| < draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step-01.txt | draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step-02.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPPM Working Group G. Mirsky | IPPM Working Group G. Mirsky | |||
| Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. | Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. | |||
| Intended status: Informational W. Lingqiang | Intended status: Standards Track W. Lingqiang | |||
| Expires: January 3, 2019 G. Zhui | Expires: April 20, 2019 G. Zhui | |||
| ZTE Corporation | ZTE Corporation | |||
| July 2, 2018 | October 17, 2018 | |||
| Hybrid Two-Step Performance Measurement Method | Hybrid Two-Step Performance Measurement Method | |||
| draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step-01 | draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step-02 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Development of, and advancements in, automation of network operations | Development of, and advancements in, automation of network operations | |||
| brought new requirements for measurement methodology. Among them is | brought new requirements for measurement methodology. Among them is | |||
| the ability to collect instant network state as the packet being | the ability to collect instant network state as the packet being | |||
| processed by the networking elements along its path through the | processed by the networking elements along its path through the | |||
| domain. This document introduces a new hybrid measurement method, | domain. This document introduces a new hybrid measurement method, | |||
| referred to as hybrid two-step, as it separates the act of measuring | referred to as hybrid two-step, as it separates the act of measuring | |||
| and/or calculating performance metric from the act of collecting and | and/or calculating the performance metric from the act of collecting | |||
| transporting network state. | and transporting network state. | |||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| 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 January 3, 2019. | This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2019. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2018 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 | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶ | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
| 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3. Problem Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 3. Problem Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4.1. Operation of the HTS Ingress Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4.2. Operation of the HTS Transient Node . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.3. Operation of the HTS Egress Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.4. Considerations for HTS Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | ||||
| 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | ||||
| 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | ||||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Successful resolution of challenges of automated network operation, | Successful resolution of challenges of automated network operation, | |||
| as part of, for example, overall service orchestration or data center | as part of, for example, overall service orchestration or data center | |||
| operation, relies on a timely collection of accurate information that | operation, relies on a timely collection of accurate information that | |||
| reflects the state of network elements on an unprecedented scale. | reflects the state of network elements on an unprecedented scale. | |||
| Because performing the analysis and act upon the collected | Because performing the analysis and act upon the collected | |||
| information requires considerable computing and storage resources, | information requires considerable computing and storage resources, | |||
| the network state information is unlikely to be processed by network | the network state information is unlikely to be processed by the | |||
| elements themselves but will be relayed into the data storage | network elements themselves but will be relayed into the data storage | |||
| facilities, e.g. data lakes. The process of producing, collecting | facilities, e.g., data lakes. The process of producing, collecting | |||
| network state information also referred in this document as network | network state information also referred to in this document as | |||
| telemetry, and transporting it for post-processing should work | network telemetry, and transporting it for post-processing should | |||
| equally well with data flows or injected in the network test packets. | work equally well with data flows or injected in the network test | |||
| RFC 7799 [RFC7799] describes a combination of elements of passive and | packets. RFC 7799 [RFC7799] describes a combination of elements of | |||
| active measurement as a hybrid measurement. | passive and active measurement as a hybrid measurement. | |||
| Several technical methods have been proposed to enable collection of | Several technical methods have been proposed to enable collection of | |||
| network state information instantaneous to the packet processing, | network state information instantaneous to the packet processing, | |||
| among them [P4.INT] and [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. | among them [P4.INT] and [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. | |||
| This document introduces Hybrid Two-Step (HTS) as a new hybrid | This document introduces Hybrid Two-Step (HTS) as a new hybrid | |||
| measurement method that separates measuring or calculating | measurement method that separates measuring or calculating the | |||
| performance metric from the collecting and transporting this | performance metric from the collecting and transporting this | |||
| information. The Hybrid Two-Step method extends the two-step mode of | information. The Hybrid Two-Step method extends the two-step mode of | |||
| Residence Time Measurement (RTM) defined in [RFC8169] to on-path | Residence Time Measurement (RTM) defined in [RFC8169] to on-path | |||
| network state collection and transport. | network state collection and transport. | |||
| 2. Conventions used in this document | 2. Conventions used in this document | |||
| 2.1. Terminology | 2.1. Terminology | |||
| RTM Residence Time Measurement | RTM Residence Time Measurement | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 39 ¶ | |||
| 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. | |||
| 3. Problem Overview | 3. Problem Overview | |||
| Performance measurements are meant to provide data that characterize | Performance measurements are meant to provide data that characterize | |||
| conditions experienced by traffic flows in the network and possibly | conditions experienced by traffic flows in the network and possibly | |||
| trigger operational changes (e.g. - re-route of flows, or changes in | trigger operational changes (e.g., re-route of flows, or changes in | |||
| resource allocations). Changes to a network are determined based on | resource allocations). Modifications to a network are determined | |||
| the performance metric information available at the time that a | based on the performance metric information available at the time | |||
| change is to be made. The correctness of this determination is based | that a change is to be made. The correctness of this determination | |||
| on the quality of the collected metrics data. The quality of | is based on the quality of the collected metrics data. The quality | |||
| collected measurement data is defined is defined by: | of collected measurement data is defined by: | |||
| o the resolution and accuracy of each measurement; | o the resolution and accuracy of each measurement; | |||
| o predictability of both the time at which each measurement is made | o predictability of both the time at which each measurement is made | |||
| and the timeliness of measurement collection data delivery for | and the timeliness of measurement collection data delivery for | |||
| use. | use. | |||
| Consider the case of delay measurement that relies on collecting time | Consider the case of delay measurement that relies on collecting time | |||
| of packet arrival at the ingress interface and time of the packet | of packet arrival at the ingress interface and time of the packet | |||
| transmission at egress interface. The method may be to record a | transmission at the egress interface. The method includes recording | |||
| local clock value on receiving the first octet of an affected message | a local clock value on receiving the first octet of an affected | |||
| at the device ingress, and again to record the clock value on sending | message at the device ingress, and again recording the clock value on | |||
| the first byte of the same message at the device egress. In this | transmitting the first byte of the same message at the device egress. | |||
| ideal case, the difference between the two recorded clock times | In this ideal case, the difference between the two recorded clock | |||
| corresponds to the time that the message spent in traversing the | times corresponds to the time that the message spent in traversing | |||
| device. In practice, the times actually recorded can differ from the | the device. In practice, the time that has been recorded can differ | |||
| ideal case by any fixed amount and a correction may then be applied | from the ideal case by any fixed amount and a correction can be | |||
| to compute the same time difference taking into account the known | applied to compute the same time difference taking into account the | |||
| fixed time associated with the actual measurement. In this way, the | known fixed time associated with the actual measurement. In this | |||
| resulting time difference reflects any variable delay associated with | way, the resulting time difference reflects any variable delay | |||
| queuing. | associated with queuing. | |||
| Depending on the implementation, it may be a challenge to compute the | Depending on the implementation, it may be a challenge to compute the | |||
| difference between message arrival and departure times and - on the | difference between message arrival and departure times and - on the | |||
| fly - add the necessary residence time information to the same | fly - add the necessary residence time information to the same | |||
| message. And that task may become even more challenging if the | message. And that task may become even more challenging if the | |||
| packet is encrypted. Implementations SHOULD NOT record a message | packet is encrypted. Implementations SHOULD NOT record a message | |||
| departure time that may be significantly inaccurate in an effort to | departure time that may be significantly inaccurate in the same | |||
| include a correlated/computed delay value, in the same message, as a | message, as the result of estimating the departure time that includes | |||
| result of estimating the departure time while including any variable | the variable time component (such as that associated with buffering | |||
| time component (such as that associated with buffering and queuing of | and queuing of the message). A similar problem may cause a lower | |||
| messages). A similar problem may cause a lower quality of, for | quality of, for example, information that characterizes utilization | |||
| example, information that characterizes utilization of the egress | of the egress interface. If unable to obtain the data consistently, | |||
| interface. If unable to obtain the data consistently, without | without variable delays for additional processing, information may | |||
| variable delays for additional processing, information may not | not accurately reflect the state at the egress interface. To | |||
| accurately reflect the state at the egress interface. To mitigate | mitigate this problem [RFC8169] defined an RTM two-step mode. | |||
| this problem [RFC8169] defined RTM two-step mode. | ||||
| Another challenge associated with methods that collect network state | Another challenge associated with methods that collect network state | |||
| information into the actual data packet is the risk to exceed the | information into the actual data packet is the risk to exceed the | |||
| Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size, particularly if the packet | Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size, especially if the packet | |||
| traverses overlay domains or VPNs. Since the fragmentation is not | traverses overlay domains or VPNs. Since the fragmentation is not | |||
| available at the transport network, operators may have to reduce MTU | available at the transport network, operators may have to reduce MTU | |||
| size advertised to client layer or risk missing network state data | size advertised to client layer or risk missing network state data | |||
| for the part, most probably the latter part, of the path. | for the part, most probably the latter part, of the path. | |||
| 4. Theory of Operation | 4. Theory of Operation | |||
| The HTS method consists of the two phases: | The HTS method consists of the two phases: | |||
| o performing a measurement or obtaining network state information, | o performing a measurement or obtaining network state information, | |||
| one or more than one type, on a node; | one or more than one type, on a node; | |||
| o collecting and transporting the measurement. | o collecting and transporting the measurement. | |||
| HTS uses HTS Control message to define types of measurement or | HTS uses HTS Trigger carried in a data packet or a specially | |||
| network state data collection requested from a node. HTS Control | constructed test packet. Nature of the HTS Trigger is transport | |||
| message may be inserted into the data packet, as meta-data or shim, | network layer specific, and its description is outside the scope of | |||
| or be transmitted in a specially constructed test packet. | this document. The packet that includes the HTS Trigger in this | |||
| document also referred to as the trigger packet. | ||||
| To collect measurement and network state data from the nodes HTS | The HTS method uses the HTS Follow-up packet, in this document also | |||
| method uses the follow-up packet. The node that creates the HTS | referred to as the follow-up packet, to collect measurement and | |||
| Control message also originates the HTS follow-up packet. The | network state data from the nodes. The node that creates the HTS | |||
| follow-up packet contains characteristic information, copied from the | Trigger also generates the HTS Follow-up packet. The follow-up | |||
| data packet, sufficient for participating nodes to associate it with | packet contains characteristic information, copied from the trigger | |||
| packet, sufficient for participating HTS nodes to associate it with | ||||
| the original packet. The exact composition of the characteristic | the original packet. The exact composition of the characteristic | |||
| information is specific for each transport network and its definition | information is specific for each transport network, and its | |||
| is outside the scope of this document. The follow-up packet also | definition is outside the scope of this document. The follow-up | |||
| uses the same encapsulation as the data packet. If not payload but | packet also uses the same encapsulation as the data packet. If not | |||
| only network information used to load-balance flows in equal cost | payload but only network information used to load-balance flows in | |||
| multipath (ECMP), use of the network encapsulation identical to the | equal cost multipath (ECMP), use of the network encapsulation | |||
| data packet should guarantee that the follow-up packet remains in- | identical to the trigger packet should guarantee that the follow-up | |||
| band, i.e. traverses the same set of network elements, with the | packet remains in-band, i.e., traverses the same set of network | |||
| original data packet. Only one outstanding follow-up packet may be | elements, with the original data packet with the HTS Trigger. Only | |||
| on the node for the given path. That means that if the node receives | one outstanding follow-up packet MUST be on the node for the given | |||
| HTS Control message for the flow on which it still waits for the | path. That means that if the node receives an HTS Trigger for the | |||
| follow-up packet to the previous HTS Control message, the node will | flow on which it still waits for the follow-up packet to the previous | |||
| originate the follow-up packet to transport the former set of the | HTS Trigger, the node will originate the follow-up packet to | |||
| network state data and transmit it before it transmits the follow-up | transport the former set of the network state data and transmit it | |||
| packet with the latest set of network state information. | before it sends the follow-up packet with the latest collection of | |||
| network state information. | ||||
| 4.1. Operation of the HTS Ingress Node | ||||
| A node that originates the HTS Trigger is referred to as HTS ingress | ||||
| node. As stated, the ingress node originates the follow-up packet. | ||||
| The follow-up packet has the transport network encapsulation | ||||
| identical with the trigger packet followed by the HTS shim and one or | ||||
| more telemetry information elements encoded as Type-Length-Value | ||||
| {TLV}. Figure 1 displays the example of the follow-up packet format. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | | | ||||
| ~ Transport Network ~ | ||||
| | Encapsulation | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| |Ver|HTS Shim Len| Flags | Sequence Number | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Telemetry Data Profile | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | | | ||||
| ~ Telemetry Data TLVs ~ | ||||
| | | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Figure 1: Follow-up Packet Format | ||||
| Fields of the HTS shim are as follows: | ||||
| Version (Ver) is the two-bits long field. It specifies the | ||||
| version of the HTS shim format. This document defines the format | ||||
| for the 0b00 value of the field. | ||||
| HTS Shim Length is the six bits-long field. It defines the length | ||||
| of the HTS shim in bytes. The minimal value of the field is four | ||||
| bytes. | ||||
| Flags is eight-bits long field. The format of the Flags field | ||||
| displayed in Figure 2. | ||||
| Full (F) flag MUST be set to zero by the node originating the | ||||
| HTS follow-up packet and MUST be set to one by the node that | ||||
| does not add its telemetry data to avoid exceeding MTU size. | ||||
| The node originating the follow-up packet MUST zero the | ||||
| Reserved field and ignore it on the receipt. | ||||
| Sequence Number is 16 bits-long field. The value of the field | ||||
| reflects the number of the HTS follow-up packet in the sequence of | ||||
| the HTS follow-up packets originated in response to the same HTS | ||||
| trigger. The ingress node MUST set the value of the field to | ||||
| zero. | ||||
| Telemetry Data Profile is the optional variable length field of | ||||
| bit-size flags. Each flag indicates requested type of telemetry | ||||
| data to be collected at the each HTS node. The increment of the | ||||
| field is four bytes with a minimum length of zero. | ||||
| 0 | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| |F| Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Figure 2: Flags Field Format | ||||
| 4.2. Operation of the HTS Transient Node | ||||
| Upon receiving the trigger packet the HTS transient node MUST: | ||||
| o copy the transport information; | ||||
| o start the HTS Follow-up Timer for the obtained flow. | ||||
| Upon receiving the follow-up packet the HTS transient node MUST: | ||||
| o verify that the matching transport information exists and the Full | ||||
| flag is cleared, then stop the associated HTS Follow-up timer; | ||||
| o collect telemetry data requested in the Telemetry Data Profile | ||||
| field or defined by the local HTS policy; | ||||
| o if adding the collected telemetry would not exceed MTU, then | ||||
| append data into Telemetry Data TLVs field and transmit the | ||||
| follow-up packet; | ||||
| o otherwise, set the value of the Full flag to one and transmit the | ||||
| received a follow-up packet; | ||||
| o originate the new follow-up packet using the same transport | ||||
| information. The value of the Sequence Number field in the HTS | ||||
| shim MUST be set to the value of the field in the received follow- | ||||
| up packet incremented by one. Copy collected telemetry data and | ||||
| transmit the packet. | ||||
| If the follow-up timer expires the transient node MUST: | ||||
| o originate the follow-up packet using transport information | ||||
| associated with the expired timer; | ||||
| o initialize the HTS shim by setting Version field to 0b00 and | ||||
| Sequence Number field to 0. Values of HTS Shim Length and | ||||
| Telemetry Data Profile fields MAY be set according to the local | ||||
| policy. | ||||
| o copy telemetry information into Telemetry Data TLVs field and | ||||
| transmit the packet. | ||||
| 4.3. Operation of the HTS Egress Node | ||||
| Upon receiving the trigger packet the HTS egress node MUST: | ||||
| o copy the transport information; | ||||
| o start the HTS Collection timer for the obtained flow. | ||||
| When the egress node receives the follow-up packet for the known | ||||
| flow, i.e., the flow to which the Collection timer is running, the | ||||
| node MUST: | ||||
| o copy telemetry information; | ||||
| o restart the corresponding Collection timer. | ||||
| When the Collection timer expires the egress relays the collected | ||||
| telemetry information for processing and analysis to a local or | ||||
| remote agent. | ||||
| 4.4. Considerations for HTS Timers | ||||
| This specification defines two timers - HTS Follow-up and HTS | ||||
| Collection. Because for the particular flow there MUST be not more | ||||
| than one HTS Trigger, values of HTS timers bounded by the rate of the | ||||
| trigger generation for that flow. | ||||
| 5. IANA Considerations | 5. IANA Considerations | |||
| This document doesn't have any IANA requirements. The section may be | TBD | |||
| deleted before the publication. | ||||
| 6. Security Considerations | 6. Security Considerations | |||
| Nodes that practice HTS method are presumed to share a trust model | Nodes that practice HTS method are presumed to share a trust model | |||
| that depends on the existence of a trusted relationship among nodes. | that depends on the existence of a trusted relationship among nodes. | |||
| This is necessary as these nodes are expected to correctly modify the | This is necessary as these nodes are expected to correctly modify the | |||
| specific content of the data in the follow-up packet, and the degree | specific content of the data in the follow-up packet, and the degree | |||
| to which HTS measurement is useful for network operation depends on | to which HTS measurement is useful for network operation depends on | |||
| this ability. In practice, this means that those portions of | this ability. In practice, this means either confidentiality or | |||
| messages that contain the network state data cannot be covered by | integrity protection cannot cover those portions of messages that | |||
| either confidentiality or integrity protection. Though there are | contain the network state data. Though there are methods that make | |||
| methods that make it possible in theory to provide either or both | it possible in theory to provide either or both such protections and | |||
| such protections and still allow for intermediate nodes to make | still allow for intermediate nodes to make detectable yet | |||
| detectable but authenticated modifications, such methods do not seem | authenticated modifications, such methods do not seem practical at | |||
| practical at present, particularly for protocols that used to measure | present, particularly for protocols that used to measure latency and/ | |||
| latency and/or jitter. | or jitter. | |||
| The ability to potentially authenticate and/or encrypt the network | The ability to potentially authenticate and/or encrypt the network | |||
| state data for scenarios both with and without the participation of | state data for scenarios both with and without the participation of | |||
| intermediate nodes that participate in HTS measurement is left for | intermediate nodes that participate in HTS measurement is left for | |||
| further study. | further study. | |||
| While it is possible for a supposed compromised node to intercept and | While it is possible for a supposed compromised node to intercept and | |||
| modify the network state information in the follow-up packet, this is | modify the network state information in the follow-up packet, this is | |||
| an issue that exists for nodes in general - for any and all data that | an issue that exists for nodes in general - for all data that to be | |||
| may be carried over the particular networking technology - and is | carried over the particular networking technology - and is therefore | |||
| therefore the basis for an additional presumed trust model associated | the basis for an additional presumed trust model associated with an | |||
| with an existing network. | existing network. | |||
| 7. Acknowledgments | 7. Acknowledgments | |||
| TBD | Authors express their gratitude and appreciation to Joel Halpern for | |||
| the most helpful and insightful discussion on the applicability of | ||||
| HTS in a Service Function Chaining domain. | ||||
| 8. References | 8. References | |||
| 8.1. Normative References | 8.1. Normative References | |||
| [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, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
| End of changes. 19 change blocks. | ||||
| 90 lines changed or deleted | 232 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/ | ||||