idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06.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 (January 21, 2016) is 2990 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-04 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment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 January 21, 2016 5 Expires: July 24, 2016 7 Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (and everything in-between, or 8 Hybrid) 9 draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-06 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 July 24, 2016. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 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]. These definitions will be useful for 137 work-in-progress, such as [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive] (with 138 which there is already good consistency). 140 3.1. Performance Metric 142 The standard definition of a quantity, produced in an assessment of 143 performance and/or reliability of the network, which has an intended 144 utility and is carefully specified to convey the exact meaning of a 145 measured value. (This definition is consistent with that of 146 Performance Metric in [RFC2330] and [RFC6390]). 148 3.2. Method of Measurement 150 The procedure or set of operations having the object of determining a 151 Measured Value or Measurement Result. 153 3.3. Observation Point 155 See section 2 of [RFC7011] for this definition (a location in the 156 network where packets can be observed), and related definitions. The 157 comparable term defined in IETF literature on Active measurement is 158 Measurement Point, see section 4.1 of [RFC5835]. Both of these terms 159 have come into use describing similar actions at the identified point 160 in the network path. 162 3.4. Active Methods 164 Active measurement methods have the following attributes: 166 1. Active methods generate packet streams. Commonly, the packet 167 stream of interest is generated as the basis of measurement. 168 Sometimes, the adjective "synthetic" is used to categorize Active 169 measurement streams [Y.1731]. Accompanying packet stream(s) may 170 be generated to increase overall traffic load, though the loading 171 stream(s) may not be measured. 173 2. The packets in the stream of interest have fields or field values 174 (or are augmented or modified to include fields or field values) 175 which are dedicated to measurement. Since measurement usually 176 requires determining the corresponding packets at multiple 177 measurement points, a sequence number is the most common 178 information dedicated to measurement, and often combined with a 179 timestamp. 181 3. The Source and Destination of the packet stream of interest are 182 usually known a priori. 184 4. The characteristics of the packet stream of interest are known at 185 the Source at least, and may be communicated to Destination as 186 part of the method. Note that some packet characteristics will 187 normally change during packet forwarding. Other changes along 188 the path are possible, see [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep]. 190 When adding traffic to the network for measurement, Active Methods 191 influence the quantities measured to some degree, and those 192 performing tests should take steps to quantify the effect(s) and/or 193 minimize such effects. 195 3.5. Active Metric 197 An Active Metric incorporates one or more of the aspects of Active 198 Methods in the metric definition. 200 For example, IETF metrics for IP performance (developed according to 201 the [RFC2330] framework) include the Source packet stream 202 characteristics as metric input parameters, and also specify the 203 packet characteristics (Type-P) and Source and Destination IP 204 addresses (with their implications on both stream treatment and 205 interfaces associated with measurement points). 207 3.6. Passive Methods 209 Passive measurement methods are 211 o based solely on observations of undisturbed and unmodified packet 212 stream of interest (in other words, the method of measurement MUST 213 NOT add, change, or remove packets or fields, or change field 214 values anywhere along the path). 216 o dependent on the existence of one or more packet streams to supply 217 the stream of interest. 219 o dependent on the presence of the packet stream of interest at one 220 or more designated observation points. 222 Some passive methods simply observe and collect information on all 223 packets that pass Observation Point(s), while others filter the 224 packets as a first step and only collect information on packets that 225 match the filter criteria, and thereby narrow the stream of interest. 227 It is common that passive methods are conducted at one or more 228 Observation Points. Passive methods to assess Performance Metrics 229 often require multiple observation points, e.g., to assess latency of 230 packet transfer across a network path between two Observation Points. 231 In this case, the observed packets must include enough information to 232 determine the corresponding packets at different Observation Points. 234 Communication of the observations (in some form) to a collector is an 235 essential aspect of Passive Methods. In some configurations, the 236 traffic load associated with results export to a collector may 237 influence the network performance. However, the collection of 238 results is not unique to Passive Methods, and the load from 239 management and operations of measurement systems must always be 240 considered for potential effects on the measured values. 242 3.7. Passive Metric 244 Passive Metrics apply to observations of packet traffic (traffic 245 flows in [RFC7011]). 247 Passive performance metrics are assessed independent of the packets 248 or traffic flows, and solely through observation. Some refer to such 249 assessments as "out-of-band". 251 One example of passive performance metrics for IP packet transfer can 252 be found in ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540], where the metrics 253 are defined on the basis of reference events generated as packet pass 254 reference points. The metrics are agnostic to the distinction 255 between active and passive when the necessary packet correspondence 256 can be derived from the observed stream of interest as required. 258 3.8. Hybrid Methods and Metrics 260 Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement which use a combination of 261 Active Methods and Passive Methods, to assess Active Metrics, Passive 262 Metrics, or new metrics derived from the a priori knowledge and 263 observations of the stream of interest. ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540 264 [Y.1540] defines metrics that are also applicable to the hybrid 265 categories, since packet correspondence at different observation/ 266 reference points could be derived from "fields or field values which 267 are dedicated to measurement", but otherwise the methods are passive. 269 There are several types of Hybrid methods, as categorized below. 271 With respect to a *single* stream of interest, Hybrid Type I methods 272 fit in the continuum as follows, in terms of what happens at the 273 Source (or Observation Point nearby): 275 o If you generate the stream of interest => Active 277 o If you augment or modify the stream of interest, or employ methods 278 that modify the treatment of the stream => Hybrid Type I 280 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 (In the graph above, "PDM" refers to [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option], 406 an IPv6 Option Header for Performance and Diagnostic Measurements, 407 descrived in section 4.2.) 409 We recognize that method categorization could be based on additional 410 dimensions, but this would require a different graphical approach. 412 For example, "effect of stream of interest on network conditions" 413 could easily be further qualified into: 415 1. effect on the performance of the stream of interest itself: for 416 example, choosing a packet marking or Differentiated Services 417 Code Point (DSCP) resulting in domain treatment as a real-time 418 stream (as opposed to default/best-effort marking). 420 2. effect on unmeasured streams that share the path and/or 421 bottlenecks: for example, an extremely sparse measured stream of 422 minimal size packets typically has little effect on other flows 423 (and itself), while a stream designed to characterize path 424 capacity may affect all other flows passing through the capacity 425 bottleneck (including itself). 427 3. effect on network conditions resulting in network adaptation: for 428 example, a network monitoring load and congestion conditions 429 might change routing, placing some flows to alternate paths to 430 mitigate the congestion. 432 We have combined 1 and 2 on the Y-axis, as examination of examples 433 indicates strong correlation of effects in this pair, and network 434 adaptation is not addressed. 436 It is apparent that different methods of IP network measurement can 437 produce different results, even when measuring the same path at the 438 same time. The two dimensions of the graph help to understand how 439 the results might change with the method chosen. For example, an 440 Active Method to assess throughput adds some amount of traffic to the 441 network which might result in lower throughput for all streams. 442 However, a Passive Method to assess throughput can also err on the 443 low side due to unknown limitations of the hosts providing traffic, 444 competition for host resources, limitations of the network interface, 445 or private sub-networks that are not an intentional part of the path, 446 etc. And Hybrid Methods could easily suffer from both forms of 447 error. Another example of potential errors stems from the pitfalls 448 of using an Active stream with known bias, such as a periodic stream 449 defined in [RFC3432]. The strength of modelling periodic streams 450 (like VoIP) is a potential weakness when extending the measured 451 results to other application whose streams are non-periodic. The 452 solutions are to model the application streams more exactly with an 453 Active Method, or accept the risks and potential errors with the 454 Passive Method discussed above. 456 4.2. Discussion of PDM 458 In [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option], an IPv6 Option Header for 459 Performance and Diagnostic Measurements (PDM) is described which 460 (when added to the stream of interest at strategic interfaces) 461 supports performance measurements. This method processes a user 462 traffic stream and adds "fields which are dedicated to measurement" 463 (the measurement intent is made clear in the title of this option). 464 Thus: 466 o The method intends to have a small effect on the measured stream 467 and other streams in the network. There are conditions where this 468 intent may not be realized. 470 o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is 471 processed to add the PDM Option header. Note that if the packet 472 MTU is exceeded after adding the header, the intent to have small 473 effect will not be realized. 475 We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one 476 characteristic of both active and passive methods for a single stream 477 of interest. 479 4.3. Discussion of "Coloring" Method 481 Draft [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], proposed to color packets by re- 482 writing a field of the stream at strategic interfaces to support 483 performance measurements (noting that this is a difficult operation 484 at an intermediate point on an encrypted Virtual Private Network). 485 This method processes a user traffic stream and inserts "fields or 486 values which are dedicated to measurement". Thus: 488 o The method intends to have a small effect on the measured stream 489 and other streams in the network (smaller than PDM above). There 490 are conditions where this intent may not be realized. 492 o The measured stream has unknown characteristics until it is 493 processed to add the coloring in the header, and the stream could 494 be measured and time-stamped during that process. 496 We note that [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] proposes 497 a method similar to [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], as ippm-list discussion 498 revealed. 500 We conclude that this is a Hybrid Type I method, having at least one 501 characteristic of both active and passive methods for a single stream 502 of interest. 504 4.4. Brief Discussion of OAM Methods 506 Many Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) methods exist 507 beyond the IP-layer. For example, [Y.1731] defines several different 508 measurement methods which we would classify as follows: 510 o Loss Measurement (LM) occasionally injects frames with a count of 511 previous frames since the last LM message. We conclude LM is 512 Hybrid Type I because 513 A. This method processes a user traffic stream, 515 B. and augments the stream of interest with frames having "fields 516 which are dedicated to measurement". 518 o Synthetic Loss Measurement (SLM) and Delay Measurement (DM) 519 methods both inject dedicated measurement frames, so the "stream 520 of interest is generated as the basis of measurement". We 521 conclude that SLM and DM methods are Active Methods. 523 We also recognize the existence of alternate terminology used in OAM 524 at layers other than IP. Readers are encouraged to consult [RFC6374] 525 for MPLS Loss and Delay measurement terminology, for example. 527 5. Security considerations 529 When considering security and privacy of those involved in 530 measurement or those whose traffic is measured, there is sensitive 531 information communicated and observed at observation and measurement 532 points described above, and protocol issues to consider. We refer 533 the reader to the security and privacy considerations described in 534 the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework 535 [RFC7594], which covers active and passive measurement techniques and 536 supporting material on measurement context. 538 6. IANA Considerations 540 This memo makes no requests for IANA consideration. 542 7. Acknowledgements 544 Thanks to Mike Ackermann for asking the right question, and for 545 several suggestions on terminology. Brian Trammell provided key 546 terms and references for the passive category, and suggested ways to 547 expand the Hybrid description and types. Phil Eardley suggested some 548 hybrid scenarios for categorization as part of his review. Tiziano 549 Ionta reviewed the draft and suggested the classification for the 550 "coloring" method of measurement. Nalini Elkins identified several 551 areas for clarification following her review. Bill Jouris, Stenio 552 Fernandes, and Spencer Dawkins suggested several editorial 553 improvements. Tal Mizrahi, Joachim Fabini, Greg Mirsky and Mike 554 Ackermann raised many key considerations in their WGLC reviews, based 555 on their broad measurement experience. 557 8. References 559 8.1. Normative References 561 [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, 562 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, 563 DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, 564 . 566 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 567 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 568 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 569 . 571 [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, "Network 572 performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432, 573 DOI 10.17487/RFC3432, November 2002, 574 . 576 [RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance 577 Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, 578 DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009, 579 . 581 [RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for 582 Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April 583 2010, . 585 [RFC6390] Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New 586 Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390, 587 DOI 10.17487/RFC6390, October 2011, 588 . 590 [RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, 591 "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) 592 Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, 593 RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013, 594 . 596 [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling 597 Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, 598 DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, 599 . 601 [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 602 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale 603 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, 604 DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, 605 . 607 8.2. Informative References 609 [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay 610 Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, 611 DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, 612 . 614 [I-D.morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep] 615 Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., mackermann@bcbsm.com, 616 m., and V. Hegde, "IP Options and IPv6 Updates for IPPM's 617 Active Metric Framework: Packets of Type-P and Standard- 618 Formed Packets", draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-02 619 (work in progress), December 2015. 621 [I-D.ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option] 622 Elkins, N. and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 Performance and 623 Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination Option", draft-ietf- 624 ippm-6man-pdm-option-01 (work in progress), October 2015. 626 [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m] 627 Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., and A. Bonda, 628 "A packet based method for passive performance 629 monitoring", draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04 (work in 630 progress), February 2014. 632 [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] 633 Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and G. Fioccola, "IP Flow 634 Performance Measurement Framework", draft-chen-ippm- 635 coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-04 (work in progress), July 636 2015. 638 [I-D.zheng-ippm-framework-passive] 639 Zheng, L., Elkins, N., Lingli, D., Ackermann, M., and G. 640 Mirsky, "Framework for IP Passive Performance 641 Measurements", draft-zheng-ippm-framework-passive-03 (work 642 in progress), February 2015. 644 [I-D.trammell-ippm-hybrid-ps] 645 Trammell, B., Zheng, L., Berenguer, S., and M. Bagnulo, 646 "Hybrid Measurement using IPPM Metrics", draft-trammell- 647 ippm-hybrid-ps-01 (work in progress), February 2014. 649 [Y.1540] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, , "Internet protocol data 650 communication service - IP packet transfer and 651 availability performance parameters", March 2011. 653 [Y.1731] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731, , "Operation, administration 654 and management (OAM) functions and mechanisms for 655 Ethernet-based networks", October 2015. 657 Author's Address 659 Al Morton 660 AT&T Labs 661 200 Laurel Avenue South 662 Middletown, NJ 663 USA 665 Email: acmorton@att.com