< draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-03.txt		draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04.txt >
	Network Working Group J. Fabini		Network Working Group J. Fabini
	Internet-Draft Vienna University of Technology		Internet-Draft Vienna University of Technology
	Updates: 2330 (if approved) A. Morton		Updates: 2330 (if approved) A. Morton
	Intended status: Informational AT&T Labs		Intended status: Informational AT&T Labs
	Expires: September 24, 2014 March 23, 2014		Expires: October 18, 2014 April 16, 2014
	Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM		Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IPPM
	draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-03		draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	To obtain repeatable results in modern networks, test descriptions		To obtain repeatable results in modern networks, test descriptions
	need an expanded stream parameter framework that also augments		need an expanded stream parameter framework that also augments
	aspects specified as Type-P for test packets. This memo proposes to		aspects specified as Type-P for test packets. This memo updates the
	update the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework with advanced		IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC 2330 with advanced
	considerations for measurement methodology and testing. The existing		considerations for measurement methodology and testing. The existing
	framework mostly assumes deterministic connectivity, and that a		framework mostly assumes deterministic connectivity, and that a
	single test stream will represent the characteristics of the path		single test stream will represent the characteristics of the path
	when it is aggregated with other flows. Networks have evolved and		when it is aggregated with other flows. Networks have evolved and
	test stream descriptions must evolve with them, otherwise unexpected		test stream descriptions must evolve with them, otherwise unexpected
	network features may dominate the measured performance. This memo		network features may dominate the measured performance. This memo
	describes new stream parameters for both network characterization and		describes new stream parameters for both network characterization and
	support of application design using IPPM metrics.		support of application design using IPPM metrics.
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶
	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 September 24, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 18, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 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 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶
	1.1. Definition: Reactive Path Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Definition: Reactive Path Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. New or Revised Stream Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. New or Revised Stream Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1. Test Packet Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.1. Test Packet Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.1.1. Multiple Test Packet Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.1.1. Multiple Test Packet Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.1.2. Test Packet Payload Content Optimization . . . . . . 7		3.1.2. Test Packet Payload Content Optimization . . . . . . 7
	3.2. Packet History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.2. Packet History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.3. Access Technology Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.3. Access Technology Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.4. Time-Slotted Randomness Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.4. Time-Slotted Randomness Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4. Quality of Metrics and Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4. Quality of Metrics and Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4.1. Repeatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.1. Repeatability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2. Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2. Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.3. Actionable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.3. Actionable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.4. Conservative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.4. Conservative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.5. Spatial and Temporal Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.5. Spatial and Temporal Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.6. Poisson Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.6. Poisson Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a		The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a
	framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has		framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has
	stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental		stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental
	metrics, while only being updated once in a specific area [RFC5835].		metrics, while only being updated once in a specific area [RFC5835].
	skipping to change at page 3, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 32 ¶
	[RFC2330] must be extended to capture the reactive nature of these		[RFC2330] must be extended to capture the reactive nature of these
	networks. Although the proposed extensions can support methodologies		networks. Although the proposed extensions can support methodologies
	to fulfill the continuity requirement stated in section 6.2 of		to fulfill the continuity requirement stated in section 6.2 of
	[RFC2330], there is no guarantee. Practical measurements confirm		[RFC2330], there is no guarantee. Practical measurements confirm
	that some link types exhibit distinct responses to repeated		that some link types exhibit distinct responses to repeated
	measurements with identical stimulus, i.e., identical traffic		measurements with identical stimulus, i.e., identical traffic
	patterns. If feasible, appropriate fine-tuning of measurement		patterns. If feasible, appropriate fine-tuning of measurement
	traffic patterns can improve measurement continuity and repeatability		traffic patterns can improve measurement continuity and repeatability
	for these link types as shown in [IBD].		for these link types as shown in [IBD].
			This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework
			[RFC2330] with advanced considerations for measurement methodology
			and testing.
	We stress that this update of [RFC2330] does not invalidate or		We stress that this update of [RFC2330] does not invalidate or
	require changes to the analytic metric definitions prepared in the		require changes to the analytic metric definitions prepared in the
	IPPM working group to date. Rather, it adds considerations for		IPPM working group to date. Rather, it adds considerations for
	active measurement methodologies and expands the importance of		active measurement methodologies and expands the importance of
	existing conventions and notions in [RFC2330], such as "packets of		existing conventions and notions in [RFC2330], such as "packets of
	Type-P".		Type-P".
	Among the evolutionary networking changes is a phenomenon we call		Among the evolutionary networking changes is a phenomenon we call
	"reactive behavior", defined below.		"reactive behavior", defined below.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 4 ¶
	This memo makes no requests of IANA.		This memo makes no requests of IANA.
	8. Acknowledgements		8. Acknowledgements
	The authors thank Rudiger Geib, Matt Mathis and Konstantinos		The authors thank Rudiger Geib, Matt Mathis and Konstantinos
	Pentikousis for their helpful comments on this memo, and Ann Cerveny		Pentikousis for their helpful comments on this memo, and Ann Cerveny
	for her editorial review and comments that helped to improve		for her editorial review and comments that helped to improve
	readability overall.		readability overall.
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
	3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,		[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
	"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May		"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
	1998.		1998.
	[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way		[RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
	Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.		Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.
	[RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
	Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
	[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network		[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network
	performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,		performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
	November 2002.		November 2002.
	[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.		[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
	Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol		Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
	(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.		(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
	[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.		[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
	Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",		Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
	RFC 5357, October 2008.		RFC 5357, October 2008.
	[RFC5657] Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
	and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
	Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.
	[RFC5835] Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for Metric		[RFC5835] Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for Metric
	Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010.		Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010.
	[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of		[RFC6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
	Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.		Metrics", RFC 6049, January 2011.
	[RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP		[RFC6576] Geib, R., Morton, A., Fardid, R., and A. Steinmitz, "IP
	Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",		Performance Metrics (IPPM) Standard Advancement Testing",
	BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.		BCP 176, RFC 6576, March 2012.
	skipping to change at page 15, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 17 ¶
	Considerations on Delay in 3G HSPA Networks", Lecture		Considerations on Delay in 3G HSPA Networks", Lecture
	Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Volume 5550, 2009, pp		Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Volume 5550, 2009, pp
	301-312 , May 2009.		301-312 , May 2009.
	[IRR] Fabini, J., Wallentin, L., and P. Reichl, "The Importance		[IRR] Fabini, J., Wallentin, L., and P. Reichl, "The Importance
	of Being Really Random: Methodological Aspects of IP-Layer		of Being Really Random: Methodological Aspects of IP-Layer
	2G and 3G Network Delay Assessment", ICC'09 Proceedings of		2G and 3G Network Delay Assessment", ICC'09 Proceedings of
	the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Communications,		the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Communications,
	doi: 10.1109/ICC.2009.5199514, June 2009.		doi: 10.1109/ICC.2009.5199514, June 2009.
			[Mat98] Mathis, M., "Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity", IP
			Performance Metrics Working Group report in Proceeding of
			the Forty Third Internet Engineering Task Force, Orlando,
			FL. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/slides/
			ippm-mathis-98dec.pdf, December 1998.
	[RFC3148] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining		[RFC3148] Mathis, M. and M. Allman, "A Framework for Defining
	Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148, July		Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148, July
	2001.		2001.
	[RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test		[RFC6808] Ciavattone, L., Geib, R., Morton, A., and M. Wieser, "Test
	Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the		Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679 on the
	Standards Track", RFC 6808, December 2012.		Standards Track", RFC 6808, December 2012.
	[RFC6985] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet		[RFC6985] Morton, A., "IMIX Genome: Specification of Variable Packet
	Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985, July 2013.		Sizes for Additional Testing", RFC 6985, July 2013.
End of changes. 13 change blocks.
	20 lines changed or deleted		19 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/