idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04.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 (December 10, 2015) is 3053 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-04 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment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 December 10, 2015 5 Expires: June 12, 2016 7 Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and everything in-between, or 8 Hybrid) 9 draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04 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. This memo also describes multiple dimensions to help 18 evaluate new methods as they emerge. 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2016. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3.1. Performance Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3.2. Method of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3.3. Observation Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3.4. Active Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3.5. Active Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.6. Passive Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.7. Passive Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 4.1. Graphical Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 4.2. Discussion of PDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 4.4. Brief Discussion of OAM Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 79 1. Introduction 81 The adjectives "active" and "passive" have been used for many years 82 to distinguish two different classes of Internet performance 83 assessment. The first Passive and Active Measurement (PAM) 84 Conference was held in 2000, but the earliest proceedings available 85 on-line are from the second PAM conference in 2001 86 [https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/pam-2001]. 88 The notions of "active" and "passive" are well-established. In 89 general: 91 An Active metric or method depends on a dedicated measurement 92 packet stream and observations of the stream. 94 A Passive metric or method depends *solely* on observation of one 95 or more existing packet streams. The streams only serve 96 measurement when they are observed for that purpose, and are 97 present whether measurements take place or not. 99 As new techniques for assessment emerge it is helpful to have clear 100 definitions of these notions. This memo provides more detailed 101 definitions, defines a new category for combinations of traditional 102 active and passive techniques, and discusses dimensions to evaluate 103 new techniques as they emerge. 105 This memo provides definitions for Active and Passive Metrics and 106 Methods based on long usage in the Internet measurement community, 107 and especially the Internet Engineering Task Force. This memo also 108 describes the combination of fundamental Active and Passive 109 categories, which are called Hybrid Methods and Metrics. 111 1.1. Requirements Language 113 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 114 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 115 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 117 2. Purpose and Scope 119 The scope of this memo is to define and describe Active and Passive 120 versions of metrics and methods which are consistent with the long- 121 time usage of these adjectives in the Internet measurement community 122 and especially the Internet Engineering Task Force. Since the 123 science of measurement is expanding, we provide a category for 124 combinations of the traditional extremes, treating Active and Passive 125 as a continuum and designating combinations of their attributes as 126 Hybrid methods. 128 Further, this memo's purpose includes describing multiple dimensions 129 to evaluate new methods as they emerge. 131 3. Terms and Definitions 133 This section defines the key terms of the memo. Some definitions use 134 the notion of "stream of interest" which is synonymous with 135 "population of interest" defined in clause 6.1.1 of ITU-T 136 Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540]. The definitions are consistent with 137 [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive]. 139 3.1. Performance Metric 141 The standard definition of a quantity, produced in an assessment of 142 performance and/or reliability of the network, which has an intended 143 utility and is carefully specified to convey the exact meaning of a 144 measured value. (This definition is consistent with that of 145 Performance Metric in [RFC2330] and [RFC6390]). 147 3.2. Method of Measurement 149 The procedure or set of operations having the object of determining a 150 Measured Value or Measurement Result. 152 3.3. Observation Point 154 See section 2 of [RFC7011] for this definition (a location in the 155 network where packets can be observed), and related definitions. The 156 comparable term defined in IETF literature on Active measurement is 157 Measurement Point, see section 4.1 of [RFC5835]. Both of these terms 158 have come into use describing similar actions at the identified point 159 in the network path. 161 3.4. Active Methods 163 Active measurement methods have the following attributes: 165 1. Active methods generate packet streams. Commonly, the packet 166 stream of interest is generated as the basis of measurement. 167 Sometimes, the adjective "synthetic" is used to categorize Active 168 measurement streams [Y.1731]. Accompanying packet stream(s) may 169 be generated to increase overall traffic load, though the loading 170 stream(s) may not be measured. 172 2. The packets in the stream of interest have fields or field values 173 (or are augmented or modified to include fields or field values) 174 which are dedicated to measurement. Since measurement usually 175 requires determining the corresponding packets at multiple 176 measurement points, a sequence number is the most common 177 information dedicated to measurement, and often combined with a 178 timestamp. 180 3. The Source and Destination of the packet stream of interest are 181 usually known a priori. 183 4. The characteristics of the packet stream of interest are known at 184 the Source at least, and may be communicated to Destination as 185 part of the method. Note that some packet characteristics will 186 normally change during packet forwarding. Other changes along 187 the path are possible, see [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep]. 189 When adding traffic to the network for measurement, Active Methods 190 influence the quantities measured to some degree, and those 191 performing tests should take steps to quantify the effect(s) and/or 192 minimize such effects. 194 3.5. Active Metric 196 An Active Metric incorporates one or more of the aspects of Active 197 Methods in the metric definition. 199 For example, IETF metrics for IP performance (developed according to 200 the [RFC2330] framework) include the Source packet stream 201 characteristics as metric input parameters, and also specify the 202 packet characteristics (Type-P) and Source and Destination IP 203 addresses (with their implications on both stream treatment and 204 interfaces associated with measurement points). 206 3.6. Passive Methods 208 Passive measurement methods are 210 o based solely on observations of undisturbed and unmodified packet 211 stream of interest (in other words, the method of measurement MUST 212 NOT add, change, or remove packets or fields, or change field 213 values anywhere along the path). 215 o dependent on the existence of one or more packet streams to supply 216 the stream of interest. 218 o dependent on the presence of the packet stream of interest at one 219 or more designated observation points. 221 Some passive methods simply observe and collect information on all 222 packets that pass Observation Point(s), while others filter the 223 packets as a first step and only collect information on packets that 224 match the filter criteria, and thereby narrow the stream of interest. 226 It is common that passive methods are conducted at one or more 227 Observation Points. Passive methods to assess Performance Metrics 228 often require multiple observation points, e.g., to assess latency of 229 packet transfer across a network path between two Observation Points. 230 In this case, the observed packets must include enough information to 231 determine the corresponding packets at different Observation Points. 233 Communication of the observations (in some form) to a collector is an 234 essential aspect of Passive Methods. In some configurations, the 235 traffic load associated with results export to a collector may 236 influence the network performance. However, the collection of 237 results is not unique to Passive Methods, and the load from 238 management and operations of measurement systems must always be 239 considered for potential effects on the measured values. 241 3.7. Passive Metric 243 Passive Metrics apply to observations of packet traffic (traffic 244 flows in [RFC7011]). 246 Passive performance metrics are assessed independent of the packets 247 or traffic flows, and solely through observation. Some refer to such 248 assessments as "out-of-band". 250 One example of passive performance metrics for IP packet transfer can 251 be found in ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540], where the metrics 252 are defined on the basis of reference events generated as packet pass 253 reference points. The metrics are agnostic to the distinction 254 between active and passive when the necessary packet correspondence 255 can be derived from the observed stream of interest as required. 257 3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics 259 Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement which use a combination of 260 Active Methods and Passive Methods, to assess Active Metrics, Passive 261 Metrics, or new metrics derived from the a priori knowledge and 262 observations of the stream of interest. ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 263 [Y.1540] defines metrics that are also applicable to the hybrid 264 categories, since packet correspondence at different observation/ 265 reference points could be derived from "fields or field values which 266 are dedicated to measurement", but otherwise the methods are passive. 268 There are several types of Hybrid methods, as categorized below. 270 With respect to a *single* stream of interest, Hybrid Type I methods 271 fit in the continuum as follows, in terms of what happens at the 272 Source (or Observation Point nearby): 274 o If you generate the stream of interest => Active 276 o If you augment or modify the stream of interest, or employ methods 277 that modify the treatment of the stream => Hybrid Type I 279 o If you solely observe a stream of interest => Passive 281 As an example, consider the case where the method generates traffic 282 load stream(s), and observes an existing stream of interest according 283 to the criteria for Passive Methods. Since loading streams are an 284 aspect of Active Methods, the stream of interest is not "solely 285 observed", and the measurements involve a single stream of interest 286 whose treatment has been modified both the presence of the load. 287 Therefore, this is a Hybrid Type I method. 289 We define Hybrid Type II as follows: Methods that employ two or more 290 different streams of interest with some degree of mutual coordination 291 (e.g., one or more Active streams and one or more undisturbed and 292 unmodified packet streams) to collect both Active and Passive Metrics 293 and enable enhanced characterization from additional joint analysis. 294 [I-D.trammell-ippm-hybrid-ps] presents a problem statement for Hybrid 295 Type II methods and metrics. Note that one or more Hybrid Type I 296 streams could be substituted for the Active streams or undisturbed 297 streams in the mutually coordinated set. It is the Type II Methods 298 where unique Hybrid Metrics are anticipated to emerge. 300 Methods based on a combination of a single (generated) Active stream 301 and Passive observations applied to the stream of interest at 302 intermediate observation points are also a type of Hybrid Methods. 303 However, [RFC5644] already defines these as Spatial Metrics and 304 Methods. It is possible to replace the Active stream of [RFC5644] 305 with a Hybrid Type I stream and measure Spatial Metrics (but this was 306 un-anticipated when [RFC5644] was developed). 308 The Table below illustrates the categorization of methods (where 309 "Synthesis" refers to a combination of Active and Passive Method 310 attributes). 312 | Single Stream | Multiple Simultaneous 313 | of Interest | Streams of Interest 314 | | from Different Methods 315 ==================================================================== 316 Single Fundamental | Active or Passive | 317 Method | | 319 Synthesis of | Hybrid Type I | 320 Fundamental Methods | | 322 Multiple Methods | Spatial Metrics | Hybrid Type II 323 | [RFC5644] | 325 There may be circumstances where results measured with Hybrid Methods 326 can be considered equivalent to Passive Methods. Referencing the 327 notion of a "class C" where packets of different Type-P are treated 328 equally in Section 13 of [RFC2330]and the terminology for paths from 329 Section 5 of [RFC2330]: 331 Hybrid Methods of Measurement that augment or modify packets of a 332 "class C" in a host should produce equivalent results to Passive 333 Methods of Measurement, when hosts accessing and links transporting 334 these packets along the path (other than those performing 335 augmentation/modification) treat packets from both categories of 336 methods (with and without the augmentation/modification) as the same 337 "class C". The Passive Methods of Measurement represent the Ground 338 Truth for comparisons of results between Passive and Hybrid methods, 339 and this comparison should be conducted to confirm the class C 340 treatment. 342 4. Discussion 344 This section illustrates the definitions and presents some examples. 346 4.1. Graphical Representation 348 If we compare the Active and Passive Methods, there are at least two 349 dimensions on which methods can be evaluated. This evaluation space 350 may be useful when a method is a combination of the two alternative 351 methods. 353 The two dimensions (initially chosen) are: 355 Y-Axis: "Effect of the measured stream on network conditions." The 356 degree to which the stream of interest biases overall network 357 conditions experienced by that stream and other streams. This is 358 a key dimension for Active measurement error analysis. (Comment: 359 There is also the notion of time averages - a measurement stream 360 may have significant effect while it is present, but the stream is 361 only generated 0.1% of the time. On the other hand, observations 362 alone have no effect on network performance. To keep these 363 dimensions simple, we consider the stream effect only when it is 364 present, but note that reactive networks defined in [RFC7312] may 365 exhibit bias for some time beyond the life of a stream.) 367 X-Axis: "a priori Stream Knowledge." The degree to which stream 368 characteristics are known a priori. There are methodological 369 advantages of knowing the source stream characteristics, and 370 having complete control of the stream characteristics. For 371 example, knowing the number of packets in a stream allows more 372 efficient operation of the measurement receiver, and so is an 373 asset for active measurement methods. Passive methods (with no 374 sample filter) have few clues available to anticipate what the 375 protocol first packet observed will use or how many packets will 376 comprise the flow, but once the standard protocol of a flow is 377 known the possibilities narrow (for some compliant flows). 378 Therefore this is a key dimension for Passive measurement error 379 analysis. 381 There are a few examples we can plot on a two-dimensional space. We 382 can anchor the dimensions with reference point descriptions. 384 Y-Axis:Effect of the measured stream on network conditions 385 ^ Max 386 |* Active using max capacity stream 387 | 388 | 389 | 390 | 391 |* Active using stream with load of typical user 392 | 393 | 394 | 395 |* Active using extremely sparse, randomized stream 396 | * PDM Passive 397 | Min * 398 +----------------------------------------------------------------| 399 | | 400 Stream X-Axis: a priori Stream Knowledge No Stream 401 Characteristics Characteristics 402 completely Known 403 known 405 We recognize that method categorization could be based on additional 406 dimensions, but this would require a different graphical approach. 408 For example, "effect of stream of interest on network conditions" 409 could easily be further qualified into: 411 1. effect on the performance of the stream of interest itself: for 412 example, choosing a packet marking or DSCP resulting in domain 413 treatment as a real-time stream (as opposed to default/best- 414 effort marking. 416 2. effect on unmeasured streams that share the path and/or 417 bottlenecks: for example, an extremely sparse measured stream of 418 minimal size packets typically has little effect on other flows 419 (and itself), while a stream designed to characterize path 420 capacity may affect all other flows passing through the capacity 421 bottleneck (including itself). 423 3. effect on network conditions resulting in network adaptation: for 424 example, a network monitoring load and congestion conditions 425 might change routing, placing some flows to alternate paths to 426 mitigate the congestion. 428 We have combined 1 and 2 on the Y-axis, as examination of examples 429 indicates strong correlation of effects in this pair, and network 430 adaptation is not addressed. 432 It is apparent that different methods of IP network measurement can 433 produce different results, even when measuring the same path at the 434 same time. The two dimensions of the graph help to understand how 435 the results might change with the method chosen. For example, an 436 Active Method to assess throughput adds some amount of traffic to the 437 network which might result in lower throughput for all streams. 438 However, a Passive Method to assess throughput can also err on the 439 low side due to unknown limitations of the hosts providing traffic, 440 competition for host resources, limitations of the network interface, 441 or private sub-networks that are not an intentional part of the path, 442 etc. And Hybrid Methods could easily suffer from both forms of 443 error. Another example of potential errors stems from the pitfalls 444 of using an Active stream with known bias, such as a periodic stream 445 defined in [RFC3432]. The strength of modelling periodic streams 446 (like VoIP) is a potential weakness when extending the measured 447 results to other application whose streams are non-periodic. The 448 solutions are to model the application streams more exactly with an 449 Active Method, or accept the risks and potential errors with the 450 Passive Method discussed above. 452 4.2. Discussion of PDM 454 In [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option], an IPv6 Option Header for 455 Performance and Diagnostic Measurements (PDM) is described which 456 (when added to the stream of interest at strategic interfaces) 457 supports performance measurements. This method processes a user 458 traffic stream and adds "fields which are dedicated to measurement" 459 (the measurement intent is made clear in the title of this option). 460 Thus: 462 o The method intends to have a small effect on the measured stream 463 and other streams in the network. There are conditions where this 464 intent may not be realized. 466 o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is 467 processed to add the PDM Option header. Note that if the packet 468 MTU is exceeded after adding the header, the intent to have small 469 effect will not be realized. 471 We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one 472 characteristic of both active and passive methods for a single stream 473 of interest. 475 4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method 477 Draft [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], proposed to color packets by re- 478 writing a field of the stream at strategic interfaces to support 479 performance measurements. This method processes a user traffic 480 stream and inserts "fields or values which are dedicated to 481 measurement". Thus: 483 o The method intends to have a small effect on the measured stream 484 and other streams in the network (smaller than PDM above). There 485 are conditions where this intent may not be realized. 487 o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is 488 processed to add the coloring in the header, and the stream could 489 be measured and time-stamped during that process. 491 We note that [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] proposes 492 a method similar to [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], and ippm-list discussion 493 indicates [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] may be 494 covered by the same IPR as [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m]. 496 We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one 497 characteristic of both active and passive methods for a single stream 498 of interest. 500 4.4. Brief Discussion of OAM Methods 502 Many Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) methods exist 503 beyond the IP-layer. For example, [Y.1731] defines several different 504 measurement methods which we would classify as follows: 506 o Loss Measurement (LM) occasionally injects frames with a count of 507 previous frames since the last LM message. We conclude LM is 508 Hybrid Type I because 510 A. This method processes a user traffic stream, 512 B. and augments the stream of interest with frames having "fields 513 which are dedicated to measurement". 515 o Synthetic Loss Measurement (SLM) and Delay Measurement (DM) 516 methods both inject dedicated measurement frames, so the "stream 517 of interest is generated as the basis of measurement". We 518 conclude that SLM and DM methods are Active Methods. 520 We also recognize the existence of alternate terminology used in OAM 521 at layers other than IP. Readers are encouraged to consult [RFC6374] 522 for MPLS Loss and Delay measurement terminology, for example. 524 5. Security considerations 526 When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those 527 whose traffic is measured, there is sensitive information 528 communicated and observed at observation and measurement points 529 described above. We refer the reader to the privacy considerations 530 described in the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance 531 (LMAP) Framework [RFC7594], which covers active and passive 532 measurement techniques and supporting material on measurement 533 context. 535 6. IANA Considerations 537 This memo makes no requests for IANA consideration. 539 7. Acknowledgements 541 Thanks to Mike Ackermann for asking the right question, and for 542 several suggestions on terminology. Brian Trammell provided key 543 terms and references for the passive category, and suggested ways to 544 expand the Hybrid description and types. Phil Eardley suggested some 545 hybrid scenarios for categorization as part of his review. Tiziano 546 Ionta reviewed the draft and suggested the classification for the 547 "coloring" method of measurement. Nalini Elkins identified several 548 areas for clarification following her review. Bill Jouris, Stenio 549 Fernandes, and Spencer Dawkins suggested several editorial 550 improvements. Tal Mizrahi, Joachim Fabini, Greg Mirsky and Mike 551 Ackermann raised many key considerations in their WGLC reviews, based 552 on their broad measurement experience. 554 8. References 556 8.1. Normative References 558 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 559 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, 560 DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, 561 . 563 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 564 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 565 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 566 . 568 [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network 569 performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, 570 DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, 571 . 573 [RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance 574 Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, 575 DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009, 576 . 578 [RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for 579 Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April 580 2010, . 582 [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New 583 Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, 584 DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, 585 . 587 [RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, 588 "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 589 Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, 590 RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013, 591 . 593 [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling 594 Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, 595 DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, 596 . 598 [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 599 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale 600 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, 601 DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, 602 . 604 8.2. Informative References 606 [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay 607 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, 608 DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, 609 . 611 [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep] 612 Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V. 613 Hegde, "Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework: 614 Packets of Type-P and Standard-Formed Packets", draft- 615 morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-01 (work in progress), 616 October 2015. 618 [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option] 619 Elkins, N. and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and 620 Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", draft-ietf- 621 ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 (work in progress), October 2015. 623 [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m] 624 Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., and A. Bonda, 625 "A packet based method for passive performance 626 monitoring", draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04 (work in 627 progress), February 2014. 629 [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] 630 Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and G. Fioccola, "IP Flow 631 Performance Measurement Framework", draft-chen-ippm- 632 coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-04 (work in progress), July 633 2015. 635 [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive] 636 Zheng, L., Elkins, N., Lingli, D., Ackermann, M., and G. 637 Mirsky, "Framework for IP Passive Performance 638 Measurements", draft-zheng-ippm-framework-passive-03 (work 639 in progress), February 2015. 641 [I-D.trammell-ippm-hybrid-ps] 642 Trammell, B., Zheng, L., Berenguer, S., and M. Bagnulo, 643 "Hybrid Measurement using IPPM Metrics", draft-trammell- 644 ippm-hybrid-ps-01 (work in progress), February 2014. 646 [Y.1540] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, , "Internet protocol data 647 communication service - IP packet transfer and 648 availability performance parameters", March 2011. 650 [Y.1731] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731, , "Operation, administration 651 and management (OAM) functions and mechanisms for 652 Ethernet-based networks", October 2015. 654 Author's Address 655 Al Morton 656 AT&T Labs 657 200 Laurel Avenue South 658 Middletown, NJ 659 USA 661 Email: acmorton@att.com