< draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-00.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-01.txt >
Network Working Group G. Fioccola, Ed. Network Working Group G. Fioccola, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Obsoletes: 8889 (if approved) M. Cociglio Obsoletes: 8889 (if approved) M. Cociglio
Intended status: Standards Track Telecom Italia Intended status: Standards Track Telecom Italia
Expires: October 28, 2022 A. Sapio Expires: October 30, 2022 A. Sapio
Intel Corporation Intel Corporation
R. Sisto R. Sisto
Politecnico di Torino Politecnico di Torino
T. Zhou T. Zhou
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
April 26, 2022 April 28, 2022
Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method Multipoint Alternate-Marking Clustered Method
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-00 draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-01
Abstract Abstract
This document generalizes and expands Alternate-Marking methodology This document generalizes and expands Alternate-Marking methodology
to measure any kind of unicast flow whose packets can follow several to measure any kind of unicast flow whose packets can follow several
different paths in the network -- in wider terms, a multipoint-to- different paths in the network -- in wider terms, a multipoint-to-
multipoint network. For this reason, the technique here described is multipoint network. For this reason, the technique here described is
called "Multipoint Alternate Marking". This document obsoletes called "Multipoint Alternate Marking". This document obsoletes
[RFC8889]. [RFC8889].
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 October 28, 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 30, 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. Summary of Changes from RFC 8889 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Correlation with RFC 5644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Correlation with RFC 5644 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Flow Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Flow Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Extension of the Method to Multipoint Flows . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Extension of the Method to Multipoint Flows . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Monitoring Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Monitoring Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Network Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Network Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Network Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Network Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Algorithm for Clusters Partition . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1. Algorithm for Clusters Partition . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Multipoint Packet Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Multipoint Packet Loss Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Multipoint Delay and Delay Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Multipoint Delay and Delay Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Delay Measurements on a Multipoint-Paths Basis . . . . . 17 7.1. Delay Measurements on a Multipoint-Paths Basis . . . . . 17
7.1.1. Single-Marking Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.1.1. Single-Marking Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Delay Measurements on a Single-Packet Basis . . . . . . . 17 7.2. Delay Measurements on a Single-Packet Basis . . . . . . . 18
7.2.1. Single- and Double-Marking Measurement . . . . . . . 17 7.2.1. Single- and Double-Marking Measurement . . . . . . . 18
7.2.2. Hashing Selection Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.2.2. Hashing Selection Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Synchronization and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Synchronization and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Results of the Multipoint Alternate Marking Experiment . . . 21 9. Results of the Multipoint Alternate Marking Experiment . . . 21
10. A Closed-Loop Performance-Management Approach . . . . . . . . 21 10. A Closed-Loop Performance-Management Approach . . . . . . . . 22
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A. Changes Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix A. Changes Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Alternate-Marking method, as described in The Alternate-Marking Method, as described in
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis], is applicable to a point-to-point path. [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis], is applicable to a point-to-point path.
The extension proposed in this document applies to the most general The extension proposed in this document applies to the most general
case of a multipoint-to-multipoint path and enables flexible and case of a multipoint-to-multipoint path and enables flexible and
adaptive performance measurements in a managed network. adaptive performance measurements in a managed network.
The Alternate-Marking methodology described in The Alternate-Marking methodology described in
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis] allows the synchronization of the [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis] allows the synchronization of the
measurements at different points by dividing the packet flow into measurements at different points by dividing the packet flow into
batches. So it is possible to get coherent counters and show what is batches. So it is possible to get coherent counters and show what is
happening in every marking period for each monitored flow. The happening in every marking period for each monitored flow. The
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
fixed number of packets is possible but it is out of scope here. fixed number of packets is possible but it is out of scope here.
Note that the fragmented packets case can be managed with the Note that the fragmented packets case can be managed with the
Alternate-Marking methodology. The same considerations of Alternate-Marking methodology. The same considerations of
[I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis] apply also in the case of Multipoint [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis] apply also in the case of Multipoint
Alternate Marking. As defined in [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis] the Alternate Marking. As defined in [I-D.fioccola-rfc8321bis] the
marking node MUST mark all the fragments except in the case of marking node MUST mark all the fragments except in the case of
fragmentation within the network domain, in that event it is fragmentation within the network domain, in that event it is
suggested to mark only the first fragment. suggested to mark only the first fragment.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Summary of Changes from RFC 8889
This document defines the Multipoint Alternate-Marking Method,
addressing ambiguities and overtaking its experimental phase in the
original specification [RFC8889].
The relevant changes are:
o Added the recommendations about the different deployments in case
one or two flag bits are available for marking (Section 9).
o Changed the structure to improve the readability.
o Removed the wording about the experimentation of the method and
considerations that no longer apply.
o Revised the description of detailed aspects of the methodology,
e.g. synchronization and timing.
It is important to note that all the changes are totally backward
compatible with [RFC8889] and no new additional technique has been
introduced in this document compared to [RFC8889].
1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The definitions of the basic terms are identical to those found in The definitions of the basic terms are identical to those found in
skipping to change at page 26, line 39 skipping to change at page 27, line 21
o New section on "Multipoint Packet Loss Measurement" o New section on "Multipoint Packet Loss Measurement"
o Renamed section on "Multipoint Performance Measurement" as o Renamed section on "Multipoint Performance Measurement" as
"Extension of the Method to Multipoint Flows" "Extension of the Method to Multipoint Flows"
Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-04/draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-00 Changes in draft-fioccola-rfc8889bis-04/draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-00
include: include:
o Revised section 5.1 on "Algorithm for Clusters Partition" o Revised section 5.1 on "Algorithm for Clusters Partition"
Changes in draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-01 include:
o New section on "Summary of Changes from RFC 8889"
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Giuseppe Fioccola (editor) Giuseppe Fioccola (editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Riesstrasse, 25 Riesstrasse, 25
Munich 80992 Munich 80992
Germany Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Mauro Cociglio Mauro Cociglio
Telecom Italia Telecom Italia
Via Reiss Romoli, 274 Via Reiss Romoli, 274
Torino 10148 Torino 10148
Italy Italy
Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it
Amedeo Sapio Amedeo Sapio
Intel Corporation Intel Corporation
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 52 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/