INTERNET-DRAFT Marc Linsner Intended Status: Informational Cisco Systems Expires: May 14, 2015 Philip Eardley Trevor Burbridge BT Frode Sorensen NPT November 10, 2014 Large-Scale Broadband Measurement Use Cases draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-05 Abstract Measuring broadband performance on a large scale is important for network diagnostics by providers and users, as well as for public policy. Understanding the various scenarios and users of measuring broadband performance is essential to development of the Large-scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) framework, information model and protocol. This document details two use cases that can assist to developing that framework. The details of the measurement metrics themselves are beyond the scope of this document. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 Copyright and License Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Regulator Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Details of ISP Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Understanding the quality experienced by customers . . . . . 5 3.2 Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 Design and planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4 Monitoring Service Level Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5 Identifying, isolating and fixing network problems . . . . . 7 4 Details of Regulator Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1 Promoting competition through transparency . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2 Promoting broadband deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3 Monitoring "net neutrality" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5 Implementation Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 1 Introduction This document describes two use cases for the Large-scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP). The use cases contained in this document are (1) the Internet Service Provider Use Case and (2) the Regulator Use Case. In the first, a network operator wants to understand the performance of the network and the quality experienced by customers, whilst in the second, a regulator wants to provide information on the performance of the ISPs in their jurisdiction. There are other use cases that are not the focus of the initial LMAP work, for example end users would like to use measurements to help identify problems in their home network and to monitor the performance of their broadband provider; it is expected that the same mechanisms are applicable. 2 Use Cases From the LMAP perspective, there is no difference between fixed service and mobile (cellular) service used for Internet access. Hence, like measurements will take place on both fixed and mobile networks. Fixed services include technologies like Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), Cable, and Carrier Ethernet. Mobile services include all those advertised as 2G, 3G, 4G, and Long-Term Evolution (LTE). A metric defined to measure end-to-end services will execute similarly on all access technologies. Other metrics may be access technology specific. The LMAP architecture covers both IPv4 and IPv6 networks. 2.1 Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case A network operator needs to understand the performance of their networks, the performance of the suppliers (downstream and upstream networks), the performance of Internet access services, and the impact that such performance has on the experience of their customers. Largely, the processes that ISPs operate (which are based on network measurement) include: o Identifying, isolating and fixing problems, which may be in the network, with the service provider, or in the end user equipment. Such problems may be common to a point in the network topology (e.g. a single exchange), common to a vendor or equipment type (e.g. line card or home gateway) or unique to a single user line (e.g. copper access). Part of this process may also be helping users understand whether the problem exists in their home network or with a third party application service instead of with their broadband (BB) product. Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 o Design and planning. Through monitoring the end user experience the ISP can design and plan their network to ensure specified levels of user experience. Services may be moved closer to end users, services upgraded, the impact of QoS assessed or more capacity deployed at certain locations. Service Level Agreements (SLAs) may be defined at network or product boundaries. o Understanding the quality experienced by customers. Alongside benchmarking competitors, gaining better insight into the user's service through a sample panel of the operator's own customers. The ISP requires a performance viewpoint of the end-to-end perspective, which includes: home/enterprise networks; peering points; Content Delivery Networks (CDNs); etc. o Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and technology. As a new product is deployed, or a new technology introduced into the network, it is essential that its operation and its impact is measured. This also helps to quantify the advantage that the new technology is bringing and support the business case for larger roll-out. 2.2 Regulator Use Case Regulators in jurisdictions around the world are responding to consumers' adoption of Internet access services for traditional telecommunications and media services by promoting competition among providers of electronic communications, to ensure that users derive maximum benefit in terms of choice, price, and quality. Competition is more effective with better information, so some regulators have developed large-scale measurement programs. For example, programs such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Measuring Broadband America (MBA), European Commission's Quality of Broadband Services in the EU reports and a growing list of other programs employ a diverse set of operational and technical approaches to gathering data to perform analysis and reporting on diverse aspects of broadband performance. While each jurisdiction responds to distinct consumer, industry, and regulatory concerns, much commonality exists in the need to produce datasets that can be used to compare multiple Internet access service providers, diverse technical solutions, geographic and regional distributions, and marketed and provisioned levels and combinations of broadband Internet access services. In some jurisdictions, the role of measuring is provided by a measurement provider. Measurement providers measure network performance from users towards multiple content and application providers, including dedicated test Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 measurement servers, to show the performance of the actual Internet access service provided by different ISPs. Users need to know the performance that they are achieving from their own ISP. In addition, they need to know the performance of other ISPs of same location as background information for selecting their ISP. Measurement providers will provide measurement results with associated measurement methods and measurement metrics. From a consumer perspective, the differentiation between fixed and mobile (cellular) Internet access services is blurring as the applications used are very similar. Hence, regulators are measuring both fixed and mobile Internet access services. A regulator's role in the development and enforcement of broadband Internet access service policies also requires that the measurement approaches meet a high level of verifiability, accuracy and provider- independence to support valid and meaningful comparisons of Internet access service performance. LMAP standards could answer regulators shared needs by providing scalable, cost-effective, scientifically robust solutions to the measurement and collection of broadband Internet access service performance information. 3 Details of ISP Use Case 3.1 Understanding the quality experienced by customers Operators want to understand the quality of experience (QoE) of their broadband customers. The understanding can be gained through a "panel", i.e. measurement probes deployed to a few 100 or 1000 customers. The panel needs to include a representative sample for each of the operator's technologies (fiber, Hybrid Fibre-coaxial (HFC), DSL...) and broadband speeds (80Mb/s, 20Mb/s, basic...). For reasonable statistical validity, approximately 100 probes are needed for each ISP product. The operator would like the end-to-end view of the service, rather than (say) just the access portion. So as well as simple network statistics like speed and loss rates, they want to understand what the service feels like to the customer. This involves relating the pure network parameters to something like a 'mean opinion score' which will be service dependent (for instance web browsing QoE is largely determined by latency above a few Mb/s). An operator will also want compound metrics such as "reliability", which might involve packet loss, DNS failures, re-training of the line, video streaming under-runs etc. The operator really wants to understand the end-to-end service Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 experience. However, the home network (Ethernet, WiFi, powerline) is highly variable and outside its control. To date, operators (and regulators) have instead measured performance from the home gateway. However, mobile operators clearly must include the wireless link in the measurement. Active measurements are the most obvious approach, i.e., special measurement traffic is sent by - and to - the probe. In order not to degrade the service of the customer, the measurement data should only be sent when the user is silent, and it shouldn't reduce the customer's data allowance. The other approach is passive measurements on the customer's ordinary traffic; the advantage is that it measures what the customer actually does, but it creates extra variability (different traffic mixes give different results) and especially it raises privacy concerns. RFC6973] discusses privacy considerations for Internet protocols in general, whilst [framework] discusses them specifically for large-scale measurement systems. From an operator's viewpoint, understanding customer experience enables it to offer better services. Also, simple metrics can be more easily understood by senior managers who make investment decisions and by sales and marketing. 3.2 Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and technology Another type of measurement is to test new capabilities before they are rolled out. For example, the operator may want to: o Check whether a customer can be upgraded to a new broadband option o Understand the impact of IPv6 before it makes it available to customers (will v6 packets get through, what will the latency be to major websites, what transition mechanisms will be most appropriate?) o Check whether a new capability can be signaled using TCP options (how often it will be blocked by a middlebox? - along the lines of the experiments described in [ExtendTCP]); o Investigate a quality of service mechanism (e.g. checking whether Diffserv markings are respected on some path); and so on. 3.3 Design and planning Operators can use large scale measurements to help with their network planning - proactive activities to improve the network. Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 For example, by probing from several different vantage points the operator can see that a particular group of customers has performance below that expected during peak hours, which should help capacity planning. Naturally operators already have tools to help this - a network element reports its individual utilization (and perhaps other parameters). However, making measurements across a path rather than at a point may make it easier to understand the network. There may also be parameters like bufferbloat that aren't currently reported by equipment and/or that are intrinsically path metrics. With information gained from measurement results, capacity planning and network design can be more effective. Such planning typically uses simulations to emulate the measured performance of the current network and understand the likely impact of new capacity and potential changes to the topology. Simulations, informed by data from a limited panel of probes, can help quantify the advantage that a new technology brings and support the business case for larger roll-out. It may also be possible to use probes to run stress tests for risk analysis. For example, an operator could run a carefully controlled and limited experiment in which probing is used to assess the potential impact if some new application becomes popular. 3.4 Monitoring Service Level Agreements Another example is that the operator may want to monitor performance where there is a service level agreement (SLA). This could be with its own customers, especially enterprises may have an SLA. The operator can proactively spot when the service is degrading near to the SLA limit, and get information that will enable more informed conversations with the customer at contract renewal. An operator may also want to monitor the performance of its suppliers, to check whether they meet their SLA or to compare two suppliers if it is dual-sourcing. This could include its transit operator, CDNs, peering, video source, local network provider (for a global operator in countries where it doesn't have its own network), even the whole network for a virtual operator. Through a better understanding of its own network and its suppliers, the operator should be able to focus investment more effectively - in the right place at the right time with the right technology. 3.5 Identifying, isolating and fixing network problems Operators can use large scale measurements to help identify a fault more rapidly and decide how to solve it. Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 Operators already have Test and Diagnostic tools, where a network element reports some problem or failure to a management system. However, many issues are not caused by a point failure but something wider and so will trigger too many alarms, whilst other issues will cause degradation rather than failure and so not trigger any alarm. Large-scale measurements can help provide a more nuanced view that helps network management to identify and fix problems more rapidly and accurately. The network management tools may use simulations to emulate the network and so help identify a fault and assess possible solutions. An operator can obtain useful information without measuring the performance on every broadband line. By measuring a subset, the operator can identify problems that affect a group of customers. For example, the issue could be at a shared point in the network topology (such as an exchange), or common to a vendor, or equipment type; for instance, [IETF85-Plenary] describes a case where a particular home gateway upgrade had caused a (mistaken!) drop in line rate. A more extensive deployment of the measurement capability to every broadband line would enable an operator to identify issues unique to a single customer. Overall, large-scale measurements can help an operator help an operator fix the fault more rapidly and/or allow the affected customers to be informed what's happening. More accurate information enables the operator to reassure customers and take more rapid and effective action to cure the problem. Often customers experience poor broadband due to problems in the home network - the ISP's network is fine. For example they may have moved too far away from their wireless access point. Perhaps 80% of customer calls about fixed BB problems are due to in-home wireless issues. These issues are expensive and frustrating for an operator, as they are extremely hard to diagnose and solve. The operator would like to narrow down whether the problem is in the home (with the home network or edge device or home gateway), in the operator's network, or with an application service. The operator would like two capabilities. Firstly, self-help tools that customers use to improve their own service or understand its performance better, for example to re-position their devices for better WiFi coverage. Secondly, on- demand tests that can the operator can run instantly - so the call center person answering the phone (or e-chat) could trigger a test and get the result whilst the customer is still in an on-line session. 4 Details of Regulator Use Case 4.1 Promoting competition through transparency Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 Competition plays a vital role in regulation of the electronic communications markets. For competition to successfully discipline operators' behavior in the interests of their customers, end users must be fully aware of the characteristics of the ISPs' access offers. In some jurisdictions regulators mandate that transparent information imade available about service offers. End users need effective transparency to be able to make informed choices throughout the different stages of their relationship with ISPs, when selecting Internet access service offers, and when considering switching service offer within an ISP or to an alternative ISP. Quality information about service offers could include speed, delay, and jitter. Regulators can publish such information to facilitate end users' choice of service provider and offer. It may also encourage ISPs to use the same metrics in their service level contracts, which would further help end users to choose an ISP. Finally, transparency may help content, application, service and device providers develop their Internet offerings. The published information needs to be: o Accurate - the measurement results must be correct and not influenced by errors or side effects. The results should be reproducible and consistent over time. o Comparable - common metrics should be used across different ISPs and service offerings so that measurement results can be compared. o Meaningful - the metrics used for measurements need to reflect what end users value about their broadband Internet access service o Reliable - the number and distribution of measurement agents, and the statistical processing of the raw measurement data, needs to be appropriate A set of measurement parameters and associated measurement methods are used over time, e.g. speed, delay, and jitter. Then the measurement raw data are collected and go through statistical post- processing before the results can be published in an Internet access service quality index to facilitate end users' choice of service provider and offer. The regulator can also promote competition through transparency by encouraging end users to monitor the performance of their own broadband Internet access service. They might use this information to check that the performance meets that specified in their contract or Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 to understand whether their current subscription is the most appropriate. 4.2 Promoting broadband deployment Governments sometimes set strategic goals for high-speed broadband penetration as an important component of the economic, cultural and social development of the society. To evaluate the effect of the stimulated growth over time, broadband Internet access take-up and penetration of high-speed access can be monitored through measurement campaigns. An example of such an initiative is the "Digital Agenda for Europe" which was adopted in 2010, to achieve universal broadband access. The goal is to achieve by 2020, access for all Europeans to Internet access speeds of 30 Mbps or above, and 50% or more of European households subscribing to Internet connections above 100 Mbps. To monitor actual broadband Internet access performance in a specific country or a region, extensive measurement campaigns are needed. A panel can be built based on operators and packages in the market, spread over urban, suburban and rural areas. Probes can then be distributed to the participants of the campaign. Periodic tests running on the probes can for example measure actual speed at peak and off-peak hours, but also other detailed quality metrics like delay and jitter. Collected data goes afterwards through statistical analysis, deriving estimates for the whole population which can then be presented and published regularly. Using a harmonized or standardized measurement methodology, or even a common quality measurement platform, measurement results could also be used for benchmarking of providers and/or countries. 4.3 Monitoring "net neutrality" Regulatory approaches related to net neutrality and the open Internet has been introduced in some jurisdictions. Examples of such efforts are the Internet policy as outlined by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications Guidelines for quality of service [BEREC Guidelines] and US FCC Preserving the Open Internet Report and Order [FCC R&O]. Although legal challenges can change the status of policy such as the court action negating the FCC R&O, the take-away for LMAP purposes is that policy-makers are looking for measurement solutions to assist them in discovering biased treatment of traffic flows. The exact definitions and requirements vary from one jurisdiction to another; the comments below provide some hints about the potential role of measurements. Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 10] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 Net neutrality regulations do not necessarily require every packet to be treated equally. Typically they allow "reasonable" traffic management (for example if there is exceptional congestion) and allow "specialized services" in parallel to, but separate from, ordinary Internet access (for example for facilities-based IPTV). A regulator may want to monitor such practices as input to the regulatory evaluation. However, these concepts are evolving and differ across jurisdictions, so measurement results should be assessed with caution. A regulator could monitor departures from application agnosticism such as blocking or throttling of traffic from specific applications, and preferential treatment of specific applications. A measurement system could send, or passively monitor, application-specific traffic and then measure in detail the transfer of the different packets. Whilst it is relatively easy to measure port blocking, it is a research topic how to detect other types of differentiated treatment. The paper, "Glasnost: Enabling End Users to Detect Traffic Differentiation" [M-Labs NSDI 2010] and follow-on tool "Glasnost" [Glasnost] are examples of work in this area. A regulator could also monitor the performance of the broadband service over time, to try and detect if the specialized service is provided at the expense of the Internet access service. Comparison between ISPs or between different countries may also be relevant for this kind of evaluation. 5 Implementation Options There are several ways of implementing a measurement system. The choice may be influenced by the details of the particular use case and what the most important criteria are for the regulator, ISP or third party operating the measurement system. One way involves a special hardware device that is connected directly to the home gateway. The devices are deployed to a carefully selected panel of end users and they perform measurements according to a defined schedule. The schedule can run throughout the day, to allow continuous assessment of the network. Careful design ensures that measurements do not detrimentally impact the home user experience or corrupt the results by testing when the user is also using the broadband line. The system is therefore tightly controlled by the operator of the measurement system. One advantage of this approach is that it is possible to get reliable benchmarks for the performance of a network with only a few devices. One disadvantage is that it would be expensive to deploy hardware devices on a mass scale sufficient to understand the performance of the network at the granularity of a single broadband user. Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 11] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 Another approach involves implementing the measurement capability as a webpage or an "app" that end users are encouraged to download onto their mobile phone or computing device. Measurements are triggered by the end user, for example the user interface may have a button to "test my broadband now". One advantage of this approach is that the performance is measured to the end user, rather than to the home gateway, and so includes the home network. Another difference is that the system is much more loosely controlled, as the panel of end users and the schedule of tests are determined by the end users themselves rather than the measurement system. It would be easier to get large- scale, however it is harder to get comparable benchmarks as the measurements are affected by the home network and also the population is self-selecting and so potentially biased towards those who think they have a problem. This could be alleviated by stimulating widespread downloading of the app and careful post-processing of the results to reduce biases. There are several other possibilities. For example, as a variant on the first approach, the measurement capability could be implemented as software embedded in the home gateway, which would make it more viable to have the capability on every user line. As a variant on the second approach, the end user could initiate measurements in response to a request from the measurement system. The operator of the measurement system should be careful to ensure that measurements do not detrimentally impact users. Potential issues include: * Measurement traffic generated on a particular user's line may impact that end user's quality of experience. The danger is greater for measurements that generate a lot of traffic over a lengthy period. * The measurement traffic may impact that particular user's bill or traffic cap. * The measurement traffic from several end users may, in combination, congest a shared link. * The traffic associated with the control and reporting of measurements may overload the network. The danger is greater where the traffic associated with many end users is synchronized. 6 Conclusions Large-scale measurements of broadband performance are useful for both network operators and regulators. Network operators would like to use measurements to help them better understand the quality experienced Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 12] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 by their customers, identify problems in the network and design network improvements. Regulators would like to use measurements to help promote competition between network operators, stimulate the growth of broadband access and monitor 'net neutrality'. There are other use cases that are not the focus of the initial LMAP charter (although it is expected that the mechanisms developed would be readily applied), for example end users would like to use measurements to help identify problems in their home network and to monitor the performance of their broadband provider. From consideration of the various use cases, several common themes emerge whilst there are also some detailed differences. These characteristics guide the development of LMAP's framework, information model and protocol. A measurement capability is needed across a wide number of heterogeneous environments. Tests may be needed in the home network, in the ISP's network or beyond; they may be measuring a fixed or wireless network; they may measure just the access network or across several networks; at least some of which are not operated by the measurement provider. There is a role for both standardized and non-standardized measurements. For example, a regulator would like to publish standardized performance metrics for all network operators, whilst an ISP may need their own tests to understand some feature special to their network. Most use cases need active measurements, which create and measure specific test traffic, but some need passive measurements of the end user's traffic. Regardless of the tests being operated, there needs to be a way to demand or schedule the tests. Most use cases need a regular schedule of measurements, but sometimes ad hoc testing is needed, for example for troubleshooting. It needs to be ensured that measurements do not affect the user experience and are not affected by user traffic (unless desired). In addition there needs to be a common way to collect the results. Standardization of this control and reporting functionality allows the operator of a measurement system to buy the various components from different vendors. After the measurement results are collected, they need to be understood and analyzed. Often it is sufficient to measure only a small subset of end users, but per-line fault diagnosis requires the ability to test every individual line. Analysis requires accurate definition and understanding of where the test points are, as well as contextual information about the topology, line, product and the subscriber's contract. The actual analysis of results is beyond the scope of LMAP, as is the key challenge of how to integrate the Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 13] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 measurement system into a network operator's existing tools for diagnostics and network planning. Finally the test data, along with any associated network, product or subscriber contract data is commercial or private information and needs to be protected. 7 Security Considerations Large-scale measurements raise several potential security, privacy (data protection) and business sensitivity issues. Both the network operator and regulator use cases potentially raise the following issues: 1. a malicious party that gains control of Measurement Agents to launch DoS attacks at a target, or to alter (perhaps subtly) Measurement Tasks in order to compromise the end user's privacy, the business confidentiality of the network, or the accuracy of the measurement system. 2. a malicious party that gains control of Measurement Agents to create a platform for pervasive monitoring [RFC7258], in order to attack the privacy of Internet users and organisations. 3. a malicious party that intercepts or corrupts the Measurement Results &/or other information about the Subscriber, for similar nefarious purposes. 4. a malicious party that uses fingerprinting techniques to identify individual end users, even from anonymized data 5. a measurement system that does not obtain the end user's informed consent, or fails to specify a specific purpose in the consent, or uses the collected information for secondary uses beyond those specified. 6. a measurement system that is vague about who is responsible for privacy (data protection); this role is often termed the "data controller". In addition, the regulator use case has the following potential issue: 7. a malicious network operator could try to identify the broadband lines that the regulator was measuring and prioritise that traffic ("game the system"). Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 14] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 The [framework] also considers some potential mitigations of these issues. They will need to be considered by an LMAP protocol and more generally by any measurement system. 8 IANA Considerations None Contributors The information in this document is partially derived from text written by the following contributors: James Miller jamesmilleresquire@gmail.com Rachel Huang rachel.huang@huawei.com Informative References [IETF85-Plenary] Crawford, S., "Large-Scale Active Measurement of Broadband Networks", http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-iesg- opsandtech-7.pdf 'example' from slide 18 [Extend TCP] Michio Honda, Yoshifumi Nishida, Costin Raiciu, Adam Greenhalgh, Mark Handley and Hideyuki Tokuda. "Is it Still Possible to Extend TCP?" Proc. ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), November 2011, Berlin, Germany. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/IRTF-1.pdf [framework] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Aitken, P., Akhter, A. "A framework for large-scale measurement platforms (LMAP)", http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-framework/ [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H.z., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July 2013. [RFC7258] Farrell, S., Tschofenig, H., "PPervasive Monitoring Is an Attack", RFC 7258, May 2014. Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 15] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 [FCC R&O] United States Federal Communications Commission, 10-201, "Preserving the Open Internet, Broadband Industries Practices, Report and Order", http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10- 201A1.pdf [BEREC Guidelines] Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, "BEREC Guidelines for quality of service in the scope of net neutrality", http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/ subject_matter/berec/download/0/1101-berec-guidelines-for- quality-of-service-_0.pdf [M-Labs NSDI 2010] M-Lab, "Glasnost: Enabling End Users to Detect Traffic Differentiation", http://www.measurementlab.net/download/AMIfv945ljiJXzG- fgUrZSTu2hs1xRl5Oh-rpGQMWL305BNQh- BSq5oBoYU4a7zqXOvrztpJhK9gwk5unOe-fOzj4X-vOQz_HRrnYU- aFd0rv332RDReRfOYkJuagysstN3GZ__lQHTS8_UHJTWkrwyqIUjffVeDxQ/ [Glasnost] M-Lab tool "Glasnost", http://mlab-live.appspot.com/tools/ glasnost [P.800] ITU-T, "SERIES P: TELEPHONE TRANSMISSION QUALITY Methods for objective and subjective assessment of quality", https://www.itu.int/rec/dologin_pub.asp?lang=e&id=T-REC- P.800-199608-I!!PDF-E&type=items Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 16] INTERNET DRAFT LMAP Use Cases November 10, 2014 Authors' Addresses Marc Linsner Cisco Systems, Inc. Marco Island, FL USA EMail: mlinsner@cisco.com Philip Eardley BT B54 Room 77, Adastral Park, Martlesham Ipswich, IP5 3RE UK Email: philip.eardley@bt.com Trevor Burbridge BT B54 Room 77, Adastral Park, Martlesham Ipswich, IP5 3RE UK Email: trevor.burbridge@bt.com Frode Sorensen Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT) Lillesand Norway Email: frode.sorensen@npt.no Linsner, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 17]