idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 2, 2015) is 3098 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC 5644' is mentioned on line 321, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-04 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Morton 3 Internet-Draft AT&T Labs 4 Intended status: Informational November 2, 2015 5 Expires: May 5, 2016 7 Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and everything in-between, or 8 Hybrid) 9 draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-03 11 Abstract 13 This memo provides clear definitions for Active and Passive 14 performance assessment. The construction of Metrics and Methods can 15 be described as Active or Passive. Some methods may use a subset of 16 both active and passive attributes, and we refer to these as Hybrid 17 Methods. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2016. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3.1. Performance Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3.2. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3.3. Observation Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3.4. Active Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3.5. Active Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 3.6. Passive Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.7. Passive Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 4.1. Graphical Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 4.2. Discussion of PDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 4.4. Brief Discussion of OAM Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 78 1. Introduction 80 The adjectives "active" and "passive" have been used for many years 81 to distinguish two different classes of Internet performance 82 assessment. The first Passive and Active Measurement (PAM) 83 Conference was held in 2000, but the earliest proceedings available 84 on-line are from the second PAM conference in 2001 85 [https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/pam-2001]. 87 The notions of "active" and "passive" are well-established. In 88 general: 90 An Active metric or method depends on a dedicated measurement 91 packet stream and observations of the stream. 93 A Passive metric or method depends *solely* on observation of one 94 or more existing packet streams. The streams only serve 95 measurement when they are observed for that purpose, and are 96 present whether measurements take place or not. 98 As new techniques for assessment emerge it is helpful to have clear 99 definitions of these notions. This memo provides more detailed 100 definitions, defines a new category for combinations of traditional 101 active and passive techniques, and discusses means to evaluate new 102 techniques as they emerge. 104 This memo provides definitions for Active and Passive Metrics and 105 Methods based on long usage in the Internet measurement community, 106 and especially the Internet Engineering Task Force. This memo also 107 describes the comnination of fundamental Active and Passive 108 categories, which are called Hybrid Methods and Metrics. 110 1.1. Requirements Language 112 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 113 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 114 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 116 2. Purpose and Scope 118 The scope of this memo is to define and describe Active and Passive 119 versions of metrics and methods which are consistent with the long- 120 time usage of these adjectives in the Internet measurement community 121 and especially the Internet Engineering Task Force. Since the 122 science of measurement is expanding, we provide a category for 123 combinations of the traditional extremes, treating Active and Passive 124 as a continuum and designating combinations of their attributes as 125 Hybrid methods. 127 Further, this memo's purpose includes describing multiple dimensions 128 in which to evaluate methods as they emerge. 130 3. Terms and Definitions 132 This section defines the key terms of the memo. Some definitions use 133 the notion of "stream of interest" which is synonymous with 134 "population of interest" defined in clause 6.1.1 of ITU-T 135 Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540]. The definitions are consistent with 136 [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive]. 138 3.1. Performance Metric 140 The standard definition of a quantity, produced in an assessment of 141 performance and/or reliability of the network, which has an intended 142 utility and is carefully specified to convey the exact meaning of a 143 measured value. (This definition is consistent with that of 144 Performance Metric in [RFC2330] and [RFC6390]). 146 3.2. Method of Measurement 148 The procedure or set of operations having the object of determining a 149 Measured Value or Measurement Result. 151 3.3. Observation Point 153 See section 2 of [RFC7011] for this definition (a location in the 154 network where packets can be observed), and related definitions. The 155 comparable term defined in IETF literature on Active measurement is 156 Measurement Point, see section 4.1 of [RFC5835]. Two terms have come 157 into use describing similar actions at the identified point in the 158 network path. 160 3.4. Active Methods 162 Active measurement methods have the following attributes: 164 1. Commonly, the packet stream of interest is generated as the basis 165 of measurement. Sometimes, the adjective "synthetic" is used to 166 categorize Active measurement streams [Y.1731]. Accompanying 167 packet stream(s) may be generated to increase overall traffic 168 load, though the loading stream(s) may not be measured. 170 2. The packets in the stream of interest have fields or field values 171 (or are augmented or modified to include fields or field values) 172 which are dedicated to measurement. Since measurement usually 173 requires determining the corresponding packets at multiple 174 measurement points, a sequence number is the most common 175 information dedicated to measurement, and often combined with a 176 timestamp. 178 3. The Source and Destination of the packet stream of interest are 179 usually known a priori. 181 4. The characteristics of the packet stream of interest are known at 182 the Source at least, and may be communicated to Destination as 183 part of the method. Note that some packet characteristics will 184 normaly change during packet forwarding. Other changes along the 185 path are possible, see [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep]. 187 When adding traffic to the network for measurement, Active Methods 188 influence the quantities measured to some degree, and those 189 performing tests should take steps to quantify the effect(s) and/or 190 minimize such effects. 192 3.5. Active Metric 194 An Active Metric incorporates one or more of the aspects of Active 195 Methods in the metric definition. 197 For example, IETF metrics for IP performance (developed according to 198 the [RFC2330] framework) include the Source packet stream 199 characteristics as metric input parameters, and also specify the 200 packet characteristics (Type-P) and Source and Destination IP 201 addresses (with their implications on both stream treatment and 202 interfaces associated with measurement points). 204 3.6. Passive Methods 206 Passive measurement methods are 208 o based solely on observations of undisturbed and unmodified packet 209 stream of interest (in other words, the method of measurement MUST 210 NOT add, change, or remove fields, or change field values anywhere 211 along the path). 213 o dependent on the existence of one or more packet streams to supply 214 the stream of interest 216 o dependent on the presence of the packet stream of interest at one 217 or more designated observation points. 219 Some passive methods simply observe and collect information on all 220 packets that pass Observation Point(s), while others filter the 221 packets as a first step and only collect information on packets that 222 match the filter criteria, and thereby narrow the stream of interest. 224 It is common that passive methods are conducted at one or more 225 Observation Points. Passive methods to assess Performance Metrics 226 often require multiple observation points, e.g., to assess latency of 227 packet transfer across a network path between two Observation Points. 228 In this case, the observed packets must include enough information to 229 determine the corresponding packets at different Observation Points. 231 Communication of the observations (in some form) to a collector is an 232 essential aspect of Passive Methods. In some configurations, the 233 traffic load associated with results export to a collector may 234 influence the network performance. However, the collection of 235 results is not unique to Passive Methods, and the load from 236 management and operations of measurement systems must always be 237 considered for potential effects on the measured values. 239 3.7. Passive Metric 241 Passive Metrics apply to observations of packet traffic (traffic 242 flows in [RFC7011]). 244 Passive performance metrics are assessed independent of the packets 245 or traffic flows, and solely through observation. Some refer to such 246 assessments as "out-of-band". 248 One example of passive performance metrics for IP packet transfer can 249 be found in ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540], where the metrics 250 are defined on the basis of reference events generated as packet pass 251 reference points. The metrics are agnostic to the distinction 252 between active and passive when the necessary packet correspondence 253 can be derived from the observed stream of interest as required. 255 3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics 257 Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement which use a combination of 258 Active Methods and Passive Methods, to assess Active Metrics, Passive 259 Metrics, or new metrics derived from the a priori knowledge and 260 observations of the stream of interest. ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 261 [Y.1540] defines metrics that are also applicable to the hybrid 262 categories, since packet correspondence at different observation/ 263 reference points could be derived from "fields or field values which 264 are dedicated to measurement", but otherwise the methods are passive. 266 There are several types of Hybrid methods, as categorized below. 268 With respect to a *single* stream of interest, Hybrid Type I methods 269 fit in the continuum as follows, in terms of what happens at the 270 Source (or Observation Point nearby): 272 o If you generate the stream of interest => Active 274 o If you augment or modify the stream of interest, or employ methods 275 that modify the treatment of the stream => Hybrid Type I 277 o If you solely observe a stream of interest => Passive 279 As an example, consider the case where the method generates traffic 280 load stream(s), and observes an existing stream of interest according 281 to the criteria for Passive Methods. Since loading streams are an 282 aspect of Active Methods, the stream of interest is not "solely 283 observed", and the measurements involve a single stream of interest 284 whose treatment has been modified both the presence of the load. 285 Therefore, this is a Hybrid Type I method. 287 We define Hybrid Type II as follows: Methods that employ two or more 288 different streams of interest with some degree of mutual coordination 289 (e.g., one or more Active streams and one or more undisturbed and 290 unmodified packet streams) to collect both Active and Passive Metrics 291 and enable enhanced characterization from additional joint analysis. 292 [I-D.trammell-ippm-hybrid-ps] presents a problem statement for Hybrid 293 Type II methods and metrics. Note that one or more Hybrid Type I 294 streams could be substituted for the Active streams or undisturbed 295 streams in the mutually coordinated set. It is the Type II Methods 296 where unique Hybrid Metrics are anticipated to emerge. 298 Methods based on a combination of a single (generated) Active stream 299 and Passive observations applied to the stream of interest at 300 intermediate observation points are also a type of Hybrid Methods. 301 However, [RFC5644] already defines these as Spatial Metrics and 302 Methods. It is possible to replace the Active stream of [RFC5644] 303 with a Hybrid Type I stream and measure Spatial Metrics (but this was 304 un-anticipated when [RFC5644] was developed). 306 The Table below illustrates the categorization of methods (where 307 "Synthesis" refers to a combination of Active and Passive Method 308 attributes). 310 | Single Stream | Multiple Simultaneous 311 | of Interest | Streams of Interest 312 | | from Different Methods 313 ==================================================================== 314 Single Fundamental | Active or Passive | 315 Method | | 317 Synthesis of | Hybrid Type I | 318 Fundamental Methods | | 320 Multiple Methods | Spatial Metrics | Hybrid Type II 321 | [RFC 5644] | 323 There may be circumstances where results measured with Hybrid Methods 324 can be considered equivalent to Passive Methods. Referencing the 325 notion of a "class C" where packets of different Type-P are treated 326 equally in Section 13 of [RFC2330]and the terminology for paths from 327 Section 5 of [RFC2330]: 329 Hybrid Methods of Measurement that augment or modify packets of a 330 "class C" in a host should produce equivalent results to Passive 331 Methods of Measurement, when hosts accessing and links transporting 332 these packets along the path (other than those performing 333 augmentation/modification) treat packets from both categories of 334 methods (with and without the augmentation/modification) as the same 335 "class C". The Passive Methods of Measurement represent the Ground 336 Truth for comparisons of results between Passive and Hybrid methods, 337 and this comparison should be conducted to confirm the class C 338 treatment. 340 4. Discussion 342 This section illustrates the definitions and presents some examples. 344 4.1. Graphical Representation 346 If we compare the Active and Passive Methods, there are at least two 347 dimensions on which methods can be evaluated. This evaluation space 348 may be useful when a method is a combination of the two alternative 349 methods. 351 The two dimensions (initially chosen) are: 353 Y-Axis: "Effect of the measured stream on network conditions." The 354 degree to which the stream of interest biases overall network 355 conditions experienced by that stream and other streams. This is 356 a key dimension for Active measurement error analysis. (Comment: 357 There is also the notion of time averages - a measurement stream 358 may have significant effect while it is present, but the stream is 359 only generated 0.1% of the time. On the other hand, observations 360 alone have no effect on network performance. To keep these 361 dimensions simple, we consider the stream effect only when it is 362 present, but note that reactive networks defined in [RFC7312] may 363 exhibit bias for some time beyond the life of a stream.) 365 X-Axis: "a priori Stream Knowledge." The degree to which stream 366 characteristics are know a priori. There are methodological 367 advantages of knowing the source stream characteristics, and 368 having complete control of the stream characteristics. For 369 example, knowing the number of packets in a stream allows more 370 efficient operation of the measurement receiver, and so is an 371 asset for active measurement methods. Passive methods (with no 372 sample filter) have few clues available to anticipate what the 373 protocol first packet observed will use or how many packets will 374 comprise the flow, but once the standard protocol of a flow is 375 known the possibilities narrow (for some compliant flows). 376 Therefore this is a key dimension for Passive measurement error 377 analysis. 379 There are a few examples we can plot on a two-dimensional space. We 380 can anchor the dimensions with reference point descriptions. 382 Y-Axis:Effect of the measured stream on network conditions 383 ^ Max 384 |* Active using max capacity stream 385 | 386 | 387 | 388 | 389 |* Active using stream with load of typical user 390 | 391 | 392 | 393 |* Active using extremely sparse, randomized stream 394 | * PDM Passive 395 | Min * 396 +----------------------------------------------------------------| 397 | | 398 Stream X-Axis: a priori Stream Knowledge No Stream 399 Characteristics Characteristics 400 completely Known 401 known 403 We recognize that method categorization could be based on additional 404 dimensions, but this would require a different graphical approach. 406 For example, "effect of stream of interest on network conditions" 407 could easily be further qualified into: 409 1. effect on the performance of the stream of interest itself: for 410 example, choosing a packet marking or DSCP resulting in domain 411 treatment as a real-time stream (as opposed to default/best- 412 effort marking. 414 2. effect on unmeasured streams that share the path and/or 415 bottlenecks: for example, an extremely sparse measured stream of 416 minimal size packets typically has little effect on other flows 417 (and itself), while a stream designed to characterize path 418 capacity may effect all other flows passing through the capacity 419 bottleneck (including itself). 421 3. effect on network conditions resulting in network adaptation: for 422 example, a network monitoring load and congestion conditions 423 might change routing, placing some flows to alternate paths to 424 mitigate the congestion. 426 We have combined 1 and 2 on the Y-axis, as examination of examples 427 indicates strong correlation of affects in this pair, and network 428 adaptation is not addressed. 430 It is apparent that different methods of IP network measurement can 431 produce different results, even when measuring the same path at the 432 same time. The two dimensions of the graph help to understand how 433 the results might change with the method chosen. For example, an 434 Active Method to assess throughput adds some amount of traffic to the 435 network which might result in lower throughput for all streams. 436 However, a Passive Method to assess throughput can also err on the 437 low side due to unknown limitations of the hosts providing traffic, 438 competition for host resources, limitations of the network interface, 439 or private sub-networks that are not an intentional part of the path, 440 etc. And Hybrid Methods could easily suffer from both forms of 441 error. Another example of potential errors stems from the pitfalls 442 of using an Active stream with known bias, such as a periodic stream 443 defined in [RFC3432]. The strength of modelling periodic streams 444 (like VoIP) is a potential weakness when extending the measured 445 results to other application whose streams are non-periodic. The 446 solutions are to model the application streams more exactly with an 447 Active Method, or accept the risks and potential errors with the 448 Passive Method discussed above. 450 4.2. Discussion of PDM 452 In [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option], an IPv6 Option Header for 453 Performance and Diagnostic Measurements (PDM) is described which 454 (when added to the stream of interest at strategic interfaces) 455 supports performance measurements. This method processes a user 456 traffic stream and adds "fields which are dedicated to measurement" 457 (the measurement intent is made clear in the title of this option). 458 Thus: 460 o The method intends to have a small effect on the measured stream 461 and other streams in the network. There are conditions where this 462 intent may not be realized. 464 o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is 465 processed to add the PDM Option header. Note that if the packet 466 MTU is exceeded after adding the header, the intent to have small 467 effect will not be realized. 469 We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one 470 characteristic of both active and passive methods for a single stream 471 of interest. 473 4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method 475 Draft [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], proposed to color packets by re- 476 writing a field of the stream at strategic interfaces to support 477 performance measurements. This method processes a user traffic 478 stream and inserts "fields or values which are dedicated to 479 measurement". Thus: 481 o The method intends to have a small effect on the measured stream 482 and other streams in the network (smaller than PDM above). There 483 are conditions where this intent may not be realized. 485 o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is 486 processed to add the coloring in the header, and the stream could 487 be measured and time-stamped during that process. 489 We note that [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] proposes 490 a method similar to [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], and ippm-list discussion 491 indicates [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] may be 492 covered by the same IPR as [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m]. 494 We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one 495 characteristic of both active and passive methods for a single stream 496 of interest. 498 4.4. Brief Discussion of OAM Methods 500 Many Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) methods exist 501 beyond the IP-layer. For example, [Y.1731] defines several different 502 measurement methods which we would classify as follows: 504 o Loss Measurement (LM) occasionally injects frames with a count of 505 previous frames since the last LM message. We conclude LM is 506 Hybrid Type I because 508 A. This method processes a user traffic stream, 510 B. and augments the stream of interest with frames having "fields 511 which are dedicated to measurement". 513 o Synthetic Loss Measurement (SLM) and Delay Measurement (DM) 514 methods both inject dedicated measurement frames, so the "stream 515 of interest is generated as the basis of measurement". We 516 conclude that SLM and DM methods are Active Methods. 518 We also recognize the existance of alternate terminology used in OAM 519 at layers other than IP. Readers are encouraged to consult [RFC6374] 520 for MPLS Loss and Delay measurement terminology, for example. 522 5. Security considerations 524 When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those 525 whose traffic is measured, there is sensitive information 526 communicated and observed at observation and measurement points 527 described above. We refer the reader to the privacy considerations 528 described in the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance 529 (LMAP) Framework [RFC7594], which covers active and passive 530 measurement techniques and supporting material on measurement 531 context. 533 6. IANA Considerations 535 This memo makes no requests for IANA consideration. 537 7. Acknowledgements 539 Thanks to Mike Ackermann for asking the right question, and for 540 several suggestions on terminology. Brian Trammell provided key 541 terms and references for the passive category, and suggested ways to 542 expand the Hybrid description and types. Phil Eardley suggested some 543 hybrid scenaios for categorization as part of his review. Tiziano 544 Ionta reviewed the draft and suggested the classification for the 545 "coloring" method of measurement. Nalini Elkins identified several 546 areas for clarification following her review. Bill Jouris suggested 547 several editorial improvements. Tal Mizrahi, Joachim Fabini, Greg 548 Mirsky and Mike Ackermann raised many key considerations in their 549 WGLC reviews, based on their broad measurement experience. 551 8. References 553 8.1. Normative References 555 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 556 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, 557 DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, 558 . 560 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 561 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 562 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 563 . 565 [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network 566 performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, 567 DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, 568 . 570 [RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance 571 Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, 572 DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009, 573 . 575 [RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for 576 Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April 577 2010, . 579 [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New 580 Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, 581 DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, 582 . 584 [RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, 585 "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 586 Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, 587 RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013, 588 . 590 [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling 591 Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, 592 DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, 593 . 595 [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 596 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale 597 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, 598 DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, 599 . 601 8.2. Informative References 603 [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay 604 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, 605 DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, 606 . 608 [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep] 609 Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V. 610 Hegde, "Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework: 611 Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets", draft- 612 morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-01 (work in progress), 613 October 2015. 615 [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option] 616 Elkins, N. and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and 617 Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", draft-ietf- 618 ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 (work in progress), October 2015. 620 [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m] 621 Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., and A. Bonda, 622 "A packet based method for passive performance 623 monitoring", draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04 (work in 624 progress), February 2014. 626 [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] 627 Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and G. Fioccola, "IP Flow 628 Performance Measurement Framework", draft-chen-ippm- 629 coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-04 (work in progress), July 630 2015. 632 [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive] 633 Zheng, L., Elkins, N., Lingli, D., Ackermann, M., and G. 634 Mirsky, "Framework for IP Passive Performance 635 Measurements", draft-zheng-ippm-framework-passive-03 (work 636 in progress), February 2015. 638 [I-D.trammell-ippm-hybrid-ps] 639 Trammell, B., Zheng, L., Berenguer, S., and M. Bagnulo, 640 "Hybrid Measurement using IPPM Metrics", draft-trammell- 641 ippm-hybrid-ps-01 (work in progress), February 2014. 643 [Y.1540] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, , "Internet protocol data 644 communication service - IP packet transfer and 645 availability performance parameters", March 2011. 647 [Y.1731] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731, , "Operation, administration 648 and management (OAM) functions and mechanisms for 649 Ethernet-based networks", October 2015. 651 Author's Address 653 Al Morton 654 AT&T Labs 655 200 Laurel Avenue South 656 Middletown, NJ 657 USA 659 Email: acmorton@att.com