Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-bmwg-loss
draft-ietf-bmwg-loss
Network Working Group G. Almes, Advanced Network & Services
Internet Draft S. Kalidindi, Advanced Network & Services
Expiration Date: January 1998 July 1997
A Packet Loss Metric for IPPM
<draft-ietf-bmwg-ippm-loss-01.txt>
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working doc-
uments of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and
its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute work-
ing documents as Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months, and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress''.
To learn the current status of any Internet Draft, please check the
``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet Drafts shadow
directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
2. Introduction
This memo defines a metric for packet loss across Internet paths. It
builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM Framework doc-
ument (currently 'Framework for IP Provider Metrics' <draft-ietf-
bmwg-ippm-framework-01.txt>); the reader is assumed to be familiar
with that document.
This memo is intended to be very parallel in structure to a companion
document for One-way Delay (currently 'A One-way Delay Metric for
IPPM' <draft-ietf-bmwg-ippm-delay-01.txt>); the reader is assumed to
be familiar with that document.
The structure of the memo is as follows:
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 1]
ID Packet Loss July 1997
+ A 'singleton' analytic metric, called Type-P-One-way-Loss, will be
introduced to measure a single observation of packet transmission
or loss.
+ Using this singleton metric, a 'sample', called Type-P-One-way-
Loss-Stream, will be introduced to measure a sequence of singleton
transmissions and/or losses measured at times taken from a Poisson
process.
+ Using this sample, several 'statistics' of the sample will be
defined and discussed.
This progression from singleton to sample to statistics, with clear
separation among them, is important.
Whenever a technical term from the IPPM Framework document is first
used in this memo, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk, as
with >>term*<<.
2.1. Motivation:
Understanding one-way packet loss of type-P packets from a source
host* to a destination host is useful for several reasons:
+ Some applications do not perform well (or at all) if end-to-end
loss between hosts is large relative to some threshold value.
+ Excessive packet loss may make it difficult to support certain
real-time applications (where the precise threshold of 'excessive'
depends on the application).
+ The larger the value of packet loss, the more difficult it is for
transport-layer protocols to sustain high bandwidths.
+ The sensitivity of real-time applications and of transport-layer
protocols to loss become especially important when very large
delay-bandwidth products must be supported.
It is outside the scope of this document to say precisely how loss
metrics would be applied to specific problems.
2.2. General Issues Regarding Time
Whenever a time (i.e., a moment in history) is mentioned here, it is
understood to be measured in seconds (and fractions) relative to UTC.
As described more fully in the Framework document, there are four
distinct, but related notions of clock uncertainty:
synchronization
measures the extent to which two clocks agree on what time it is.
For example, the clock on one host might be 5.4 msec ahead of the
clock on a second host.
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 2]
ID Packet Loss July 1997
accuracy
measures the extent to which a given clock agrees with UTC. For
example, the clock on a host might be 27.1 msec behind UTC.
resolution
measures the precision of a given clock. For example, the clock on
an old Unix host might advance only once every 10 msec, and thus
have a resolution of only 10 msec.
skew measures the change of accuracy, or of synchronization, with time.
For example, the clock on a given host might gain 1.3 msec per hour
and thus be 27.1 msec behind UTC at one time and only 25.8 msec an
hour later. In this case, we say that the clock of the given host
has a skew of 1.3 msec per hour relative to UTC, and this threatens
accuracy. We might also speak of the skew of one clock relative to
another clock, and this threatens synchronization.
3. A Singleton Definition for One-way Packet Loss
3.1. Metric Name:
Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss
3.2. Metric Parameters:
+ Src, the IP address of a host
+ Dst, the IP address of a host
+ T, a time
+ Path, the path* from Src to Dst; in cases where there is only one
path from Src to Dst, this optional parameter can be omitted
{Comment: the presence of path is motivated by cases such as with
Merit's NetNow setup, in which a Src on one NAP can reach a Dst on
another NAP by either of several different backbone networks. Gener-
ally, this optional parameter is useful only when several different
routes are possible from Src to Dst. Using the loose source route IP
option is avoided since it would often artificially worsen the per-
formance observed, and since it might not be supported along some
paths.}
3.3. Metric Units:
The value of a type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss is either a zero (signify-
ing successful transmission of the packet) or a one (signifying
loss).
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 3]
ID Packet Loss July 1997
3.4. Definition:
>>The *Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss* from Src to Dst at T [via path] is
0<< means that Src sent a type-P packet [via path] to Dst at time T
and that Dst received that packet.
>>The *Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss* from Src to Dst at T [via path] is
1<< means that Src sent a type-P packet [via path] to Dst at time T
and that Dst did not receive that packet.
3.5. Discussion:
Thus, Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss is 0 exactly when Type-P-One-way-
Delay is a finite positive value, and it is 1 exactly when Type-P-
One-way-Delay is undefined.
The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
+ A given methodology will have to include a way to distinguish
between a packet loss and a very large (but finite) delay. As
noted by Mahdavi and Paxson, simple upper bounds (such as the 255
seconds theoretical upper bound on the lifetimes of IP packets
[Postel: RFC 791]) could be used, but good engineering, including
an understanding of packet lifetimes, will be needed in practice.
{Comment: Note that, for many applications of these metrics, there
may be no harm in treating a large delay as packet loss. An audio
playback packet, for example, that arrives only after the playback
point may as well have been lost.}
+ As with other 'type-P' metrics, the value of the metric may depend
on such properties of the packet as protocol, (UDP or TCP) port
number, size, and arrangement for special treatment (as with IP
precedence or with RSVP).
+ If the packet arrives, but is corrupted, then it is counted as
lost. {Comment: one is tempted to count the packet as received
since corruption and packet loss are related but distinct phenom-
ena. If the IP header is corrupted, however, one cannot be sure
about the source or destination IP addresses and is thus on shaky
grounds about knowing that the corrupted received packet corre-
sponds to a given sent test packet. Similarly, if other parts of
the packet needed by the methodology to know that the corrupted
received packet corresponds to a given sent test packet, then such
a packet would have to be counted as lost. Counting these packets
as lost but packet with corruption in other parts of the packet as
not lost would be confusing.}
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 4]
ID Packet Loss July 1997
+ If the packet is duplicated along the path (or paths!) so that
multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the
packet is counted as received.
3.6. Methodologies:
As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend
on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size,
precedence).
Generally, for a given Type-P, one possible methodology would proceed
as follows:
+ Arrange that Src and Dst are moderately synchronized; that is,
that they have clocks that are closely synchronized with each
other and each fairly close to the actual time.
+ At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test
packet of Type-P with these addresses.
+ Optionally, select a specific path and arrange for Src to send the
packet over that path. {Comment: This could be done, for example,
by installing a temporary host-route for Dst in Src's routing
table.}
+ At the Dst host, arrange to receive the packet.
+ At the Src host, place a timestamp in the prepared Type-P packet,
and send it towards Dst [via first-hop].
+ If the packet arrives within a reasonable period of time, the one-
way packet-loss is taken to be zero.
+ If the packet fails to arrive within a reasonable period of time,
the one-way packet-loss is taken to be one. Note that the thresh-
old of 'reasonable' here is a parameter of the methodology. {Com-
ment: Or it could be part of the metric. If, however, we make it
part of the metric, so that packets arriving after a given reason-
able period must be counted as lost, then we reintroduce the need
for a degree of clock synchronization similar to that needed for
one-way delay. If a measure of packet loss parameterized by a
specific non-huge 'reasonable' time-out value is needed, one can
always measure one-way delay and see what percentage of packets
from a given stream exceed a given time-out value.}
Issues such as the packet format, the means by which the path is
ensured, the means by which Dst knows when to expect the test packet,
and the means by which Src and Dst are synchronized are outside the
scope of this document. {Comment: We plan to document elsewhere our
own work in describing such more detailed implementation techniques
and we encourage others to as well.}
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 5]
ID Packet Loss July 1997
3.7. Errors and Uncertainties:
The description of any specific measurement method should include an
accounting and analysis of various sources of error/uncertainty. The
Framework document provides general guidance on this point.
Errors due to gross lack of synchronization between the Src and Dst
hosts should be dealt with. Since the sensitivity of packet loss
measurement to lack of synchronization is much less than for delay,
we refer the reader to the treatment of synchronization errors in the
One-way Delay metric.
4. A Definition for Samples of One-way Packet Loss
Given the singleton metric Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss, we now define
one particular sample of such singletons. The idea of the sample is
to select a particular binding of the parameters Src, Dst, path, and
Type-P, then define a sample of values of parameter T. The means for
defining the values of T is to select a beginning time T0, a final
time Tf, and an average rate lambda, then define a pseudo-random
Poisson arrival process of rate lambda, whose values fall between T0
and Tf. The time interval between successive values of T will then
average 1/lambda.
4.1. Metric Name:
Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Stream
4.2. Metric Parameters:
+ Src, the IP address of a host
+ Dst, the IP address of a host
+ Path, the path* from Src to Dst; in cases where there is only one
path from Src to Dst, this optional parameter can be omitted
+ T0, a time
+ Tf, a time
+ lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds
4.3. Metric Units:
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 6]
ID Packet Loss July 1997
+ T, a time, and
+ L, either a zero or a one
The values of T in the sequence are monotonic increasing. Note that
T would be a valid parameter to Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss, and that
L would be a valid value of Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss.
4.4. Definition:
Given T0, Tf, and lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and end-
ing at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0
and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times
in this process, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss at
this time. The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the
resulting <time, loss> pairs. If there are no such pairs, the
sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty.
4.5. Discussion:
Note first that, since a pseudo-random number sequence is employed,
the sequence of times, and hence the value of the sample, is not
fully specified. Pseudo-random number generators of good quality
will be needed to achieve the desired qualities.
The sample is defined in terms of a Poisson process both to avoid the
effects of self-synchronization and also capture a sample that is
statistically as unbiased as possible. {Comment: there is, of
course, no claim that real Internet traffic arrives according to a
Poisson arrival process.
It is important to note that, in contrast to this metric, loss rates
observed by transport connections do not reflect unbiased samples.
For example, TCP transmissions both (1) occur in bursts, which can
induce loss due to the burst volume that would not otherwise have
been observed, and (2) adapt their transmission rate in an attempt to
minimize the loss rate observed by the connection.}
All the singleton Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss metrics in the sequence
will have the same values of Src, Dst, [path,] and Type-P.
Note also that, given one sample that runs from T0 to Tf, and given
new time values T0' and Tf' such that T0 <= T0' <= Tf' <= Tf, the
subsequence of the given sample whose time values fall between T0'
and Tf' are also a valid Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Stream sample.
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 7]
ID Packet Loss July 1997
4.6. Methodologies:
The methodologies follow directly from:
+ the selection of specific times, using the specified Poisson
arrival process, and
+ the methodologies discussion already given for the singleton Type-
P-One-way-Packet-Loss metric.
Care must be given to correctly handle out-of-order arrival of test
packets; it is possible that the Src could send one test packet at
TS[i], then send a second one (later) at TS[i+1], while the Dst could
receive the second test packet at TR[i+1], and then receive the first
one (later) at TR[i].
4.7. Errors and Uncertainties:
In addition to sources of errors and uncertainties associated with
methods employed to measure the singleton values that make up the
sample, care must be given to analyze the accuracy of the Poisson
arrival process of the wire-time of the sending of the test packets.
Problems with this process could be caused by either of several
things, including problems with the pseudo-random number techniques
used to generate the Poisson arrival process. The Framework document
shows how to use an Anderson-Darling test for this.
5. Some Statistics Definitions for One-way Packet Loss
Given the sample metric Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Stream, we now
offer several statistics of that sample. These statistics are
offered mostly to be illustrative of what could be done.
5.1. Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Average
Given a Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-Stream, the average of all the L
values in the Stream. In addition, the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss-
Average is undefined if the sample is empty.
Example: suppose we take a sample and the results are:
Stream1 = <
<T1, 0>
<T2, 0>
<T3, 1>
<T4, 0>
<T5, 0>
>
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 8]
ID Packet Loss July 1997
Then the average would be 0.2.
Note that, since healthy Internet paths should be operating at loss
rates below 1% (particularly if high delay-bandwidth products are to
be sustained), the sample sizes needed might be largr than one would
like. Thus, for example, if one wants to discriminate between vari-
ous fractions of 1% over one-minute periods, then several hundred
samples per minute might be needed. This would result in larger val-
ues of lambda than one would ordinarily want.
6. Security Considerations
This memo raises no security issues.
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Matt Mathis for encouraging this work and for call-
ing attention on so many occasions to the significance of packet
loss.
Thanks are due also to Vern Paxson for his valuable comments on early
drafts.
8. References
V. Paxson, G. Almes, J. Mahdavi, and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP
Provider Metrics", Internet Draft <draft-ietf-bmwg-ippm-
framework-01.txt>, July 1997.
G. Almes and S. Kalidindi, "A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM", Inter-
net Draft <draft-ietf-bmwg-ippm-delay-01.txt>, July 1997.
D. Mills, "Network Time Protocol (v3)", RFC 1305, April 1992.
J. Postel, "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, September 1981.
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 9]
ID Packet Loss July 1997
9. Authors' Addresses
Guy Almes <almes@advanced.org>
Advanced Network & Services, Inc.
200 Business Park Drive
Armonk, NY 10504
USA
Phone: +1 914/273-7863
Sunil Kalidindi <kalidindi@advanced.org>
Advanced Network & Services, Inc.
200 Business Park Drive
Armonk, NY 10504
USA
Phone: +1 914/273-1219
Almes and Kalidindi [Page 10]
