-to-Group-Range-Mean-Delay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Range-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.3.4."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
One-to-Group-Max-Mean-Delay OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Max-Mean-Delay"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.3.5."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.4.1."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
--
One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio-Range OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"Type-P-One-to-Group-Loss-Ratio-Range"
REFERENCE
"Reference "RFCyyyy, section 6.4.2."
-- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this
note
:= { ianaIppmMetrics nn } -- IANA assigns nn
--
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
May 1998. May 1998.
[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999. Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999. Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393, Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
November 2002. November 2002.
[RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics [RFC4148] Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005. Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
11.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.boschi-ipfix-reducing-redundancy]
Boschi, E., "Reducing redundancy in IPFIX and PSAMP
reports", draft-boschi-ipfix-reducing-redundancy-02 (work
in progress), June 2006.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-spatial-composition]
Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-01 (work in
progress), June 2006.
[I-D.quittek-ipfix-middlebox]
Quittek, J., "Guidelines for IPFIX Implementations on
Middleboxes", draft-quittek-ipfix-middlebox-00 (work in
progress), February 2004.
[RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring [RFC2678] Mahdavi, J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring
Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999. Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.
[RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip [RFC2681] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip
Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999. Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999.
[RFC3148] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining [RFC3148] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining
Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148, Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148,
July 2001. July 2001.
skipping to change at page 29, line 13 skipping to change at page 43, line 28
Metrics", RFC 3357, August 2002. Metrics", RFC 3357, August 2002.
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002. November 2002.
[RFC3763] Shalunov, S. and B. Teitelbaum, "One-way Active [RFC3763] Shalunov, S. and B. Teitelbaum, "One-way Active
Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) Requirements", RFC 3763, Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) Requirements", RFC 3763,
April 2004. April 2004.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., Shalunov,
S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering Metrics", RFC 4737,
November 2006.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stephan Emile Stephan Emile
France Telecom Division R&D France Telecom Division R&D
2 avenue Pierre Marzin 2 avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion, F-22307 Lannion, F-22307
Fax: +33 2 96 05 18 52 Fax: +33 2 96 05 18 52
Email: emile.stephan@orange-ft.com Email: emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com
Lei Liang Lei Liang
CCSR, University of Surrey CCSR, University of Surrey
Guildford Guildford
Surrey, GU2 7XH Surrey, GU2 7XH
Fax: +44 1483 683641 Fax: +44 1483 683641
Email: L.Liang@surrey.ac.uk Email: L.Liang@surrey.ac.uk
Al Morton Al Morton
200 Laurel Ave. South 200 Laurel Ave. South
Middletown, NJ 07748 Middletown, NJ 07748
USA USA
Phone: +1 732 420 1571 Phone: +1 732 420 1571
Email: acmorton@att.com Email: acmorton@att.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
 End of changes. 96 change blocks. 
268 lines changed or deleted 874 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/