Last Modified: 2004-06-14
The RMON MIB Working Group is chartered to define a set of managed objects for remote monitoring of networks. These objects will be the minimum necessary to provide the ability to monitor multiple network layers of traffic in remote networks; providing fault, configuration, and performance management, and will be consistent with the SNMP framework and existing SNMP standards.
The following list of features for this RMON has been previously discussed in relation to existing RMON functionality and is included to focus these RMON activities. It is recognized that other issues may be considered and that certain of the following issues may not be part of the final specification(s):
1. Application Performance Measurement
Monitoring support for the measurement and characterization of network application protocols, striving to measure an application user's experience as closely as possible. The RMON-2 MIB (RFC 2021) contains a protocol directory that will be used to identify applications for monitoring purposes.
While it is important to measure the performance of computing and network resources, these measurements don't give an insight to the actual service delivered to end-users. This end-user experience is best measured by the response-time and availability of application transactions because users interact directly with applications. This working group will create extensions to the RMON-2 MIB that will allow Application Performance Measurements to be retrieved with SNMP, no matter which technology is used to perform the measurements.
The goal of the working group is to provide a common framework and set of MIB objects, within the current RMON framework, for the identification and characterization of application responsiveness and availability, and the reporting of test results produced by such mechanisms. Common metrics and derived metrics will be characterized and reported in a manner consistent with the IP Performance Metrics Framework (RFC 2330).
It is an explicit non-goal of the working group to select one or more mechanisms as the preferred or standard RMON application performance measurement mechanism. However, it is possible that one or more standard mechanisms will be developed in the future, after significant implementation experience has been gained by the working group.
2. Differentiated Services Statistics Collection
Monitoring support for Differentiated Services (DS) statistics collection, for the purpose of DS codepoint usage analysis and possibly other statistics related to DS deployment and performance tuning.
3. Interface TopN Reporting
It is often too slow or difficult to determine the busiest ports in devices such as high port-density switches, using existing RMON mechanisms. New monitoring support is needed for quickly determining the most congested (highest utilized) physical ports and links in an RMON-capable device with multiple interfaces.
4. TR-RMON MIB Advancement
The Token Ring RMON MIB (RFC 1513) is ready for standards track advancement. An interoperability and deployment survey has already been completed, but the MIB must be updated in SMIv2 format before it can be advanced on the standards track.
5. Transport Performance Measurement
There is a need for standardized means to collect and report selectable performance metrics and statistics derived from the monitoring of network packets and transport protocol states. The monitoring covers both passive and active traffic generation sources. Monitoring support for the these measurements can provide a drill-down capability to provide insight into the performance of the lower-level transactions which comprise the overall performance of a network application.
The goal of the working group is to provide a common framework and set of MIB objects, within the current RMON framework, for the identification and characterization of transaction-level performance, and the reporting of test results produced by such mechanisms. Common metrics and derived statistics will be characterized and reported in a manner consistent with the IP Performance Metrics Framework (RFC 2330).
6. SMON MIB Advancement
The SMON MIB (RFC 2613) is ready for standards track advancement. An interoperability and deployment survey will be completed, and submitted to the IESG. It is possible that minor enhancements and corrections to RFC 2613 will be made, based on the survey findings and working group input.
7. RMON-2 MIB Advancement
The RMON-2 MIB (RFC 2021) is ready for standards track advancement. An interoperability and deployment survey will be completed, and submitted to the IESG. It is possible that minor enhancements and corrections to RFC 2021 will be made, based on the survey findings and working group input.
8. RMON PI Reference Advancement
The RMON Protocol Identifiers Reference (RFC 2895) is ready for standards track advancement. An interoperability and deployment survey will be completed, and submitted to the IESG. It is possible that minor enhancements and corrections to RFC 2895 will be made, based on the survey findings and working group input.
9. Synthetic Sources for Performance Monitoring
Mechanisms are needed for the remote control of synthetic packet sources and destinations, for the purpose of enhancing remote performance monitoring capabilities within IP networks and services. These mechanisms must utilize the RMON protocol directory for protocol encapsulation identification. Any interactions with the RMON Framework or dependencies on specific RMON MIB objects (if any) will be specified as well.
10. RMON Framework
Documentation is needed which clarifies the remote network monitoring framework, and describes the inter-relationships and dependencies between the various RMON MIB modules. A conceptual model is needed to help administrators and developers better understand data sources, the protocol directory, and the existing RMON statistical collections. Undocumented 'RMON folklore', as well as the limitations and appropriate application of various implementation techniques will also be addressed.
11. Real-time Application QoS Monitoring MIB
There is a need to extend the RMON framework to monitor end devices such as IP Phones, pagers, Instant Message Clients, Cell Phones, and PDA devices. An end-to-end user experience of the quality of service (QoS) and performance for such an application is a combination of device performance and transport network performance. Monitoring should be performed at the application layer that reflects a specific end user experience on a particular IP end point, reflecting specific transport network performance
There is a need to extend the RMON framework to monitor end devices such as IP Phones, pagers, Instant Message Clients, Cell Phones, and PDA devices. An end-to-end user experience of the quality of service (QoS) and performance for such an application is a combination of device performance and transport network performance. Monitoring should be performed at the application layer that reflects a specific end user experience on a particular IP end point, reflecting specific transport network performance.
This working group will extend the RMON Framework to allow Real-time Application QoS information of these types of end devices to be retrieved with SNMP, independent of the technology used to perform the measurements.
The WG will define a common framework and set of MIB objects, within the current RMON framework, for the identification and characterization of application QoS parameters, and the reporting of the on-going measurement reports produced by these mechanisms. Common metrics and derived metrics will be characterized and reported in a manner consistent with the IP Performance Metrics Framework (RFC 2330).
The WG will also define a set of RAQMON Application level QoS PDUs to have common formats of reporting statistics between a RAQMON Data Source and a RAQMON Report Collector. These Common RAQMON PDUs will be transported over existing protocols, such as RTCP or SNMP.
The measurement methodology is out of the scope of the RAQMON work and will be in conformance with the IPPM WG recommendations, and also may take into account considerations from application-specific (IM and telephony) WGs as needed. This WG will consider the cases for transport of RAQMON PDUs, including how RTCP might be used and still meet security/privacy goals.
Security aspects related to RAQMON reports will be cognizant of privacy and anonymity issues while being responsive to the needs of measurement applications.
|Done||Activation of working group, call for suggested MIB modules.|
|Done||Reach agreement on the functional scope of the charter, and finalize the document deliverables.|
|Done||Submit initial Internet-Draft for Differentiated Services Monitoring|
|Done||Submit initial Internet-Draft for Interface TopN Reporting|
|Done||Submit initial Internet-Draft for TR-RMON MIB in SMIv2 Format|
|Done||Begin Working Group Last Call for TR-RMON MIB in SMIv2 Format|
|Done||Submit initial Internet-Draft for Application Performance Metrics|
|Done||Begin Working Group Last Call for Differentiated Services Monitoring|
|Done||Begin Working Group Last Call for Interface TopN Reporting|
|Done||Submit Final Draft of Differentiated Services Monitoring to IESG for standards track action|
|Done||Begin Working Group Last Call for Application Performance Metrics|
|Done||Submit Final Draft of Application Performance Metrics to IESG for standards track action|
|Done||Submit Final Draft of Interface TopN Reporting to IESG for standards track action|
|Done||Call for MIB Modules for Synthetic Sources for Performance Monitoring|
|Done||Call for RMON-2 Implementation reports|
|Done||Call for RMON-PI Implementation reports|
|Done||Submit initial Internet-Draft for Synthetic Sources for Performance Monitoring|
|Done||Submit initial Internet-Draft for the RMON Framework|
|Done||Submit Final Draft of TR-RMON MIB in SMIv2 Format|
|Done||Complete RMON-PI Implementation Report|
|Done||Begin WG Last Call for Transport Performance Measurement|
|Done||Begin WG Last Call for Synthetic Sources for Performance Monitoring|
|Done||Submit Final RMON-2 Implementation Report to IESG|
|Done||Submit Final SMON Implementation Report to IESG|
|Done||Complete RMON-2 Implementation Report|
|Done||Submit Final RMON-PI Implementation Report to IESG|
|Done||Complete SMON Implementation Report|
|Done||Begin WG Last Call for RMON Framework|
|Done||Publish initial Internet-Draft for the Extensions to RMON Framework for RAQMON|
|Done||Publish initial Internet-Draft for the RAQMON PDU Types|
|Done||Submit Final Draft of Transport Performance Measurement to IESG for standards track action|
|Done||Submit Final Draft of Synthetic Sources for Performance Monitoring to IESG for standards track action|
|Done||Publish initial Internet-Draft for the RAQMON MIB|
|Done||Submit Final Draft of RMON Framework to IESG for standards track action|
|Done||Begin Working Group Last Call for the Extensions to RMON Framework for RAQMON document|
|Done||Begin Working Group Last Call for the RAQMON PDU Types document|
|Done||Begin Working Group Last Call for the RAQMON MIB document|
|Done||Submit initial draft for RMON Protocol Macros for IPv6|
|Dec 03||Submit the RAQMON PDU Types document to the IESG for publication consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|Dec 03||Submit the RAQMON MIB document to the IESG for publication consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Begin WG Last Call for RMON Protocol Macros for IPv6|
|Dec 03||Submit the Extensions to RMON Framework for RAQMON document to the IESG for publication consideration as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit final draft of RMON Protocol Macros for IPv6 to the IESG|
|RFC1271||PS||Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base|
|RFC1757||DS||Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base|
|RFC2021||PS||Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base Version 2 using SMIv2|
|RFC2074||PS||Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifiers|
|RFC2613||PS||Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switch Networks Version 1.0|
|RFC2819||Standard||Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base|
|RFC2895||PS||Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Reference|
|RFC2896||I||Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Macros|
|RFC3144||PS||Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for Interface Parameters Monitoring|
|RFC3287||PS||Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for Differentiated Services|
|RFC3273||PS||Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base for High Capacity Networks|
|RFC3395||PS||Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Reference Extensions|
|RFC3434||PS||Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for High Capacity Alarms|
|RFC3577||I||Introduction to the Remote Monitoring (RMON) Family of MIB Modules|
|RFC3729||Standard||Application Performance Measurement MIB|
|RFC3737||Standard||IANA guidelines for the registry of rmon MIB modules|
RMONMIB WG Meeting Minutes
August 2, 2004
Minutes by Andy Bierman
1) WG Document Status
2) Real-time Application Quality of Service Monitoring
1) Working Group Document Status
The following work items have been completed by the WG, but not yet published as RFCs.
1.1) Advancement of RFC 2613 (SMON) to DS
The WG is currently waiting for IESG action for advancement to Draft Standard. This action is on hold because RFC 2613 has a normative reference to RFC 2021 (RMON-2). It cannot advance until RMON-2 advances to Draft Standard.
1.2) Advancement of RFC 2021 (RMON-2) to DS
The current draft of the RMON-2 MIB (G) has been reviewed by Area Director and some minor edits have been identified. A new version of this document is expected within a month.
The TPM-MIB is currently in IETF Last Call. All 'AD Discuss' issues should now be resolved.
The SSPM-MIB has been approved by the IESG and is now in the RFC Editor queue.
1.6) IANA guidelines for the registry of rmon MIB modules
This document has been published as RFC 3737.
1.7) Protocol Identifier Macros for IPv6
This document has been approved by the IESG and is now in the RFC Editor queue.
2) Real-time Application Quality of Service Monitoring
The RAQMON Framework (A), RAQMON PDU (B), and RAQMON MIB (C) documents were discussed together. A presentation on these drafts was given, explaining the changes from the last versions, and open issues with each draft. Refer to the slides for details on this presentation.
2.1) RAQMON Metric Collection and Reporting
Some of the standard performance metrics defined in the basic RAQMON PDU were discussed in some detail.
There is some disagreement within the WG as to the specific semantics of the jitter metric reporting in the RAQMON PDU (Framework, sec 5.13). Many algorithms are discussed in this section, but it is not clear what an implementation MUST, SHOULD, or MAY do for jitter measurement. The text needs to be rewritten to make this clear.
The group discussed the granularity of the measurement, and whether separate report parameters are needed for the play-out buffer time and network-delay time. It was decided that two separate parameters should be provided in the report, but the RDS must have a mechanism to indicate how this metric is being reported (1 parameter indicating buffer+network, or two parameters indicating separate buffer and network values).
2.1.2) One Way Delay
There is some concern that many RDSs will not be capable of measuring OWD correctly. The group decided to leave this parameter in the basic report because it is useful. It is not mandatory for an RDS include this metric in RAQMON reports. If needed, an Applicability Statement could be written to specify which type of applications need to report this parameter.
2.1.3) Discards vs. Drops
The packet loss parameters (Framework, sec. 5.18 and 5.19) do not distinguish between lost packets and discarded packets. The group decided to separate these parameters in the same manner as jitter, and allow the RDS to report separate loss and discard parameters, or combined parameters. The RAQMON report must indicate what the RDS is measuring.
2.1.4) CPU Utilization
This parameter may be too simplistic to model some RDS HW correctly. The group discussed some alternatives, such as removing the parameter, allowing for multiple parameters (1 per CPU), or making the parameter optional. It was suggested that the value '-1' be used to indicate that the value is not available or not applicable. Instead, the RDS should simply omit this parameter from each RAQMON report if a value is not available.
It was also suggested that a counter of the number of memory allocation failures was a more interesting parameter than memory utilization. The group agreed this was useful, but the WG should discuss this suggestion further on the mailing list before it is added to the RAQMON Basic PDU.
2.2) RAQMON Conformance Issues
The specific conformance requirements for a RAQMON RDS or RRC need to be clearly defined:
- Currently, the RDS requirements section says an RDS MUST support all of the metrics in the BASIC PDU (Framework, sec. 2.1.2). This contradicts the consensus that an Applicability Statement should define mandatory report parameters for a given application class. - The RRC requirements (Framework, sec. 2.2.2, #1) state that at least one mapping must be supported. The WG needs to pick at least one mandatory-to-implement mapping (see sec. 2.3 below) - The RRC requirements (Framework, sec. 2.2.2, #2) state that a "end of report" timeout mechanism must be supported. The group agreed a mandatory configurable parameter be provided in the RAQMON MIB for this timeout value. - The RRC requirements (Framework, sec. 2.2.2, #3) state that the RAQMON MIB must be supported. The name of a specific RAQMON MIB MODULE-COMPLIANCE macro must be specified in this section. - The RAQMON PDU document mentions SNMP Informs, but not traps. The text should be changed to mention SNMP Notifications, without any RAQMON-specific conformance requirements. - The RAQMON PDU document (sec. 2.1) discusses SNMP implementation requirements, which include support for MIBs related to USM configuration. This section needs to be rewritten to discuss SNMP notification usage, not Inform usage. The USM requirement needs to be removed as well.
2.3) Alternate transport bindings for RAQMON
An individual submission (H) was discussed by the group. There was concern that the motivation and strategy for using TCP or SIP was not well explained in the draft. It was also agreed that SIP is not widely deployed in potential RAQMON data source devices. It was suggested that SNMP over TCP could be used, but one of the reasons for an alternate transport is to avoid the complexity of implementing SNMP.
The group reached consensus that the TCP transport binding should be developed, and this binding is likely to be the most easily supported by potential RDS implementations of all the transport choices under consideration. The WG charter will need some minor modification. It will be noted that the WG attempted to reuse existing protocols (SNMP, RTCP, SIP) but none were found to be totally appropriate. The individual submission will be rewritten as an RMONMIB WG draft, and all references to the SIP bindings will be removed.
2.3.1) Mandatory to implement application mapping
The current RAQMON PDU draft (B) defines a RAQMON report delivery mechanism utilizing SNMP Notifications. All text related to RTCP transport of RAQMON PDUs has been removed, as per the WG decisions related to RTCP made at IETF #59.
The group discussed the need to select an application mapping which is mandatory to implement on both RDS and RCC components. This decision does not have to be made right away, and it is possible that the RRC will be required to implement both the SNMP Notification and TCP bindings. The WG will also discuss the possibility of withdrawing the SNMP Notification binding because there is no evidence that any vendors want to implement it in RDS devices.