| < draft-akhter-ipfix-perfmon-00.txt | draft-akhter-ipfix-perfmon-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPFIX Working Group A. Akhter | IPFIX Working Group A. Akhter | |||
| Internet-Draft Cisco Systems | Internet-Draft Cisco Systems | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track October 17, 2010 | Intended status: Standards Track October 25, 2010 | |||
| Expires: April 20, 2011 | Expires: April 28, 2011 | |||
| Information Elements for Flow Performance Measurement | Information Elements for Flow Performance Measurement | |||
| draft-akhter-ipfix-perfmon-00.txt | draft-akhter-ipfix-perfmon-01.txt | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| There is a need to be able to quantify and report the performance of | There is a need to be able to quantify and report the performance of | |||
| network applications and the network service in handling user data. | network applications and the network service in handling user data. | |||
| This performance data provides information essential in validating | This performance data provides information essential in validating | |||
| service level agreements, fault isolation as well as early warnings | service level agreements, fault isolation as well as early warnings | |||
| of greater problems. This document describes IPFIX Information | of greater problems. This document describes IPFIX Information | |||
| Elements related to performance measurement of network based | Elements related to performance measurement of network based | |||
| applications. In addition, to the performance information several | applications. In addition, to the performance information several | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| 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." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2011. | This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2011. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 17 ¶ | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3. General Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3. General Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 3.1. Quality of Service (QoS) Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.1. Quality of Service (QoS) Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 3.2. Service Level Agreemnt (SLA) Validation . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.2. Service Level Agreemnt (SLA) Validation . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3.3. Fault Isolation and Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.3. Fault Isolation and Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 4. New Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4. New Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 4.1. Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1. Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 4.1.1. perfPacketLoss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.1.1. perfPacketLoss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 4.1.2. perfPacketExpected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4.1.2. perfPacketExpected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 4.1.3. perfPacketLossRate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.1.3. perfPacketLossRate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 4.2. User and Application Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 4.1.4. perfPacketLossEvent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 4.2.1. perfSessionSetupDelay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 4.1.5. perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 4.3. Contextual Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.1.6. perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMin . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 4.3.1. mediaRTPSSRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.1.7. perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMax . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 4.3.2. mediaRTPPayloadType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4.2. User and Application Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 4.2.1. perfSessionSetupDelay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 4.3. Contextual Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.3.1. mediaRTPSSRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.3.2. mediaRTPPayloadType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
| 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.3.3. mediaCodec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | ||||
| 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | ||||
| 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | ||||
| 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | ||||
| Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Today's networks support a multitude of highly demanding and | Today's networks support a multitude of highly demanding and | |||
| sensitive network applications. Network issues are readily apparent | sensitive network applications. Network issues are readily apparent | |||
| by the users of these applications due to the sensitivity of these | by the users of these applications due to the sensitivity of these | |||
| applications to impaired network conditions. Examples of these | applications to impaired network conditions. Examples of these | |||
| network applications include applications making use of IP based | network applications include applications making use of IP based | |||
| audio, video, database transactions, virtual desktop interface (VDI), | audio, video, database transactions, virtual desktop interface (VDI), | |||
| online gaming, cloud services and many more. In some cases the | online gaming, cloud services and many more. In some cases the | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 5 ¶ | |||
| new levels of flexibility in reporting from measurement points across | new levels of flexibility in reporting from measurement points across | |||
| the life cycle of a network based application. IPFIX can provide | the life cycle of a network based application. IPFIX can provide | |||
| granular results in terms of flow specificity as well as time | granular results in terms of flow specificity as well as time | |||
| granularity. At the same time, IPFIX allows for summarization of | granularity. At the same time, IPFIX allows for summarization of | |||
| data along different types of boundaries for operators that are | data along different types of boundaries for operators that are | |||
| unconcerned about specific sessions but about health of a service or | unconcerned about specific sessions but about health of a service or | |||
| a portion of the network. | a portion of the network. | |||
| Where possible, an attempt has been made to make use of existing | Where possible, an attempt has been made to make use of existing | |||
| definitions of metrics ([RFC4710]) and if needed, clarify and expand | definitions of metrics ([RFC4710]) and if needed, clarify and expand | |||
| on them to widen their usage with additional applications. As this | on them to widen their usage with additional applications. The | |||
| document also covers the reporting of these metrics via IPFIX, | methodology described in [I-D.ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics] is used to | |||
| consideration is taken with mapping the metric's capabilities and | describe the methodology of measurement. As this document also | |||
| context with the IPFIX information and data representation model. | covers the reporting of these metrics via IPFIX, consideration is | |||
| taken with mapping the metric's capabilities and context with the | ||||
| IPFIX information and data representation model. The guidelines | ||||
| outlined in [I-D.trammell-ipfix-ie-doctors] are used to ensure proper | ||||
| IPFIX information element definition. | ||||
| There has been related work in this area such as [RFC2321]. | ||||
| [I-D.huici-ipfix-sipfix], and [VoIP-monitor]. This document is also | ||||
| an attempt to generalize as well as standardize the reporting formats | ||||
| and measurement methodology. | ||||
| 2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
| Terms used in this document that are defined in the Terminology | Terms used in this document that are defined in the Terminology | |||
| section of the IPFIX Protocol [RFC5101] document are to be | section of the IPFIX Protocol [RFC5101] document are to be | |||
| interpreted as defined there. | interpreted as defined there. | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 14 ¶ | |||
| Element Units: The IPFIX informationElementUnits as defined in | Element Units: The IPFIX informationElementUnits as defined in | |||
| section Section 3.7 of [RFC5610] | section Section 3.7 of [RFC5610] | |||
| Element Range Begin: The IPFIX informationElementRangeBegin as | Element Range Begin: The IPFIX informationElementRangeBegin as | |||
| defined in section Section 3.7 of [RFC5610] | defined in section Section 3.7 of [RFC5610] | |||
| Element Range End: The IPFIX informationElementRangeEnd as defined | Element Range End: The IPFIX informationElementRangeEnd as defined | |||
| in section Section 3.7 of [RFC5610] | in section Section 3.7 of [RFC5610] | |||
| Element Id: The IPFIX global unique element ID as defind in Section | Element Id: The IPFIX global unique element ID as defined in Section | |||
| 3.2 of [RFC5101] | 3.2 of [RFC5101] | |||
| Status: The status of the specification of this IPFIX Information | Status: The status of the specification of this IPFIX Information | |||
| Element. | Element. | |||
| Use and Applications An explanation of how this particular | Use and Applications An explanation of how this particular | |||
| information element would be used. | information element would be used. | |||
| Calculation Method: In the case of metrics, this section describes | Calculation Method: In the case of metrics, this section describes | |||
| how the metric is calculated, as well as any special conditions. | how the metric is calculated, as well as any special conditions. | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 30 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 39 ¶ | |||
| Measurement Timing: Discussion on the acceptable range of timing and | Measurement Timing: Discussion on the acceptable range of timing and | |||
| sampling intervals. | sampling intervals. | |||
| 3. General Usage | 3. General Usage | |||
| 3.1. Quality of Service (QoS) Monitoring | 3.1. Quality of Service (QoS) Monitoring | |||
| The network operator needs to be able to gauge the end user's | The network operator needs to be able to gauge the end user's | |||
| satisfaction with the network service. While there are many | satisfaction with the network service. While there are many | |||
| components of the satifaction such as pricing, packaging, offering, | components of the satisfaction such as pricing, packaging, offering, | |||
| etc., a major compoenent of satisfaction is delivering a consistant | etc., a major component of satisfaction is delivering a consistent | |||
| service. The user builds trust on this consistancy of the network | service. The user builds trust on this consistency of the network | |||
| service and is then to be able to run network applications-- which is | service and is then to be able to run network applications-- which is | |||
| of course the the end goal. Without the ability to deliver a | of course the end goal. Without the ability to deliver a consistent | |||
| consistant service for end user network applications network operator | service for end user network applications network operator will be | |||
| will be left dealing with price sensitive disgruntled users with very | left dealing with price sensitive disgruntled users with very low | |||
| low expectations (if they don't have choice of operator) or | expectations (if they don't have choice of operator) or abandonment | |||
| abandonment (if they have choice). | (if they have choice). | |||
| 3.2. Service Level Agreemnt (SLA) Validation | 3.2. Service Level Agreemnt (SLA) Validation | |||
| Similar to QoS and QoE validation, there might be contractual or | Similar to QoS and QoE validation, there might be contractual or | |||
| regulatory requirements that need to be met by the network operator. | regulatory requirements that need to be met by the network operator. | |||
| Monitoring the performance of the flows allows the application | Monitoring the performance of the flows allows the application | |||
| operator, network operator as well as the end user to validate of the | operator, network operator as well as the end user to validate of the | |||
| target service is being deliverd. While there is quite a diverstiy | target service is being delivered. While there is quite a diversity | |||
| in the codification of network SLAs they may eventually involve some | in the codification of network SLAs they may eventually involve some | |||
| measurement of network uptime, end to end latency, end to end jitter | measurement of network uptime, end to end latency, end to end jitter | |||
| and perhaps service response time. In the case violation of the SLA, | and perhaps service response time. In the case violation of the SLA, | |||
| the start and end times, nature and network scope of the violation | the start and end times, nature and network scope of the violation | |||
| needs to be captured to allow for the most accurate settling of the | needs to be captured to allow for the most accurate settling of the | |||
| SLA. | SLA. | |||
| 3.3. Fault Isolation and Troubleshooting | 3.3. Fault Isolation and Troubleshooting | |||
| It has been generally easier to troubelshoot and fix problems that | It has been generally easier to troubleshoot and fix problems that | |||
| are binary in nature: it either works or does not work. The host is | are binary in nature: it either works or does not work. The host is | |||
| pingable or not pingable. However, the much more difficult to | pingable or not pingable. However, the much more difficult to | |||
| resolve issues that are transitory in nature, move from location to | resolve issues that are transitory in nature, move from location to | |||
| location, more complicated that simple ICMP reachability and many | location, more complicated that simple ICMP reachability and many | |||
| times unverifiable reports by the users themselves. It is these | times unverifiable reports by the users themselves. It is these | |||
| intermittant and seemingly inconsistant network impairments that | intermittent and seemingly inconsistent network impairments that | |||
| performance metrics can be extremely helpful with. Just the basic | performance metrics can be extremely helpful with. Just the basic | |||
| timely detection that there is a problem (or an impending problem) | timely detection that there is a problem (or an impending problem) | |||
| can give the providor the confidence that there is a real problem | can give the provider the confidence that there is a real problem | |||
| that needs to be resolved. The next step woudl be to assist the | that needs to be resolved. The next step would be to assist the | |||
| operator in a speedy resolution by providing information regarding | operator in a speedy resolution by providing information regarding | |||
| the network locaton and nature of the problem. | the network location and nature of the problem. | |||
| 4. New Information Elements | 4. New Information Elements | |||
| The information elements are organized into two main groups: | The information elements are organized into two main groups: | |||
| Transport Layer: Metrics that might be calculated from observations | Transport Layer: Metrics that might be calculated from observations | |||
| at higher layers but essentially provide information about the | at higher layers but essentially provide information about the | |||
| network transport of user date. For example, the metrics related | network transport of user date. For example, the metrics related | |||
| to packet loss, latency and jitter would be defined here. | to packet loss, latency and jitter would be defined here. | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 40 ¶ | |||
| Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | |||
| Element Id: TBDperfPacketLoss | Element Id: TBDperfPacketLoss | |||
| Status: current | Status: current | |||
| Use and Applications The packet loss metric can be used to determine | Use and Applications The packet loss metric can be used to determine | |||
| if there is a network impairment that is causing packet loss | if there is a network impairment that is causing packet loss | |||
| upstream of the measurement point. When there are observation | upstream of the measurement point. When there are observation | |||
| points on either side of the impairment location it is possible to | points on either side of the impairment location it is possible to | |||
| locate the impairment. With the location information teh operator | locate the impairment. With the location information the operator | |||
| can is able to perform quicker fault-isolation as well as shorten | can is able to perform quicker fault-isolation as well as shorten | |||
| time to resolution. | time to resolution. | |||
| Calculation Method: This metric requires that each IP packet be | Calculation Method: This metric requires that each IP packet be | |||
| individually marked with a monotonically incrementing sequence | individually marked with a monotonically incrementing sequence | |||
| number. A number of encapsulations support this type of | number. A number of encapsulations support this type of | |||
| sequencing: IPSec ESP [RFC4303], GRE [RFC2890] and RTP [RFC3550]. | sequencing: IPSec ESP [RFC4303], GRE [RFC2890] and RTP [RFC3550]. | |||
| And an analyis of the sequence number field can yeild the lost | An analysis of the sequence number field can yield the lost number | |||
| number of packets. In certain cases, there might be an element of | of packets. In certain cases, there might be an element of | |||
| discovery and synchronization of the flow it self before the | discovery and synchronization of the flow itself before the | |||
| measurement can be made. An example of this can be found for RTP | measurement can be made. An example of this can be found for RTP | |||
| flows running on ephemeral UDP port numbers. In these cases, | flows running on ephemeral UDP port numbers. In these cases, | |||
| reporting 0 as packet loss would be misleading and the value | reporting 0 as packet loss would be misleading and the value | |||
| 0xFFFFFFFF must be used in cases where the packet loss value can | 0xFFFFFFFF MUST be used in cases where the packet loss value | |||
| not be determined. In the case of a monitor interval where | cannot be determined. In the case of a monitor interval where | |||
| synchronization was acheived mid-interval, the loss packet counter | synchronization was achieved mid-interval, the loss packet counter | |||
| MAY be used to represent remainder of the interval. As this | MAY be used to represent the remainder of the interval. As this | |||
| metric is a deltaCounter the number of loss packets only represent | metric is a deltaCounter, the number of loss packets only | |||
| the observation within the reporting interval. Due to the | represent the observation within the reporting interval. Due to | |||
| dependency on the arrival of a packet with a sequcnce number to | the dependency on the arrival of a packet with a sequence number | |||
| calculate loss, the loss calculation may be indefenitely delayed | to calculate loss, the loss calculation may be indefinitely | |||
| if no more packets arrive at all. For the case of RTP, in | delayed if no more packets arrive at all. For the case of RTP, in | |||
| addition to the 16 bit sequence number field in RFC3550, there is | addition to the 16 bit sequence number field in RFC3550, there is | |||
| also the additional 16-bit high-order sequence number field (for a | also the additional 16-bit high-order sequence number field (for a | |||
| total of 32-bit seq number space) that is used in RFC3497 | total of 32-bit seq number space) that is used in RFC3497 | |||
| [RFC3497]. RFC3497 traffic runs at a very high rate and the 32- | [RFC3497]. RFC3497 traffic runs at a very high rate and the 32- | |||
| bit field allow for additional time for wrapping (21 seconds). | bit field allow for additional time for wrapping (21 seconds). | |||
| So, a loss span of greater than 21 seconds measured only by the | So, a loss span of greater than 21 seconds measured only by the | |||
| 16-bit field will lead to inaccurate reporting. In the case of | 16-bit field will lead to inaccurate reporting. In the case of | |||
| secure RTP [RFC3711], the relevant portion of the RTP header is in | secure RTP [RFC3711], the relevant portion of the RTP header is in | |||
| the clear and lost packet counting can still be performed. It is | the clear and lost packet counting can still be performed. It is | |||
| important to note that the sequence number space is unique per RTP | important to note that the sequence number space is unique per RTP | |||
| SSRC. Therefore it is important to track the high sequence number | SSRC. Therefore it is important to track the high sequence number | |||
| seen on a per SSRC-5-tuple basis. There may be multiple SSRCs in | seen on a per SSRC-5-tuple basis. There may be multiple SSRCs in | |||
| a single 5-tuple. Certain applications inject non-RTP traffic | a single 5-tuple. Certain applications inject non-RTP traffic | |||
| into the same 5-tuple as the media stream. RTCP packets may be | into the same 5-tuple as the media stream. RTCP packets may be | |||
| seen in the same 5-tuple as the RTP stream [RFC5761], and STUN | seen in the same 5-tuple as the RTP stream [RFC5761], and STUN | |||
| [RFC3489] packets may also be seen. The loss detection should | [RFC5389] packets may also be seen. The loss detection should | |||
| ignore these packets. | ignore these packets. There may be spans within the network where | |||
| header compression schemes such as [RFC2508] are used. In cases | ||||
| where the measurement device is terminating the compression, and | ||||
| the measurement implementation does not support calculation of the | ||||
| metric the value 0xFFFFFFFF MUST be reported. In other cases the | ||||
| measurement point may be at a midpoint of the header compression | ||||
| network span. Depending on the mechanics of header compression, | ||||
| sequencing information may be present and it is possible to | ||||
| calculate the metric. In such cases the implementation SHOULD | ||||
| perform the calculation and report the metric. | ||||
| Units of Measurement: packets | Units of Measurement: packets | |||
| Measurment Timing To be able to calculate this metric a continous | Measurment Timing To be able to calculate this metric a continuous | |||
| set of the flow's packets (as each woudl have an incrementing | set of the flow's packets (as each would have an incrementing | |||
| sequence number) needs to be monitored. Therefore, per-packet | sequence number) needs to be monitored. Therefore, per-packet | |||
| sampling would prevent this metric from being calculated. | sampling would prevent this metric from being calculated. | |||
| However, there are other sampling methodoligies that might be | However, there are other sampling methodologies that might be | |||
| usabel. It is possible to generate sampled metrics by sampling | usable. It is possible to generate sampled metrics by sampling | |||
| spans of continous packets, however a portion of the span may have | spans of continuous packets, however a portion of the span may | |||
| to be utilized for resynchronization of the sequence number. | have to be utilized for resynchronization of the sequence number. | |||
| Another form of acceptable sampling would be at the flow level. | Another form of acceptable sampling would be at the flow level. | |||
| 4.1.2. perfPacketExpected | 4.1.2. perfPacketExpected | |||
| Name: perfPacketExpected | Name: perfPacketExpected | |||
| Description: The number of packets there were expected within a | Description: The number of packets there were expected within a | |||
| monitoring interval. | monitoring interval. | |||
| Observation Point: The observation can be made anywhere along the | Observation Point: The observation can be made anywhere along the | |||
| skipping to change at page 9, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 23 ¶ | |||
| media path or on the endpoints them selves. The observation is | media path or on the endpoints them selves. The observation is | |||
| only relevant in a unidirectional sense. | only relevant in a unidirectional sense. | |||
| Element Data Type: unsigned32 | Element Data Type: unsigned32 | |||
| Element Semantics: deltaCounter | Element Semantics: deltaCounter | |||
| Element Units: none | Element Units: none | |||
| Element Range Begin: 0 | Element Range Begin: 0 | |||
| Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | |||
| Element Id: TBDperfPacketExpected | Element Id: TBDperfPacketExpected | |||
| Status: current | Status: current | |||
| Use and Applications The perfPacketExpected is a mid-calculation | Use and Applications The perfPacketExpected is a mid-calculation | |||
| metric used in the calculation of perfPacketLossRate. | metric used in the calculation of perfPacketLossRate. | |||
| Calculation Method: The subtraction of the last sequence number from | Calculation Method: The subtraction of the last sequence number from | |||
| the first sequence numebr in monitoirng interval yeilds the | the first sequence number in monitoring interval yields the | |||
| expected count. As discussed with perfPacketLost, there might be | expected count. As discussed with perfPacketLost, there might be | |||
| a delay due to synchronization with the flows's sequnce numbers | a delay due to synchronization with the flow's sequence numbers | |||
| and in such times the value of the metric should be set to | and in such times the value of the metric should be set to | |||
| 0xFFFFFFFE. Care has to be taken to account for cases where the | 0xFFFFFFFE. Care has to be taken to account for cases where the | |||
| packet's sequence number field wraps. For RTP the expected count | packet's sequence number field wraps. For RTP, the expected count | |||
| calculation formula can be found in Appendix A.3 of [RFC3550] | calculation formula can be found in Appendix A.3 of [RFC3550]. | |||
| Refer to the perfPacketLoss metric regarding considerations for | ||||
| header compression. The value 0xFFFF is used to represent cases | ||||
| where the metric could not be calculated. | ||||
| Units of Measurement: packets | Units of Measurement: packets | |||
| Measurment Timing Same considerations as perfPacketLoss | Measurment Timing Same considerations as perfPacketLoss | |||
| 4.1.3. perfPacketLossRate | 4.1.3. perfPacketLossRate | |||
| Name: perfPacketLossRate | Name: perfPacketLossRate | |||
| Description: Percentage of number of packets lost out of the total | Description: Percentage of number of packets lost out of the total | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 27 ¶ | |||
| Element Semantics: quantity | Element Semantics: quantity | |||
| Element Units: none | Element Units: none | |||
| Element Range Begin: 0 | Element Range Begin: 0 | |||
| Element Range End: 0xFFFE | Element Range End: 0xFFFE | |||
| Element Id: TBDperfPacketLossRate | Element Id: TBDperfPacketLossRate | |||
| Status: current | Status: current | |||
| Use and Applications The perfPacketLossRate metric can be used to | Use and Applications The perfPacketLossRate metric can be used to | |||
| normalize the perfPacketLoss metric to handle cases where | normalize the perfPacketLoss metric to handle cases where | |||
| different flows are running at different packet per second (pps) | different flows are running at different packet per second (PPS) | |||
| rates. Due to the normalization, comparisons can now be made | rates. Due to the normalization, comparisons can now be made | |||
| against thresholds (for creating alerts, etc.). In addition, the | against thresholds (for creating alerts, etc.). In addition, the | |||
| percentage form of the metric allows for comparisons against other | percentage form of the metric allows for comparisons against other | |||
| flows at the same observation point to determine if there is an | flows at the same observation point to determine if there is an | |||
| equal bias for drops between the flows. Otherwise, the | equal bias for drops between the flows. Otherwise, the | |||
| perfoPacketLossRate is used in same way as perfPacketLoss. | perfoPacketLossRate is used in same way as perfPacketLoss. | |||
| Calculation Method: The number of lost packets divided by the number | Calculation Method: The number of lost packets divided by the number | |||
| of expected packets in an interval period multiplied by 100. In | of expected packets in an interval period multiplied by 100. In | |||
| cases where perfPacketLoss is unknown (for example due to | cases where perfPacketLoss is unknown (for example due to | |||
| synchronization issues), the perfPacketLossRate woudl also be | synchronization issues), the perfPacketLossRate would also be | |||
| unknown. In such cases perfPacketLossRate MUST be set to 0xFFFF. | unknown. In such cases perfPacketLossRate MUST be set to 0xFFFF. | |||
| If there are multiple flows whose loss rate is being aggregated, | If there are multiple flows whose loss rate is being aggregated, | |||
| then the average of the individual flows is used. | then the average of the individual flows is used. Refer to the | |||
| perfPacketLoss metric regarding considerations for header | ||||
| compression. The value 0xFFFF is used to represent cases where | ||||
| the metric could not be calculated. | ||||
| Units of Measurement: percentage | Units of Measurement: percentage | |||
| Measurment Timing Same notes as perfPacketLossRate | Measurment Timing Same notes as perfPacketLossRate | |||
| 4.1.4. perfPacketLossEvent | ||||
| Name: perfPacketLossEvent | ||||
| Description: The packet loss event metric reports the number of | ||||
| continuous sets of packets that were lost in the reporting | ||||
| interval. | ||||
| Observation Point: The observation can be made anywhere along the | ||||
| media path or on the endpoints them selves. The observation is | ||||
| only relevant in a unidirectional sense. | ||||
| Element Data Type: unsigned32 | ||||
| Element Semantics: deltaCounter | ||||
| Element Units: packets | ||||
| Element Range Begin: 0 | ||||
| Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | ||||
| Element Id: TBDperfPacketLossEvent | ||||
| Status: current | ||||
| Use and Applications The perfPacketLossEvent metric can provide loss | ||||
| information for protocols that do not implement per packet | ||||
| sequencing. Similarly to the perfPacketLoss metric, the packet | ||||
| loss event metric can be used to determine if there is a network | ||||
| impairment that is causing packet loss upstream of the measurement | ||||
| point. In cases where both the perfPacketLoss and | ||||
| perfPacketLossEvent metric are available, the ratio between the | ||||
| packet loss and packet event count can provide the average loss | ||||
| length. The average loss length provides additional information | ||||
| regarding the cause of the loss. For example, a dirty fiber | ||||
| connection might have a low average loss length, while a routing | ||||
| protocol convergence will have a high loss length. | ||||
| Calculation Method: This data value is a simplified version of the | ||||
| Lost Packets metric. Whereas Lost Packets counts individual | ||||
| packet loss, the 'loss event count' metric counts sets of packets | ||||
| that are lost. For example, in the case of a sequence of packets: | ||||
| 1,3,6,7,10 the packets marked 2,4,5,8 and 9 are lost. So, a total | ||||
| of 5 packets are lost. This same sequence translates to 3 loss | ||||
| events: (2), (4,5) and (8,9). In the case of RTP, the sequence | ||||
| number in the RTP header can be used to identify loss events. | ||||
| Certain protocols such as TCP and UDP+MPEG2-TS encapsulation in IP | ||||
| have sequencing information, but the sequence field is incremented | ||||
| by individual IP packets. As a side note, in the case of UDP+ | ||||
| MPEG2-TS encapsulation the simple use of RTP+MPEG2-TS via | ||||
| [RFC2250] results in the avaliability of the more granular | ||||
| perfPacketLoss metrics. In these cases, the perfPacketLoss metric | ||||
| cannot be calculated but the perfPacketLossEvent can be calculated | ||||
| and can provide detection of loss. The value 0xFFFFFFFF is used | ||||
| to represent non-applicable cases such as lack of sequence number | ||||
| synchronization. Many of the same considerations as for | ||||
| perfPacketLoss apply to perfPacketLoss event. Please refer to the | ||||
| Calculation Method section of the perfPacketLoss. | ||||
| Units of Measurement: event counts | ||||
| Measurment Timing Please refer to the measurement timing section of | ||||
| perfPacketLoss. | ||||
| 4.1.5. perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg | ||||
| Name: perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg | ||||
| Description: This metric measures the absolute deviation of the | ||||
| difference in packet spacing at the measurement point compared to | ||||
| the packet spacing at the sender. | ||||
| Observation Point: The observation can be made anywhere along the | ||||
| media path or on the receiver. The observation is only relevant | ||||
| in a unidirectional sense. | ||||
| Element Data Type: unsigned32 | ||||
| Element Semantics: quantity | ||||
| Element Units: microseconds | ||||
| Element Range Begin: 0 | ||||
| Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | ||||
| Element Id: TBDperfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg | ||||
| Status: current | ||||
| Use and Applications The inter arrival jitter data value can be used | ||||
| be network operator to determine the network's impact to the | ||||
| spacing in between a media stream's packets as they traverse the | ||||
| network. For example, in the case of media applications, the | ||||
| receiving end system is expecting these packets to come in at a | ||||
| particular periodicity and large deviations may result in de- | ||||
| jitter buffers adding excessive delay, or the media packets being | ||||
| discarded. When the data is reported from multiple intermediate | ||||
| nodes, the area of the network that is having a detrimental | ||||
| contribution can be identified. On a non-media application level, | ||||
| the inter arrival jitter metrics can be used for early indication | ||||
| queuing contention within the network (which could lead to packet | ||||
| loss). | ||||
| Calculation Method: The inter arrival jitter value makes use of the | ||||
| association of sending time with an IP packets and comparison of | ||||
| the arrival time on the monitoring point. In certain protocols, a | ||||
| representation of sending time is encoded into the header itself. | ||||
| For example, in the case of RTP packets, the RTP header's | ||||
| timestamps field represents encoder clock ticks-- which are | ||||
| representations of time. Similarly, in the case of TCP options | ||||
| encode absolute timestamps values. For RTP the calculation method | ||||
| can be found in Appendix A of [RFC3550]. It should be noted that | ||||
| the RFC3550 calculation is on the last 16 packets measured. The | ||||
| most recent value calculated SHOULD be reported at the end of the | ||||
| monitoring interval. The range of the jitter values during the | ||||
| monitoring interval can be reported using | ||||
| perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMin and | ||||
| perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMax. Similarly to the perfPacketLoss | ||||
| case there may be periods of time where the jitter value cannot be | ||||
| calculated. In these cases, the 0xFFFFFFFF value should be used | ||||
| to convey the lack of availability of the metric. As mentioned | ||||
| earlier, the RTP header timestamps is actually a 'sample-stamp' | ||||
| (ie clicks) from the encoder's clock. The frequency of the clock | ||||
| is dependent on the codec. Some codecs (eg AAC-LD) support | ||||
| multiple possible frequencies one of which is then selected for | ||||
| the media-stream. The mapping to clock rate can be performed via | ||||
| mapping from the static RTP payload type (RTP-PT), but newer | ||||
| codecs are make use of the dynamic payload type range and the | ||||
| RTP-PT (in the dynamic case) cannot be used to determine the clock | ||||
| frequency. There are various methods by which the clock frequency | ||||
| (deep packet inspection of the signalling, manual configuration, | ||||
| etc.) can be associated to the calculation method. The frequency | ||||
| should be locked in the metering layer to a unique combination of | ||||
| the IP source, IP destination, IP protocol layer-4 ports, RTP-PT | ||||
| and SSRC. By strict RFC3550 definition, the SSRC is set to a | ||||
| specific encoder clock and it is the SSRC that should be tracked | ||||
| rather than payload type. However, in recent discussions it has | ||||
| been noted that there are RTP implementations that might change | ||||
| the encoder clock frequency while maintaining the SSRC value. An | ||||
| encoder frequency change will be accompanied by a different | ||||
| RTP-PT. | ||||
| Units of Measurement: microseconds | ||||
| Measurment Timing Please refer to the measurement timing section of | ||||
| perfPacketLoss. | ||||
| 4.1.6. perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMin | ||||
| Name: perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMin | ||||
| Description: This metric measures the minimum value the calculation | ||||
| used for perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg within the monitoring | ||||
| interval. | ||||
| Observation Point: The observation can be made anywhere along the | ||||
| media path or on the receiver. The observation is only relevant | ||||
| in a unidirectional sense. | ||||
| Element Data Type: unsigned32 | ||||
| Element Semantics: quantity | ||||
| Element Units: microseconds | ||||
| Element Range Begin: 0 | ||||
| Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | ||||
| Element Id: TBDperfPacketInterArrivalJitterMin | ||||
| Status: current | ||||
| Use and Applications Please refer to the 'Use and Applications' | ||||
| section of perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg. This specific metric, | ||||
| along with perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMax, is to capture the | ||||
| range of measurements observed within a monitoring interval as the | ||||
| average function may hide extremes. | ||||
| Calculation Method: Please see the perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg | ||||
| section for general calculation section. The average calculation | ||||
| is evaluated on a running basis over the last 16 packets and the | ||||
| entire monitoring interval is not covered. In this metric, the | ||||
| minimum value is taken over the entire monitoring interval. | ||||
| Units of Measurement: microseconds | ||||
| Measurment Timing Please refer to the measurement timing section of | ||||
| perfPacketLoss. | ||||
| 4.1.7. perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMax | ||||
| Name: perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMax | ||||
| Description: This metric measures the maximum value the calculation | ||||
| used for perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg within the monitoring | ||||
| interval. | ||||
| Observation Point: The observation can be made anywhere along the | ||||
| media path or on the receiver. The observation is only relevant | ||||
| in a unidirectional sense. | ||||
| Element Data Type: unsigned32 | ||||
| Element Semantics: quantity | ||||
| Element Units: microseconds | ||||
| Element Range Begin: 0 | ||||
| Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | ||||
| Element Id: TBDperfPacketInterArrivalJitterMax | ||||
| Status: current | ||||
| Use and Applications Please refer to the 'Use and Applications' | ||||
| section of perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg. This specific metric, | ||||
| along with perfPacketInterArrivalJitterMin, is to capture the | ||||
| range of measurements observed within a monitoring interval as the | ||||
| average function may hide extremes. | ||||
| Calculation Method: Please see the perfPacketInterArrivalJitterAvg | ||||
| section for general calculation section. The average calculation | ||||
| is evaluated on a running basis over the last 16 packets and the | ||||
| entire monitoring interval is not covered. In this metric, the | ||||
| maximum value is taken over the entire monitoring interval. | ||||
| Units of Measurement: microseconds | ||||
| Measurment Timing Please refer to the measurement timing section of | ||||
| perfPacketLoss. | ||||
| 4.2. User and Application Layer | 4.2. User and Application Layer | |||
| 4.2.1. perfSessionSetupDelay | 4.2.1. perfSessionSetupDelay | |||
| Name: perfSessionSetupDelay | Name: perfSessionSetupDelay | |||
| Description: The Session Setup Delay metric reports the time taken | Description: The Session Setup Delay metric reports the time taken | |||
| from a request being initiated by a host/endpoint to the response | from a request being initiated by a host/endpoint to the response | |||
| (or request indicator) to the request being observed. This metric | (or request indicator) to the request being observed. This metric | |||
| is defined in [RFC4710], however the units have been updated to | is defined in [RFC4710], however the units have been updated to | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 28 ¶ | |||
| for perfSessionSetupDelay values calculated in the most recent | for perfSessionSetupDelay values calculated in the most recent | |||
| interval SHOULD be used. The intention with this behavior is to | interval SHOULD be used. The intention with this behavior is to | |||
| acknowledge that the value has not bee calculated, and when it has | acknowledge that the value has not bee calculated, and when it has | |||
| provide the freshest values available. | provide the freshest values available. | |||
| 4.3. Contextual Elements | 4.3. Contextual Elements | |||
| 4.3.1. mediaRTPSSRC | 4.3.1. mediaRTPSSRC | |||
| Name: mediaRTPSSRC | Name: mediaRTPSSRC | |||
| Description: Value of the syncronization source (SSRC) field in the | ||||
| Description: Value of the synchronization source (SSRC) field in the | ||||
| RTP header of the flow. This field is defined in [RFC3550] | RTP header of the flow. This field is defined in [RFC3550] | |||
| Observation Point: This metric can be gleaned from the RTP packets | Observation Point: This metric can be gleaned from the RTP packets | |||
| directly, so the observation point needs to on the flow path or | directly, so the observation point needs to on the flow path or | |||
| within the endpoints. | within the endpoints. | |||
| Element Data Type: unsigned32 | Element Data Type: unsigned32 | |||
| Element Semantics: identifier | Element Semantics: identifier | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 4 ¶ | |||
| Element Units: octets | Element Units: octets | |||
| Element Range Begin: 0 | Element Range Begin: 0 | |||
| Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | Element Range End: 0xFFFFFFFE | |||
| Element Id: TBDmediaRTPSSRC | Element Id: TBDmediaRTPSSRC | |||
| Status: current | Status: current | |||
| Use and Applications The RTP SSRC value denotes a specific media | Use and Applications The RTP SSRC value denotes a specific media | |||
| stream. As such when trying to differentiate media stream | stream. As such when trying to differentiate media stream | |||
| problems between session participants the SSRC field is needed. | problems between session participants the SSRC field is needed. | |||
| Calculation Method: Copy from RTP header's SSRC field as defined in | Calculation Method: Copy from RTP header's SSRC field as defined in | |||
| [RFC3550]. In the case of a non-RTP flow, or the time period in | [RFC3550]. In the case of a non-RTP flow, or the time period in | |||
| which the flow has not been verfied to be a RTP flow the value | which the flow has not been verified to be a RTP flow the value | |||
| 0xFFFFFFFE MUST be reported. | 0xFFFFFFFE MUST be reported. | |||
| Units of Measurement: identifer | Units of Measurement: identifier | |||
| Measurment Timing It is possible that the SSRC may have be | Measurment Timing It is possible that the SSRC may have be | |||
| renegotiated mid-session due to collisions with other RTP senders. | renegotiated mid-session due to collisions with other RTP senders. | |||
| 4.3.2. mediaRTPPayloadType | 4.3.2. mediaRTPPayloadType | |||
| Name: mediaRTPPayloadType | Name: mediaRTPPayloadType | |||
| Description: The value of the RTP Payload Type Field as seen in the | Description: The value of the RTP Payload Type Field as seen in the | |||
| RTP header of the flow. This field is defind in [RFC3550] | RTP header of the flow. This field is defined in [RFC3550] | |||
| Observation Point: This metric can be gleaned from the RTP packets | Observation Point: This metric can be gleaned from the RTP packets | |||
| directly, so the observation point needs to on the flow path or | directly, so the observation point needs to on the flow path or | |||
| within the endpoints. | within the endpoints. | |||
| Element Data Type: unsigned16 | Element Data Type: unsigned16 | |||
| Element Semantics: identifier | Element Semantics: identifier | |||
| Element Units: octets | Element Units: octets | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 45 ¶ | |||
| Element Range Begin: 0 | Element Range Begin: 0 | |||
| Element Range End: 0xFF | Element Range End: 0xFF | |||
| Element Id: TBDmediaRTPPayloadType | Element Id: TBDmediaRTPPayloadType | |||
| Status: current | Status: current | |||
| Use and Applications The RTP PT conveys the payload format and media | Use and Applications The RTP PT conveys the payload format and media | |||
| encoding used in the RTP payload. For simple cases, where the RTP | encoding used in the RTP payload. For simple cases, where the RTP | |||
| PT is from the statically defiend range this can lead to an | PT is from the statically defined range this can lead to an | |||
| understanding of type of media codec used. With the knowledge of | understanding of type of media codec used. With the knowledge of | |||
| the codec being used the degree of media impairment (given loss | the codec being used the degree of media impairment (given loss | |||
| values and jitter) can be estimated better. However, for more | values and jitter) can be estimated better. However, for more | |||
| recent codecs, the RTP dynamic range is used. In these cases the | recent codecs, the RTP dynamic range is used. In these cases the | |||
| RTP payload values are dynamically negotiated. In the case of a | RTP payload values are dynamically negotiated. In the case of a | |||
| non-RTP flow, or the time period in which the flow has not been | non-RTP flow, or the time period in which the flow has not been | |||
| verfied to be a RTP flow, the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. | verified to be a RTP flow, the value 0xFFFF MUST be reported. | |||
| Calculation Method: Copy from RTP header's RTP-PT field as defined | Calculation Method: Copy from RTP header's RTP-PT field as defined | |||
| in [RFC3550] | in [RFC3550] | |||
| Units of Measurement: identifer | Units of Measurement: identifier | |||
| Measurment Timing | ||||
| 4.3.3. mediaCodec | ||||
| Name: mediaCodec | ||||
| Description: The media codec used in the flow. | ||||
| Observation Point: The ideal location of this metric is on the media | ||||
| generators and consumers. However, given application inspection | ||||
| or static configuration it is possible that intermediate nodes are | ||||
| able to generate codec information. | ||||
| Element Data Type: string | ||||
| Element Semantics: identifier | ||||
| Element Units: octets | ||||
| Element Id: TBDmediaCodec | ||||
| Status: current | ||||
| Use and Applications The media codec value conveys the name of the | ||||
| codec used to encode the media in the flow being monitored. | ||||
| Simply reporting loss and jitter measurements are useful for | ||||
| detection of network problems. However, judging the degree of the | ||||
| impact on the audio/video experience needs additional information. | ||||
| The most basic information is the codec being used which when | ||||
| coupled with per-codec knowledge of sensitivity to the transport | ||||
| metrics a better idea of the experience can be gained. | ||||
| Calculation Method: The valid values for the mediaCodec are listed | ||||
| on the IANA media-types registry. Analysis of the RTP payload | ||||
| type may lead to the determination of the media codec. However, | ||||
| with the use of the RTP dynamic payload type range the media | ||||
| information is not encoded into the data packet. For these cases, | ||||
| intermediate nodes may need to perform inspection of the | ||||
| signalling (SIP, H.323, RTSP, etc.). In cases where the | ||||
| mediaCodec cannot be determined, the value 'unknown' MUST be used. | ||||
| Units of Measurement: identifier | ||||
| Measurment Timing | Measurment Timing | |||
| 5. Security Considerations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
| The recommendations in this document do not introduce any additional | The recommendations in this document do not introduce any additional | |||
| security issues to those already mentioned in [RFC5101] and [RFC5477] | security issues to those already mentioned in [RFC5101] and [RFC5477] | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 20, line 47 ¶ | |||
| [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. | [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. | |||
| Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time | Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time | |||
| Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. | Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. | |||
| [RFC3497] Gharai, L., Perkins, C., Goncher, G., and A. Mankin, "RTP | [RFC3497] Gharai, L., Perkins, C., Goncher, G., and A. Mankin, "RTP | |||
| Payload Format for Society of Motion Picture and | Payload Format for Society of Motion Picture and | |||
| Television Engineers (SMPTE) 292M Video", RFC 3497, | Television Engineers (SMPTE) 292M Video", RFC 3497, | |||
| March 2003. | March 2003. | |||
| [RFC3489] Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R. Mahy, | [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, | |||
| "STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) | "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, | |||
| Through Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489, | October 2008. | |||
| March 2003. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics] | [I-D.ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics] | |||
| Malas, D. and A. Morton, "Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End | Malas, D. and A. Morton, "Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End | |||
| Performance Metrics", draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07 | Performance Metrics", draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07 | |||
| (work in progress), September 2010. | (work in progress), September 2010. | |||
| [iana-ipfix-assignments] | [iana-ipfix-assignments] | |||
| Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IP Flow Information | Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IP Flow Information | |||
| Export Information Elements | Export Information Elements | |||
| (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml)". | (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml)". | |||
| End of changes. 39 change blocks. | ||||
| 80 lines changed or deleted | 386 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||