2.8.4 IP Performance Metrics (ippm)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 77th IETF Meeting in Anaheim, California USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2010-05-25


Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>
Matthew Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu>

Transport Area Director(s):

David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>

Transport Area Advisor:

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion: ippm@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/maillist.html

Description of Working Group:

The IPPM WG has developed a set of standard metrics that can be
applied to the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet data
delivery services. These metrics are designed such that they can be
performed by network operators, end users, or independent testing
groups. It is important that the metrics not represent a value judgment
(i.e. define "good" and "bad"), but rather provide unbiased quantitative
measures of performance.

Functions peripheral to Internet data delivery services, such as NOC/NIC
services, are beyond the scope of this working group.

The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and
procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. This
is the current list of fundamental metrics and the existing set of
derived metrics.

- connectivity
- one-way delay and loss
- round-trip delay.
- delay variation
- loss patterns
- packet reordering
- bulk transport capacity
- link bandwidth capacity
- packet duplication

The working group will advance these metrics along the standards track
within the IETF. The WG will document the process of moving documents along
the standards track, based on draft-bradner-metricstest. As this process
is likely to be needed by other groups as well (in particular BMWG,
PMOL), the group will collaborate with other groups in order to ensure
that there
is consensus amongst all groups expected to use the process.

Additionally, the WG will produce Proposed Standard AS documents,
comparable to applicability statements in RFC 2026, that will focus on
for measuring the individual metrics and how these metrics characterize
features that are important to different service classes, such as bulk
periodic streams, packet bursts or multimedia streams. Each AS
document will discuss the performance characteristics that are
pertinent to a specified service class; clearly identify the set of
metrics that
aid in the description of those characteristics; specify the methodologies
required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present the requirements
for the common, unambiguous reporting of testing results. The AS
documents can also discuss the use of the metrics to verify performance
such as SLA's, report results to specific user groups or investigate
network problems. The focus is, again, to define how this should be
done, not
to define a value judgment. The WG may define additional statistics for
its metrics if needed. Specific topics of these AS documents must be
approved by the Area Directors as charter additions.

The WG will work on documents describing how to compose and decompose
the results of its metrics over time or space.

The WG has produced protocols to enable communication among test
equipment that implements the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP
respectively). OWAMP and TWAMP will be advanced along the standards
track. Further
development of these protocols will also be done inside the WG.

The metrics developed by the WG were developed inside an active
measurement context, that is, the devices used to measure the metrics
produce their own traffic. However, most metrics can be used inside a
passive context as well. No work is planned is this area though,
this may be changed with AD approval.

The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards
bodies and forums (such as ATIS IIF, ITU-T SG 12, 13 and 15, MEF) to
promote consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF process, IPPM
definitions will be subject to as rigorous a scrutiny for usefulness,
clarity, and accuracy as other protocol standards. The IPPM WG will
interact with other areas of IETF activity whose scope intersect with
the requirement of these specific metrics. The WG will, on request, provide
input to other IETF WG on the use of these metrics.

Goals and Milestones:

Done  Submit drafts of standard metrics for connectivity and treno-bulk-throughput.
Done  Submit a framework document describing terms and notions used in the IPPM effort, and the creation of metrics by the working group to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC.
Done  Submit documents on delay and loss to IESG for publication as Informational RFCs.
Done  Submit a document on connectivity to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC.
Done  Submit a document on bulk-throughput to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC.
Done  Submit draft on loss pattern sample metrics to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC.
Done  Submit draft on metrics for periodic streams to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Done  Submit draft on IP delay variation to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Done  First draft for AS on one-way delay and loss.
Done  Submit draft on One-Way Active Measurement Protocol Requirements to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC.
Done  Create initial draft on a MIB for reporting IPPM metrics.
Done  Create initial draft on a packet reordering metric.
Done  Create draft on a One-Way Active Measurement Protocol that satisfies the requirements document.
Done  Submit draft on the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol to the IESG for consideration as a PS.
Done  Submit draft on implementation reports for RFCs 2678-2681 to the IESG
Done  Submit initial draft on framework for Composition and Aggregation Metrics
Done  Submit draft on the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol to the IESG for consideration as a PS
Done  Submit draft on a packet reordering metric to the IESG for Proposed Standard
Done  Submit initial applicability statement for the IPPM and ITU Jitter Measurements to the WG
Done  Submit link bandwidth capacity definitions draft to the IESG, for consideration as an Informational RFC
Done  Submit draft on storing results of traceroute measurements to the IESG
Done  Submit draft on Two-way active measurements protocol (TWAMP) to the IESG for consideration as proposed standard
Done  Develop new charter text
Done  Delay Variation Applicability Statement (Informational) to IESG Review
Done  Assemble editorial team to work on the process draft (WG version of draft-bradner-metricstest)
Done  -00 version of SLA validation draft
Apr 2009  Submit 'more TWAMP' draft to IESG
Done  Initial version of process draft
Done  Submit draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl to IESG
Jun 2010  Submit draft-ietf-ippm-reflect-octets to IESG
Jun 2010  Submit draft on spatial composition of metrics to the IESG
Jun 2010  Submit draft on Temporal Aggregation of Metrics to the IESG
Jun 2010  Submit draft on spatial decomposition and multicast metrics to the IESG
Nov 2010  Final version of process draft
Nov 2010  Implementation report based on process draft
Mar 2011  Revise charter


  • draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-12.txt
  • draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-06.txt
  • draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-07.txt
  • draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-02.txt

    Request For Comments:

    RFC2330 I Framework for IP Performance Metrics
    RFC2498 E IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity
    RFC2678 E IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity
    RFC2679 PS A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM
    RFC2680 PS A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM
    RFC2681 PS A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM
    RFC3148 I A Framework for Defining Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics
    RFC3357 I One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics
    RFC3393 PS IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IPPM
    RFC3432 PS Network performance measurement for periodic streams
    RFC3763 I A One-way Active Measurement Protocol Requirements
    RFC4148 BCP IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) metrics registry
    RFC4656 PS A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)
    RFC4737 PS Packet Reordering Metrics
    RFC5136 I Defining Network Capacity
    RFC5357 PS A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
    RFC5388 PS Information Model and XML Data Model for Traceroute Measurements
    RFC5481 I Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement
    RFC5560 PS A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric
    RFC5618 PS Mixed Security Mode for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol - TWAMP
    RFC5644 PS IP Performance Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast
    RFC5835 I Framework for Metric Composition

    Meeting Minutes


    Testing Metrics/Ruediger
    TCP Throughput/Barry
    Burst Loss/Nick