INTERNET-DRAFT                                              Marc Linsner
Intended Status: Informational                             Cisco Systems
Expires: April 6, June 7, 2014                                     Philip Eardley
                                                        Trevor Burbridge
                                                         October 3,
                                                          Frode Sorensen
                                                        December 4, 2013

              Large-Scale Broadband Measurement Use Cases


   Measuring broadband performance on a large scale is important for
   network diagnostics by providers and users, as well for as public
   policy.  To conduct such measurements, user networks gather data,
   either on their own initiative or instructed by a measurement
   controller, and then upload the measurement results to a designated
   measurement server.  Understanding the various scenarios and users of
   measuring broadband performance is essential to development of the
   system requirements.  The details of the measurement metrics
   themselves are beyond the scope of this document.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1 Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2 Regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.2.1 Measurement Providers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.2 Benchmarking and competitor insight  . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3 Fixed and Mobile Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3  Details of ISP Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6  5
     3.1 Existing Capabilities and Shortcomings . . . . . . . . . . .  6  5
     3.2 Understanding the quality experienced by customers . . . . .  7  6
     3.3 Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and
         technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8  7
     3.4 Design and planning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9  8
     3.5 Identifying, isolating and fixing network problems . . . . . 10  9
     3.6 Comparison with the regulator use case Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 11
   4  Details of Regulator Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4  Security Considerations . . 12
     4.1 Promoting competition through transparency . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2 Promoting broadband deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.3 Monitoring "net neutrality"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5  IANA  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6  IANA Considerations . . 14
   Appendix A. End User Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 . . 15
   Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 17

1  Introduction

   Large-scale measurement efforts in [LMAP-REQ] describe three Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) includes use
   cases to be considered in deriving the requirements to be used in
   developing the solution.  This documents attempts to describe those
   use cases in further detail and include additional use cases.

1.1  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2  Use Cases

   The LMAP architecture utilizes metrics for instructions on how to
   execute a particular measurement. Although layer 2 specific metrics
   can and will be defined, from the LMAP perspective, there is no
   difference between fixed service and mobile (cellular) service used
   for Internet access.  Hence, like measurements will take place on
   both fixed and mobile networks.  Fixed services, commonly known as
   "Last Mile" include technologies like DSL, Cable, and Carrier
   Ethernet.  Mobile services include all those advertised as 2G, 3G,
   4G, and LTE.  A metric defined to measure over-the-top services will
   execute similarly on all layer 2 technologies. The LMAP architecture
   covers networks utilizing both IPv4 and IPv6.

2.1 Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case

   An ISP, or indeed another network operator, needs to understand the
   performance of their networks, the performance of the suppliers
   (downstream and upstream networks), the performance of services, and
   the impact that such performance has on the experience of their
   customers. In addition they may also desire visibility of their
   competitor's networks and services in order to be able to benchmark
   and improve their own offerings. Largely the processes that ISPs
   operate (which are based on network measurement) include:

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

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

      o Benchmarking and competitor insight. The operation of sample
      panels across competitor products can enable and ISP to assess
      where they play in the market, identify opportunities where other
      products operate different technology, and assess the performance
      of network suppliers that are common to both operators.

      o Understanding the quality experienced by customers. Alongside
      benchmarking competitors, gaining better insight into the user's
      service through a sample panel of the operator's own customers.
      The end-to-end perspective matters, across home /enterprise
      networks, peering points, CDNs etc.

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

2.2 Regulators

   Regulators in jurisdictions around the world are responding to
   consumers' adoption of broadband technology solution for Internet access services for traditional
   telecommunications and media services by reviewing the historical
   approaches promoting competition among
   providers of electronic communications, to regulating these industries and services and ensure that users derive
   maximum benefit in some
   cases modifying existing approaches or developing new solutions. terms of choice, price, and quality.

   Some jurisdictions have responded to a perceived need for greater information
   about broadband Internet access service performance in the development of
   regulatory policies and approaches for broadband technologies by
   developing large-scale measurement programs. Programs such as the
   U.S. Federal Communications Commission's Measuring Broadband America,
   U.K. Ofcom's UK
   European Commission's Quality of Broadband Speeds Services in the EU reports
   and a growing list of other programs employ a diverse set of
   operational and technical approaches to gathering data in scientifically and statistical robust ways to perform
   analysis and reporting on diverse aspects of broadband performance.

   While each jurisdiction responds to distinct consumer, industry, and
   regulatory concerns, much commonality exists in the need to produce
   datasets that are able to compare multiple broadband Internet access service
   providers, diverse technical solutions, geographic and regional
   distributions, and marketed and provisioned levels and combinations
   of broadband Internet access services.

   Regulators role in the development and enforcement of broadband
   policies also require that the measurement approaches meet a high
   level of verifiability, accuracy and fairness to support valid and
   meaningful comparisons of broadband performance

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

2.2.1 Measurement Providers In some jurisdictions, the
   role of measuring is provided by a measurement provider.

   Measurement providers measure a network performance from users to towards
   multiple content providers and application providers, included dedicated test
   measurement servers, to show a performance of the actual network. Internet
   access service provided by different ISPs. Users need to know a the
   performance that are using. achieving from their own ISP. In addition, they
   need to know a the performance of other
   ISP ISPs of same location as
   background information for selecting the network. their ISP. Measurement providers
   will show the provide measurement result results with associated measurement methods
   and measurement parameters.

2.2.2 Benchmarking and competitor insight

   An operator may want to check that the results reported by metrics.

   From a consumer perspective, the
   regulator match its own belief about how its network is performing.
   There differentiation between fixed and
   mobile (cellular) Internet access services is quite a lot of variation blurring as the
   applications used are very similar. Hence, regulators are measuring
   both fixed and mobile Internet access services.

   Regulators role in underlying line performance for
   customers on (say) a nominal 20Mb/s service, so it is possible for
   two panels the development and enforcement of ~100 probes to produce different results.

   An operator may broadband
   Internet access service policies also want more detailed understanding of its
   competitors, beyond require that reported by the regulator - probably by
   getting a third party to establish measurement
   approaches meet a panel high level of probes in its rival
   ISPs. Measurements could, for example, help an operator: target its
   marketing by showing that it's 'best for video streaming' but 'worst
   for web browsing'; gain detailed insight into the strengths and
   weaknesses of different access technologies (DSL vs cable vs
   wireless); understand market segments that it currently doesn't
   serve; verifiability, accuracy and so on.

   The characteristics of large scale measurements that emerge from
   these examples are very similar provider-
   independence to the sub use case above:

      1.  Averaged data (over say 1 month) is generally ok

      2.  A panel (subset) of only a few customers is OK

      3.  Both active support valid and passive measurements are possible, though the
      former seems easier

      4.  Regularly scheduled tests are fine (providing active tests
      back off if the customer is using the line). Scheduling can be
      done some time ahead ('starting tomorrow, run the following test
      every day').

      5.  The performance metrics are whatever the operator wants to
      benchmark. As well as QoE measures, it may want to measure some
      network-specific parameters.

      6.  As well as the performance meaningful comparisons of the Internet
   access link, the performance
      of different network segments, including end-to-end.

2.3 Fixed and Mobile Service

   From a consumer perspective, the differentiation between fixed
   broadband and mobile (cellular) service is blurring as performance

   LMAP standards could answer regulators shared needs by providing
   scalable, cost-effective, scientifically robust solutions to the
   applications used are very similar.  Hence, similar measurements will
   take place on both fixed
   measurement and mobile collection of broadband services. Internet access service
   performance information.

3  Details of ISP Use Case

3.1 Existing Capabilities and Shortcomings

   In order to get reliable benchmarks some ISPs use vendor provided
   hardware measurement platforms that connect directly to the home
   gateway. These devices typically perform a continuous test schedule,
   allowing the operation of the network to be continually assessed
   throughout the day. Careful design ensures that they do not
   detrimentally impact the home user experience or corrupt the test
   results by testing when the user is also using the Broadband line.
   While the test capabilities of such probes are good, they are simply
   too expensive to deploy on mass scale to enable detailed
   understanding of network performance (e.g. to the granularity of a
   single backhaul or single user line). In addition there is no easy
   way to operate similar tests on other devices (eg set top box) or to
   manage application level tests (such as IPTV) using the same control
   and reporting framework.

   ISPs also use speed and other diagnostic tests from user owned
   devices (such as PCs, tablets or smartphones). These often use
   browser related technology to conduct tests to servers in the ISP
   network to confirm the operation of the user BB Internet access line.
   These tests can be helpful for a user to understand whether their BB
   Internet access line has a problem, and for dialogue with a helpdesk.
   However they are not able to perform continuous testing and the
   uncontrolled device and home network means that results are not
   comparable. Producing statistics across such tests is very dangerous
   as the population is self-selecting (e.g. those who think they have a

   Faced with a gap in current vendor offerings some ISPs have taken the
   approach of placing proprietary test capabilities on their home
   gateway and other consumer device offerings (such as Set Top Boxes).
   This also means that different device platforms may have different
   and largely incomparable tests, developed by different company sub-
   divisions managed by different systems.

3.2 Understanding the quality experienced by customers

   Operators want to understand the quality of experience (QoE) of their
   broadband customers. The understanding can be gained through a
   "panel", ie i.e., a measurement probe is deployed to a few 100 or 1000
   of its customers. The panel needs to be a representative sample for
   each of the operator's technologies (FTTP, FTTC, ADSL...) and
   broadband options (80Mb/s, 20Mb/s, basic...), ~100 probes for each.
   The operator would like the end-to-end view of the service, rather
   than (say) just the access portion. So as well as simple network
   statistics like speed and loss rates they want to understand what the
   service feels like to the customer. This involves relating the pure
   network parameters to something like a 'mean opinion score' which
   will be service dependent (for instance web browsing QoE is largely
   determined by latency above a few Mb/s).

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

   The operator really wants to understand the end-to-end service
   experience. However, the home network (Ethernet, wifi, powerline) is
   highly variable and outside its control. To date, operators (and
   regulators) have instead measured performance from the home gateway.
   However, mobile operators clearly must include the wireless link in
   the measurement.

   Active measurements are the most obvious approach, ie i.e., special
   measurement traffic is sent by - and to - the probe. In order not to
   degrade the service of the customer, the measurement data should only
   be sent when the user is silent, and it shouldn't reduce the
   customer's data allowance. The other approach is passive measurements
   on the customer's real ordinary traffic; the advantage is that it measures
   what the customer actually does, but it creates extra variability
   (different traffic mixes give different results) and especially it
   raises privacy concerns.

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

   The characteristics of large scale measurements that emerge from
   these examples:

      1.  Averaged data (over say 1 month) is generally ok

      2.  A panel (subset) of only a few customers is OK

      3.  Both active and passive measurements are possible, though the
      former seems easier

      4.  Regularly scheduled tests are fine (providing active tests
      back off if the customer is using the line). Scheduling can be
      done some time ahead ('starting tomorrow, run the following test
      every day').

      5.  The operator needs to devise metrics and compound measures
      that represent the QoE

      6.  End-to-end service matters, and not (just) the access link

3.3 Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and technology

   Another type of measurement is to test new capabilities and services
   before they are rolled out. For example, the operator may want to:
   check whether a customer can be upgraded to a new broadband option;
   understand the impact of IPv6 before it makes it available to its
   customers (will v6 packets get through, what will the latency be to
   major websites, what transition mechanisms will be most is
   appropriate?); check whether a new capability can be signaled using
   TCP options (how often it will be blocked by a middlebox? - along the
   lines of some existing experiments) [Extend TCP]; investigate a
   quality of service mechanism (eg checking whether Diffserv markings
   are respected on some path); and so on.

   The characteristics of large scale measurements that emerge from
   these examples are:

      1.  New tests need to be devised that test a prospective

      2.  Most of the tests are probably simply: "send one packet and
      record what happens", so an occasional one-off test is sufficient.

      3.  A panel (subset) of only a few customers is probably OK, to
      gain an understanding of the impact of a new technology, but it
      may be necessary to check an individual line where the roll-out is
      per customer.

      4.  An active measurement is needed.

3.4 Design and planning

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

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

   With better information, capacity planning and network design can be
   more effective. Such planning typically uses simulations to emulate
   the measured performance of the current network and understand the
   likely impact of new capacity and potential changes to the topology.
   It may also be possible to run stress tests for risk analysis, for
   example 'if whizzy new application (or device) becomes popular, which
   parts of my network would struggle, what would be the impact on other
   services and how many customers would be affected'. What-if
   simulations could help quantify the advantage that a new technology
   brings and support the business case for larger roll-out. This
   approach should allow good results with measurements from a limited
   panel of customers.

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

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

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

   The characteristics of large scale measurements emerging from these

      1.  A key challenge is how to integrate results from measurements
      into existing network planning and management tools

      2.  New tests may need to be devised for the what-if and risk
      analysis scenarios.

      3.  Capacity constraints first reveal themselves during atypical
      events (early warning). So averaging of measurements should be
      over a much shorter time than the sub use case discussed above.

      4.  A panel (subset) of only a few customers is OK for most of the
      examples, but it should probably be larger than the QoE use case
      #1 and the operator may also want to regularly change who is in
      the subset, in order to sample the revealing outliers.

      5.  Measurements over a segment of the network ("end-to-middle")
      are needed, in order to refine understanding, as well as end-to-
      end measurements.

      6.  The primary interest is in measuring specific network
      performance parameters rather than QoE.

      7.  Regularly scheduled tests are fine

      8.  Active measurements are needed; passive ones probably aren't

3.5 Identifying, isolating and fixing network problems

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

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

   One example was described in [IETF85-Plenary]. The operator was
   running a measurement panel for reasons discussed in sub use case #1.
   It was noticed that the performance of some lines had unexpectedly
   degraded. This led to a detailed (off-line) investigation which
   discovered that a particular home gateway upgrade had caused a
   (mistaken!) drop in line rate.

   Another example is that occasionally some internal network management
   event (like re-routing) can be customer-affecting (of course this is
   unusual). This affects a whole group of customers, for instance those
   on the same DSLAM. Understanding this will help an operator fix the
   fault more rapidly and/or allow the affected customers to be informed
   what's happening and/or request them to re-set their home hub
   (required to cure some conditions). More accurate information enables
   the operator to reassure customers and take more rapid and effective
   action to cure the problem.

   There may also be problems unique to a single user line (e.g. copper
   access) that need to be identified.

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

   The characteristics of large scale measurements emerging from these

      1.  A key challenge is how to integrate results from measurements
      into the operator's existing Test and Diagnostics system.

      2.  Results from the tests shouldn't be averaged

      3.  Tests are generally run on an ad hoc basis, ie specific
      requests for immediate action

      4.  "End-to-middle" measurements, ie across a specific network
      segment, are very relevant

      5.  The primary interest is in measuring specific network
      performance parameters and not QoE

      6.  New tests are needed for example to check the home network (ie
      the connection from the home hub to the set top boxes or to a
      tablets on wifi)

      7.  Active measurements are critical. Passive ones may be useful
      to help understand exactly what the customer is experiencing.

3.6 Comparison with

      8.  Ideally the regulator use case

   Today measurement functionality should be at every
      customer (not just a subset), in order to allow per-line fault

3.6 Conclusions

   There is a clear need from an increasing number ISP point of regulators measure the performance of
   broadband operators. Typically they view to deploy a few 1000 probes, each single
   coherent measurement capability across a wide number of
   which is connected directly to the broadband customer's home gateway heterogeneous
   devices both in their own networks and periodically measures in the performance home environment. These
   tests need to be able to operate from a wide number of that line. The regulator
   ensures they have locations to a
   set of probes that covers the different ISPs and interoperable test points in their different technology types own network as well as
   spanning supplier and contract speeds, so that they
   can publish statistically-reasonable average performances.
   Publicising competitor networks.

   Regardless of the results stimulates competition and so pressurises
   ISPs tests being operated, there needs to improve broadband service.

   The operator use case has similarities but several significant
   differences from be a way to
   demand or schedule the regulator one:

      o  Performance metrics: A regulator tests and operator critically ensure that such tests do
   not affect each other; are generally
      interested in not affected by user traffic (unless
   desired) and do not affect the same performance metrics. Both would like
      standardised metrics, though this is more important for

      o  Sampling: The regulator wants an average across a
      representative sample of broadband customers (per operator, per
      type of BB contract). The operator also wants user experience. In addition there
   needs to measure
      individual lines with be a problem.

      o  Timeliness: The regulator wants common way to know the (averaged)
      performance last quarter (say). For fault identification collect and
      fixing, understand the operator would like results of
   such tests across different devices to know the performance at this
      moment enable correlation and also to instruct a test
   comparison between any network or service parameters.

   Since network and service performance needs to be run at this moment (so
      the requirement is on both the testing understood and reporting). Also, when
      testing the impact of new devices and technology,
   analysed in the operator presence of topology, line, product or contract
   information it is
      gaining insight about future performance.

      o  Scheduling: The regulator wants to run scheduled tests
      ('measure download rate every hour'). The operator also wants to
      run one-off tests; perhaps also critical that the result of one test would
      trigger points are accurately
   defined and authenticated.

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

4  Details of Regulator Use Case

4.1 Promoting competition through transparency

   Competition plays a specific follow-up test.

      o  Pre-processing: A regulator would like standard ways vital role in regulation of
      processing the collected data, electronic
   communications markets. For competition to remove outlier measurements and
      aggregate results, because this can significantly affect successfully discipline
   operators' behaviour in the final
      "averaged" result. Pre-processing is not important for an

      o  Historic data: The regulator wants to track how interests of their customers, end users
   must be fully aware of the (averaged)
      performance characteristics of each operator changes on (say) a quarterly basis.
      The operator would like detailed, recent historic data (eg a
      customer with an intermittent fault over the last week).

      o  Scope: To date, ISPs' access
   offers. In some jurisdictions regulators have measured mandate transparent
   information made available about service offers.

   End users need effective transparency to be able to make informed
   choices throughout the performance different stages of their relationship with
   ISPs, when selecting Internet access lines. An operator also wants service offers, and when
   considering switching service offer within an ISP or to understand the performance
      of the home (or enterprise) network an
   alternative ISP. Quality information about service offers could
   include speed, delay, and jitter. Regulators can publish such
   information to facilitate end users' choice of the end-to-end service,
      ie including backbone, core, peering and transit, CDNs service provider and
      application /content servers.

      o  Control of testing
   offer. It may also help content, application, service and reporting: The operator wants detailed
      control. device
   providers develop their Internet offerings.

   The regulator contracts out published information needs to be:

      o  Accurate - the measurement caboodle results must be correct and
      'control' will not
      influenced by errors or side effects. The results should be via negotiation with its contractor.
      reproducible and consistent over time.

      o  Politics: A regulator has to take account of government targets
      (eg UK government: "Our ambition (by 2015) is  Comparable - common metrics should be used across different
      ISPs and service offerings so that measurement results can be

      o  Meaningful - the metrics used for measurements need to provide superfast reflect
      what end users value about their broadband (24Mbps) Internet access service

      o  Reliable - the number and distribution of measurement agents,
      and the statistical processing of the raw measurement raw data,
      needs to at least 90 per cent be appropriate

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

   A measurement system that monitor Internet access services and
   collect quality information can typically consist of a speed number of
   measurement probes and one or more test servers located at least 2Mbps.") This may affect peering
   points. The system can be operated by a regulator or a measurement
   provider.  Number and distribution of probes follows specific
   requirements depending on the metrics scope and the desired statistical
   reliability of the measurement campaign.

   Further, the regulator
      wants may consider making measurement tools
   available for end users, so that they can monitor the performance of
   their own broadband Internet access service. They might use this
   information to measure check that the performance meets that specified in
   their contract or to understand whether their current subscription is
   the most appropriate. Such end user scenarios are not the focus of
   the initial LMAP charter, although it is expected that the mechanisms
   developed would be readily applied.

4.2 Promoting broadband deployment

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

   An example of such an initiative is the "Digital Agenda for Europe"
   which was adopted in 2010, to achieve universal broadband access. The operator
   goal is to achieve by 2020, access for all Europeans to Internet
   access speeds of 30 Mbps or above, and 50% or more focused on winning market share.

3.7 Conclusions

   There is a clear need from an ISP point of view European
   households subscribing to deploy Internet connections above 100 Mbps.

   To monitor actual broadband Internet access performance in a single
   coherent measurement capability across specific
   country or a wide number of heterogeneous
   devices both in their own networks region, extensive measurement campaigns are needed. A
   panel can be built based on operators and packages in the home environment. These
   tests need to market,
   spread over urban, suburban and rural areas. Probes can then be able to operate from a wide number of locations
   distributed to a
   set of interoperable test points in their own network as well as
   spanning supplier and competitor networks.

   Regardless the participants of the campaign.

   Periodic tests being operated, there needs to be a way to
   demand or schedule running on the tests probes can for example measure actual
   speed at peak and critically ensure that such tests do
   not affect each other; are not affected by user traffic (unless
   desired) off-peak hours, but also other detailed quality
   metrics like delay and do not affect jitter. Collected data goes afterwards through
   statistical analysis, deriving estimates for the user experience. In addition there
   needs to whole population
   which can then be presented and published regularly.

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

4.3 Monitoring "net neutrality"

   Regulatory approaches related to collect net neutrality and understand the results open Internet
   has been introduced in some jurisdictions. Examples of such tests across different devices to enable correlation are the
   Internet policy as outlined by the FCC Preserving the Open Internet
   Report and
   comparison between any network or service parameters.

   Since network Order [FCC R&O] and the Body of European Regulators for
   Electronic Communications Guidelines for quality of service performance needs [BEREC
   Guidelines]. The exact definitions and requirements vary from one
   jurisdiction to another; the comments below provide some hints about
   the potential role of measurements.

   Net neutrality regulations do not necessarily require every packet to
   be understood treated equally. Typically they allow "reasonable" traffic
   management (for example if there is exceptional congestion) and
   analysed allow
   "specialized services" in parallel to, but separate from, ordinary
   Internet access (for example for facilities-based IPTV). A regulator
   may want to monitor such practices as input to the presence of topology, line, product or contract
   information it is critical that the test points regulatory
   evaluation. However, these concepts are accurately
   defined evolving and authenticated.

   Finally the test data, along differ across
   jurisdictions, so measurement results should be assessed with any associated network, product or
   contract data is commercial

   A regulator could monitor departures from application agnosticism
   such as blocking or private information and needs to be

4  Security Considerations

   The transport throttling of Controller to MA traffic from specific applications,
   and MA to Collector preferential treatment of specific applications. A measurement
   system could send, or passively monitor, application-specific traffic must be
   protected both in-flight
   and such that each entity then measure in detail the transfer of the different packets.
   Whilst it is known and
   trusted relatively easy to each other.

   It is imperative that end user identifying data measure port blocking, it is protected.
   Identifying data includes, end user name, time and location of the
   MA, and any attributes about a service such as service location,
   including IP address that could be used
   research topic how to re-construct physical

5  IANA Considerations


Appendix A. End User Use Case detect other types of differentiated treatment.
    The paper, "Glasnost: Enabling End users may want to determine whether their network is performing
   according Users to Detect Traffic
   Differentiation" [M-Labs NSDI 2010] and follow-on tool "Glasnost"
   [Glasnost] are examples of work in this area.

   A regulator could also monitor the specifications (e.g., service level agreements)
   offered by their Internet service provider, or they may want to
   diagnose whether components performance of their network path are impaired.  End
   users may perform measurements on their own, using the measurement
   infrastructure they provide or infrastructure offered by a third
   party, or they may work directly with their network or application
   provider broadband
   service over time, to diagnose a specific performance problem.  Depending on try and detect if the circumstances, measurements may occur specialized service is
   provided at specific pre-defined
   intervals, the expense of the Internet access service. Comparison
   between ISPs or between different countries may also be triggered manually.  A system administrator may
   perform such measurements on behalf relevant for
   this kind of evaluation.

5  Security Considerations

   This informational document provides an overview of the user.  Example use cases for
   LMAP and so does not, in itself, raise any security issues.

   The framework document [framework] discusses the potential security,
   privacy (data protection) and business sensitivity issues that LMAP
   raises. The main threats are:

      1.  a malicious party that gains control of end user initiated performance measurements include:

      o An end user may wish Measurement Agents to perform diagnostics prior
      launch DoS attacks at a target, or to calling
      their ISP alter (perhaps subtly)
      Measurement Tasks in order to report a problem.  Hence, compromise the end user could connect
      a MA to different points user's privacy,
      the business confidentiality of their home network and trigger manual
      tests.  Different attachment points could include their in-home
      802.11 network the network, or an Ethernet port on the back accuracy of their BB modem.

      o An OTT
      the measurement system.

      2.  a malicious party that intercepts or ISP service provider may deploy corrupts the Measurement
      Results &/or other information about the Subscriber, for similar
      nefarious purposes.

      3.  a MA within an their
      service platform malicious party that uses fingerprinting techniques to provide the
      identify individual end user users, even from anonymized data

      4.  a capability measurement system that does not obtain the end user's
      informed consent, or fails to diagnose
      service issues.  For instance specify a video streaming service may
      include specific purpose in the
      consent, or uses the collected information for secondary uses
      beyond those specified.

      5.  a manually initiated MA within their platform measurement system that has is vague about who is the
      Controller and Collector predefined. "data
      controller": the party legally responsible for privacy (data

      The end user could initiate
      performance tests manually, with results forwarded [framework] also considers some potential mitigations of these
      issues. They will need to both the
      provider be considered by an LMAP protocol and the end user via other means, like UI, email, etc.
      more generally by any measurement system.

6  IANA Considerations



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

   James Miller

   Rachel Huang

Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [LMAP-REQ] Schulzrinne, H., "Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband
              Performance:  Use Cases, Architecture and Protocol
              Requirements", draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements,
              September, 2012

   [IETF85 Plenary] Crawford, S., "Large-Scale Active Measurement of
              Broadband Networks",
              opsandtech-7.pdf 'example' from slide 18

   [Extend TCP] Michio Honda, Yoshifumi Nishida, Costin Raiciu, Adam
              Greenhalgh, Mark Handley and Hideyuki Tokuda. "Is it Still
              Possible to Extend TCP?" Proc. ACM Internet Measurement
              Conference (IMC), November 2011, Berlin, Germany.

   [framework] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
              Aitken, P., Akhter, A.  "A framework for large-scale
              measurement platforms (LMAP)",

   [FCC R&O]  United States Federal Communications Commission, 10-201,
              "Preserving the Open Internet, Broadband Industries
              Practices, Report and Order",

   [BEREC Guidelines] Body of European Regulators for Electronic
              Communications, "BEREC Guidelines for quality of service
              in the scope of net neutrality",

   [M-Labs NSDI 2010] M-Lab, "Glasnost: Enabling End Users to Detect
              Traffic Differentiation",
              N3GZ__ lQHTS8_UHJTWkrwyqIUjffVeDxQ/

   [Glosnast] M-Lab tool "Glasnost",

Authors' Addresses

              Marc Linsner
              Cisco Systems, Inc.
              Marco Island, FL


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


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


              Frode Sorensen
              Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT)