Internet Draft Anwar Siddiqui Avaya Inc. Dan Romascanu Avaya Inc. Eugene Golovinsky BMC Software 15 Jan 2003 Real-time Application Quality of Service Monitoring (RAQMON) Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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." To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo defines a common protocol data unit (PDU) used between RAQMON Data Source (RDS) and RAQMON Report Collector (RRC) to report a QOS statistics using RTCP and SNMP as Transport Protocol. The original RAQMON draft [SIDDIQUI3] was split into 3 parts to identify the RAQMON Framework, RAQMON QOS PDU and RAQMON MIB. This memo defined RAQMON QOS Protocol Data Unit (PDU). This memo also outlines mechanisms to use Real Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) and Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) to transport RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 these PDUs between RAQMON Data Source (RDS) and RAQMON Report Collector (RRC) as outlined in RAQMON Charter of the RMON Workgroup. The memo [SIDDIQUI2] defines a Real-Time Application QOS Monitoring (RAQMON) Framework that extends the RMON Framework to allow Real-time Application QoS information as outlined by RAQMON Charter of the RMON Workgroup. The memo [SIDDIQUI1] defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. The document proposes an extension to the Remote Monitoring MIB [RFC2819] to accommodate RAQMON solution. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Table of Contents Status of this Memo 1 Abstract 1 1 Introduction 2 2 RAQMON Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Design Overview 3 3 Measurement Methodology 4 4 RAQMON PDU Format 5 5 Transporting RAQMON Protocol Data Units 15 6 Normative References 20 7 Normative References 20 8 Intellectual Property 23 9 Security Considerations 24 10 IANA Considerations 25 11 Authors' Addresses 25 A Full Copyright Statement 26 1. Introduction This memo defines a common protocol data unit (PDU) used between RAQMON Data Source (RDS) and RAQMON Report Collector (RRC) to report a QOS statistics using RTCP and SNMP as an underlying transport protocol as outlined in RAQMON Framework draft. The original RAQMON draft [SIDDIQUI3] was split into 3 parts to identify the RAQMON framework, RAQMON PDU and RAQMON MIB. This memo takes the portion of [SIDDIQUI3] that defined RAQMON QOS PDU and describes how various PDUs can be transported over existing Application level transport protocol like Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) and Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) to transport application QOS statistics between RDS and RRC. RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2. RAQMON Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Design Overview This memo defines a common protocol data unit (PDU) used between RAQMON Data Source (RDS) and RAQMON Report Collector (RRC) to report a QOS statistics using RTCP and SNMP as an underlying transport protocol as outlined in RAQMON Framework draft. RAQMON Protocol Data Unit (PDU) provides a generic structure exchanged between RDS and RRC to report QOS parameters in Real-time. RAQMON continues the architecture created in the RMON[RFC2819] by providing analysis of application performance as experienced by end- users on a specific IP end point and correlating such performance to its underlying transport network characteristics, application level transactions and host performance. RAQMON protocol data units provide a vehicle to these end points and applications to report such statistics in real-time to a target collector within a specific administrative domain. RAQMON provides a framework to report QOS statistics for simplex flows, i.e., it reports statistics only in one direction. Therefore, within RAQMON Framework, a RAQMON PDU logically contains QOS parameter information as perceived by the reporting end device or applications. RAQMON operates on top of RTCP, SNMP, TCP, UDP, IPv4 or IPv6 occupying the place of a payload specification at the application layer in the protocol stack. However, RAQMON PDUs does not transport application data but is rather uses existing internet protocols like RTCP APP Packet and SNMP INFORM to be transported from a RDS to RRC. Like the implementations of routing and management protocols, an implementation of RAQMON will typically execute in the background, not in the data forwarding path. RAQMON PDUs by itself is not a transport protocol; RAQMON PDUs are designed to operate with current and future internet transport protocols. RAQMON Protocol Data Units (PDU) can be used by many Real-time as well as Non-Real time Applications to report QOS statistics and considered as an extension of RMON. Voice over IP, Fax over IP, Video over IP, Instant Messaging, Email, ftp/tftp based downloads, e- business style transactions, web access from handheld devices or cell phones are few example application scenarios where such a framework could be useful. RAQMON PDUs are common data formats commonly understood by RDS and RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 RRC to exchange RAQMON Statistics (i.e. "Name" and "Value" pair). RAQMON PDUs offer an entry (a.k.a. "Name") to be filled in by application specific software which with a specific "value" in real- time before an RDS emits such a PDU towards a RRC. It is out of the scope of PDU specification to either recommend or validate specific measurement methodology used to gather a "value" for a specified "name". These PDUs are transmitted over Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) or Simple Network Management Control Protocol (SNMP) to ensure reuse of existing internet standards. There are 2 types of PDUs within the RAQMON Framework: BASIC PDU: A BASIC PDU provides mechanisms to report some frequently used parameters from a pre listed parameter suit defined in table 1. Application developers have the flexibility to make an RDS report a sub-set of these pre-set parameters to RRC appropriate for an application context. For example, An IP Phone developer might want to use RAQMON BASIC PDU to report End-to-End Delay, Jitter, packet loss etc while the Instant Message client can use the same BASIC PDU to report only Packet Loss and End-to-End Delay. APP PDU: Since is difficult to design a BASIC PDU that meets the needs of all applications, RAQMON provides APP PDUs for further extension required to convey application, vendor, device etc. specific parameters for future usage. Additional parameters can be defined within payload of the APP PDU as Type length Value (TLV) pairs and defined by the application developers or vendors. RAQMON PDUs, provides RDSs the flexibility to decide the parameters, an end device/application is willing to report. RAQMON PDUs also provide the RRCs the flexibility to store the parameters an administrative domain feel important for a domain. Following sections of this memo contains detailed RAQMON PDU specifications. 3. Measurement Methodology It is not the intent of this document to recommend a methodology to measure any of the QOS parameters defined in. However a complete list of definitions of metrics used within RAQMON PDUs are defined in through reference to other appropriate existing IETF standards organizations' documents. There are many different methodologies available for measuring application performance (e.g., probe-based, client-based, synthetic- transaction, etc.). This specification does not mandate a particular RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 methodology - it is open to any that meet the minimum requirements. Conformance to this specification requires that the collected data be presented appropriately to match the RAQMON PDU semantics described herein. 4. RAQMON PDU Format There are 2 types of RAQMON PDUs used by the RDS to report various QOS parameters to RRC. BASIC PDU: For reporting monitored data from an RDS to RRC which includes QOS parameters defined in . BASIC PDU are identified by inspecting the PDT field within the PDU. BASIC PDUs are marked as PDT = 1 APP PDU: APP PDUs are marked as PDT = 4 Following is various RAQMON PDU formats: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | V |P| RC | | | |X|PDT = 1| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | DSRC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |RC X |N| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data Source Address {DA} | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Receiver's Address (RA) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NTP Timestamp, most significant word | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | NTP Timestamp, least significant word | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Application Name (AN) ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Data Source Name (DN) ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Receiver's Name (RN) ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Session State ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Session Duration | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End-to-End Delay | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cumulative Packet Loss | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Total # Packets sent | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Total # Packets received | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Total # Octets sent | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Total # Octets received | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Port Used | Receiver Port Used | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | S_Layer2 | S_Layer3 | S_Layer2 | S_Layer3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Source Payload |Reciver Payload| CPU | Memory | |Type | Type | Utilization | Utilization | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Session Setup Delay | Inter arrival Jitter | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Padding |x|x|x|x|x|x|x|x| Packet loss | | |x|x|x|x|x|x|x|x| (In fraction)| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2 - Basic Protcol Data Unit 4.1 BASIC Protocol Data Unit (PDU) version (V) : 3 bits - Identifies the version of RAQMON. This version is 1. padding (P): 1 bit - If the padding bit is set, this RAQMON packet contains some additional padding octets at the end which are not part of the monitoring information. The last octet of the padding is a count of how many padding octets should be ignored. Padding may be needed by some applications as reporting is based on the intent of RDS to report certain parameters. record count (RC): 4 bits - Total number of records contained in this packet. A value of zero is valid but useless. RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 reserved bits: 3 bits - reserved for future extensions to the RAQMON Packet. IPversion Flag: 1 bit - While set to 1, IP Version Flag indicates that IP addresses are IP version 6 compatible. PDU Type (PDT): 4 bits - This indicates the type of RAQMON PDU being sent. There are 2 types of RAQMON PDUs. BASIC PDU (PDT = 1) and APP PDU (PDT =4). length: 16 bits - The length of this RAQMON packet in 32-bit words minus one which includes the header and any padding. DSRC: 32 bits - Data Source identifier represents a unique session descriptor that points to a specific communication session between communicating entities. Uniqueness of DSRC is valid only within a session. DSRC values should be randomly generated using vendor chosen algorithms. It is not sufficient to obtain a DSRC simply by calling random() without carefully initializing the state. It is beyond the scope of this document define an algorithm to generate DSRC. However one could very easily use an algorithm like the one defined in Appendix A.6 in [17]. Depending on the choice of algorithm, there is a finite probability that two DSRCS from two different RDSs may be same. To further reduce the probability that two RDSs pick the same DSRC, it is recommended that an RRC or an application use Data Source Address (DA) and Data Source Name (DN) in conjunction with a DSRC value to reduce that probability drastically. Each RAQMON packet consists of a DSRC followed by RC_n and RAQMON flags to indicate presence of appropriate RAQMON parameters as defined in table 1. RC_n: 4 bits - Record Count number to which the information in this record pertains. Record Count number indicates a sub-session within a communication session. A value of zero is a valid record number. Maximum number of records that can be described in one RAQMON Packet is 16 (i.e. 0000 - 1111). RAQMON Parameter Presence Flags (RPPF): 28 bits Each of these flags while set represent that this RAQMON packet contains corresponding parameters as specified in table 2 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | V |P| RC | | | |X|PDT = 1| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 | DSRC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |RC N |8|7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|9|8|7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|9|8|7|6|5|4|3|2|1| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Sequence Number Presence/Absence of corresponding Parameter within this RAQMON packet 1 Data Source Address (DA) 2 Receiver Address (RA) 3 NTP Timestamp 4 Application Name 5 Data Source Name (DN) 6 Receiver Name (RN) 7 Session Setup Status 8 Session Duration 9 End-to-End Delay 0 Cumulative Packet Loss 1 Total number of Packets sent 2 Total number of Packets received 3 Total number of Octets sent 4 Total number of Octets received 5 Source Port Used 6 Receiver Port Used 7 S_Layer2 8 S_Layer3 9 D_Layer2 0 D_Layer3 RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 1 Source Payload Type 2 Receiver Payload Type 3 CPU Utilization 4 Memory Utilization 5 Session Setup Delay 6 Inter arrival Jitter 7 Packet loss (in fraction) 8 RAQMON Optional Flag (ROF) Table 2: RAQMON Parameters and corresponding RPPF Data Source Name: - Data Source Name field starts with an 8-bit octet count describing the length of the text and the text itself. Note that the text can be no longer than 255 octets. The text is encoded according to the UTF-2 encoding specified in Annex F of ISO standard 10646 [ISO10646],[UNICODE]. This encoding is also known as UTF-8 or UTF-FSS. It is described in "File System Safe UCS Transformation Format (FSS_UTF)", X/Open Preliminary Specification, Document Number P316 and Unicode Technical Report #4. US-ASCII is a subset of this encoding and requires no additional encoding. The presence of multi- octet encoding is indicated by setting the most significant bit of a character to a value of one. Text is not null terminated because some multi-octet encoding include null octets. Data Source Name is terminated by one or more null octets, the first of which is interpreted as to denote the end of the string and the remainder as needed to pad until the next 32-bit boundary. Since the Data Source Name is expected to remain constant for the duration of the session, it is recommended that RDS report such field only once within a communication session to ensure efficient usage of network and system resources. Receiver Name: - Same as Data Source Name. Data Source Name and Receiver's Name are contiguous, i.e., items are not individually padded to a 32-bit boundary. Data Source Address: 32 bits - The standard ASCII representation of the end device's numeric address on the interface used for the communication session. The standard ASCII representation of an IP Version 4 address is "dotted decimal", also known as dotted quad. Other address types are expected to have ASCII representations that RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 are mutually unique. 135.8.45.178 is an example of a valid Data Source Address. Since the Data Source Address is expected to remain constant for the duration of the session, it is recommended that RDS report such field only once within a communication session to ensure efficient usage of network and system resources. Issue: IP addresses, TCP/UDP ports information should be removed (NAT un-friendly). One of the way to avoid this problem is to use Application Layer Gateways (ALGs) to fill out IP Addresses on RDS's behalf. Receiver Address: 32 bits - Same as Data Source Address Application Name: - Application Name field starts with an 8-bit octet count describing the length of the text and the text itself. Application name field has same format as Data Source Name. This is a text string giving the name and possibly version of the application associated to that session, e.g., "XYZ VoIP Agent 1.2". This information may be useful for debugging purposes and is similar to the Mailer or Mail-System-Version SMTP headers. Since the Application Name is expected to remain constant for the duration of the session, it is recommended that RDS report such field only once within a communication session to ensure efficient usage of network and system resources. NTP timestamp: 64 bits - Indicates the wallclock time when the RAQMON packet was sent so that it may be used by the RRC to store Date/Time. A Data Source that has no notion of wallclock or time may set the NTP timestamp to zero. However that will waste 32 bits in the packet. An RDS should set the appropriate RAQMON flag to 0 to avoid such waste. Since NTP time stamp is intended to provide Date/Time of a session, it is recommended that the NTP Timestamp be used only in the first RAQMON packet to use network resources efficiently. However such a recommendation is context sensitive and should be enforced as deemed necessary by each application environment. The full resolution NTP timestamp is a 64-bit unsigned fixed-point number with the integer part in the first 32 bits and the fractional part in the last 32 bits. In some fields where a more compact representation is appropriate, only the middle 32 bits are used; that is, the low 16 bits of the integer part and the high 16 bits of the fractional part. The high 16 bits of the integer part must be determined independently. Session Setup Status: - Session State field starts with an 8-bit octet count describing the length of the text and the text itself. This field is used to describe appropriate communication session states e.g. Call Established successfully, RSVP reservation failed RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 10] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 etc. Session Duration: 32 bits - Session Duration is an unsigned Integer expressed in the order of seconds. End-to-End Delay: 32 bits - End-to-End Delay is an unsigned Integer expressed in the order of milliseconds. Cumulative Packet Loss: 32 bits - The total number of packets from session RC_n that have been lost while this RAQMON packet was generated. This number is defined to be the number of packets expected less the number of packets actually received. Total number of Packets sent: 32 bits - The total number of packets transmitted within a communication session by the sender since starting transmission up until the time this RAQMON packet was generated. This counter is reset if the DSRC identifier is changed as it indicates a different session. Total number of Packets received: 32 bits - The total number of packets transmitted within a communication session by the receiver since starting transmission up until the time this RAQMON packet was generated. This counter is reset if the DSRC identifier is changed as it indicates a different session. Total number of Octets sent: 32 bits - The total number of payload octets (i.e., not including header or padding) transmitted in packets by the sender within a communication session since starting transmission up until the time this RAQMON packet was generated. This counter is reset if the DSRC identifier is changed as it indicates a different session. Total number of Octets received: 32 bits - The total number of payload octets (i.e., not including header or padding) transmitted in packets by the receiver within a communication session since starting transmission up until the time this RAQMON packet was generated. This counter is reset if the DSRC identifier is changed as it indicates a different session. Source Port Used: 16 bits - Port Number used by the Data Source as used by the application while this RAQMON Packet was generated. Receiver Port Used: 16 bits - Same as Source Port Used S_Layer2: 8 bits - Source Layer 2 priorities used to send packets to the receiver by this data source during this communication session. For example priority bits associated to IEEE 802.1p values for appropriate priorities. For example priority bits associated to IEEE RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 11] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 802.1p tags value of 5 reported via S_Layer2 parameter would indicate Video over IP from this data source is prioritized by some Layer 2 switch. S_Layer3: 8 bits - Layer 3 priorities used to send packets to the receiver by this data source during this communication session. For example priority bits associated to IP Precedence (i.e. 101XXXXX) or DiffServ PHB values (i.e EF, AF41) etc reported via S_Layer3 parameter would indicate whether applications from this data source is prioritized by some Layer 3 switch or not. D_Layer2: 8 bits - Layer 2 priorities used by the receiver to send packets to the data source during this communication session if the Data Source can learn such information. D_Layer3: 8 bits - Layer 3 priorities used by the receiver to send packets to the data source during this communication session if the Data Source can learn such information. Source Payload Type: 8 bit - This document follows definition of Payload Type (PT) as definition is in [RFC1890]. This 8 bit fields specify the type of audio, video or data media used to send packets to the receiver by this data source during a communication session. Table 3 indicates a small list of various Payload types as defined in [RFC1890] cited here for informational purposes. As this table indicates, if an application ought to indicate that the Source Pay Load Type used for a session were PCMA, Source Payload Field of the BASIC RAQMON packet ought to be 8. PT encoding audio/video clock rate channels name (A/V) (Hz) (audio) _______________________________________________________________ 0 PCMU A 8000 1 1 1016 A 8000 1 2 G721 A 8000 1 3 GSM A 8000 1 4 unassigned A 8000 1 5 DVI4 A 8000 1 6 DVI4 A 16000 1 7 LPC A 8000 1 8 PCMA A 8000 1 9 G722 A 8000 1 10 L16 A 44100 2 11 L16 A 44100 1 12 unassigned A 13 unassigned A 14 MPA A 90000 (see text) RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 12] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 15 G728 A 8000 1 16--23 unassigned A 24 unassigned V 25 CelB V 90000 26 JPEG V 90000 27 unassigned V 28 nv V 90000 29 unassigned V 30 unassigned V 31 H261 V 90000 32 MPV V 90000 33 MP2T AV 90000 34--71 unassigned ? 72--76 reserved N/A N/A N/A 77--95 unassigned ? 96--127 dynamic ? Table 3: Payload types (PT) for standard audio and video encodings Please refer to [RFC1890] for various other Audio, Video and Data related payload types. CPU Utilization: 8 bits - Percentage of CPU used over a time duration. Memory Utilization: 8 bits - Percentage of total memory over a time duration. Session Setup Delay: 16 bits - Indicates the duration of time required by a network communication controller to set a media path between the communicating entities or the end devices. This parameter is expressed in milliseconds. Inter-Arrival Jitter: 16 bits - An estimate of the statistical variance of packets inter-arrival time expressed in milliseconds. Packet Loss in Fraction: 8 bits - The fraction of packets from data source lost since the previous RAQMON was dispatched, expressed as a fixed point number with the binary point at the left edge of the field. (That is equivalent to taking the integer part after multiplying the loss fraction by 256.) This fraction is defined to be the number of packets lost divided by the number of packets expected. RAQMON Optional Flag: 8 bits - These bits are open to various vendors to be used for application specific bit level signaling. These 8-bit Optional Flags are interpreted by the application, not by the RRC and usage of these left at the application developer's discretion. RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 13] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 4.2 Mapping of Basic RAQMON Packet to SNMP notification The information carried by Basic RAQMON packet MAY be delivered by SNMP notifications. This delivery mechanism works in conjunction with RAQMON Notifications defined in [SIDDIQUI1]. As described in Section 5.1, the use of SNMP Informs is RECOEMDED. Full compliance with RFC2273 to support Command Responder/Notification Originator applications is NOT REQUIRED. This is to be left up to implementer. A RAQMON device can implement either a full SNMP agent, or a subset that sends RAQMON PDUs in a format similar to SNMP Informs. The section of the draft defines mapping mechanism of information carried by Basic RAQMON Packet to SNMP notification PDU(s). 4.3 APP Protocol Data Unit (PDU) The APP PDU is intended for experimental use as new applications and new features are developed, without requiring packet type value registration. APP packets with unrecognized names should be ignored. After testing and if wider use is justified, it is recommended that each APP packet be redefined without the subtype and name fields and registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | V |P| RC | | | |X|PDT = 4| Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | DSRC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data Source Address {DA} | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | APP packet name | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | application dependent data | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3 - RAQMON APP Protcol Data Unit version (V), padding (P), record count (RC): As defined for BASIC Packet. reserved bits: 3 bits - reserved for future extensions to the RAQMON Packet. IPversion Flag: As defined for BASIC Packet. RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 14] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 DSRC and DA: As defined for BASIC Packet. subtype: 4 bits - May be used as a subtype to allow a set of APP PDUs to be defined under one unique name, or for any application-dependent data. pdu type (PDT): 4 bits - Contains the constant 4 to identify this as an RAQMON APP PDU. name: 4 octets - A name chosen by the person defining the set of APP PDUs to be unique with respect to other APP PDUs this application might receive. The application creator might choose to use the application name, and then coordinate the allocation of subtype values to others who want to define new packet types for the application. Alternatively, it is recommended that others choose a name based on the entity they represent, then coordinate the use of the name within that entity. The name is interpreted as a sequence of four ASCII characters, with uppercase and lowercase characters treated as distinct. application-dependent data: variable length - Application-dependent data may or may not appear in an APP packet. It is interpreted by the application and not by the RRC itself. It must be a multiple of 32 bits long. 4.4 Byte Order, Alignment, and Time Format of RAQMON PDUs All integer fields are carried in network byte order, that is, most significant byte (octet) first. This byte order is commonly known as big-endian. The transmission order is described in detail in [RFC791]. Unless otherwise noted, numeric constants are in decimal (base 10). All header data is aligned to its natural length, i.e., 16-bit fields are aligned on even offsets, 32-bit fields are aligned at offsets divisible by four, etc. Octets designated as padding have the value zero. 5. Transporting RAQMON Protocol Data Units It is an inherent objective of the RAQMON Framework to re-use existing application level transport protocols to maximize the usage of existing installations as well as to avoid transport protocol level complexities in the design process. As outlined in the RAQMON framework document that both the Real-Time Transport Control Protocol and Simple Network Management Protocol were suitable to meet the criteria of a transport protocol as outlined in the RAQMON Charter. RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 15] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 Section 5. 1 reflects mechanisms that uses SNMP INFORM PDUs as transport protocol and section 5.2 elaborates a protocol that uses RTCP APP Packets [RFC 1889] to transport RAQMON PDUs between RDS and RRC. 5.1 SNMP INFORM PDUs as RDS/RRC Network Transport Protocol The idea is to re-use SNMP INFORM PDU. This proposal offers that: + RDSs implement the capability of embedding RAQMON parameters in SNMP INFORM Request and thus re-using well known SNMP mechanisms to report RAQMON Statistics. + To keep the RDS realization simple and keep the protocol lightweight, the RDSs will not be REQUIRED to respond to SNMP requests like get, set, etc., as an SNMP compliant responder would. + If the RRC chooses to implement an SNMP manager, an SNMP INFORM Response would be sent for each associated SNMP INFORM originated by the RDS. + The RDS may ignore the SNMP INFORM Responses, or, if better reliability is required, will wait for the Inform response, retransmitting the original Inform PDU every M seconds until it has been sent N times. + The SNMP INFORM transport for RAQMON PDUs can use one of the two UDP ports assignments: - Standard UDP port 162 used for SNMP Notifications, if full SNMP entities implementations are present in the RRC and RDS - IANA assigned UDP port 5YYYY for RAQMON PDUs carried over SNMP, for the cases when at least one of the RRC and RDS does not support a full implementation of the SNMP entities. The benefits of using SNMP Informs are: - Using a well-known protocol. - Privacy and authentication are covered by SNMPv3 - Limited or no need for specific RAQMON-protocol code in the RRC, as it can use an SNMP manager implementation to process Informs. The drawback of this approach is the overhead SNMP puts on low- powered RDSs, for instance - BER encoding. 5.1.1 Encoding RAQMON PDU format within a small set of MIB items. The RAQMON PDU defined in Section 4.1 is encapsulated in the RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 16] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 raqmonPDUBasicPDU MIB object from the RAQMON MIB [SIDDIQUI1]. This object has a SYNTAX of an OCTET STRING variable, which encodes the content of the data fields described in figure 2. The Inform Request will contain this object. 5.1.2 SNMP Inform PDU Related Issues as applied to RAQMON Using SNMP INFORM PDUs for RAQMON has all the advantages offered by a well known protocol like SNMP. Privacy and authentication issues related to RAQMON are "mostly" covered by SNMPv3 However there are certain challenges in using SNMP for RAQMON too. And they are: - The benefit is added flexibility of the proposed by RAQMON Framework could be constrained. - Sending out Acknowledgements from RRCs to RDSs can create bottleneck as additional RDS load is created, specially when the RRCs will be receving many Inform PDUs from many RRcs. - Sending ACKs also wastes network bandwidth. In a reasonable sized Enterprise and Service provider systems this can be a significant amount of load. To get rid of the Ack as the RDS/RRC protocol which needs not be acknowledgement oriented, SNMP Traps could be used instead of Informs. This will allow one to use SNMP without avoiding performance related issues as mentioned above, with the disadvantage of loss of reliability in passing the information. 5.2 Mapping RAQMON PDUs to RTCP as RDS/RRC Network Transport Protocol The RAQMON PDU Transfer is comprised of unidirectional exchange of PDUs between RDSs and an RRC. The protocol data units are mapped to a connectionless datagram service (UDP). As outlined in RFC 1889, an RTCP APP packet allows Applications to defined RTCP packets. Within RTCP framework, a RAQMON PDUs is represented as an Application Specific Report and uses RTCP APP Packets to transport RAQMON PDU. Figure 4 below shows how RAQMON PDUs can use RTCP APP Packets to transport RAQMON PDUs between RDS and RRC. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V=2|P| subtype | PT=APP=204 | length | RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 17] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SSRC/CSRC | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | name (ASCII) = "RAQMON" | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RAQMON BASIC PDU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4 - Using RTCP APP Packets to transport RAQMON PDUs The RTCP APP packets are intended for experimental use as new applications and new features are developed, without requiring packet type value registration. To be backward compatible RTCP APP packets used by RAQMON SHOULD be Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Registered. version (V), padding (P), length: As described for the SR packet (see Section 6.3.1). subtype: 5 bits subtype 1 in RAQMON Specific RTCP APP packet SHOULD be used by the BASIC RAQMON PDU and subtype 2 should be preserved for RAQMON APP PDUs. These unique definitions will be IANA registered. packet type (PT): 8 bits Contains the constant 204 to identify this as an RTCP APP packet. name: 4 octets The name chosen by the RMON WG defining the set of APP packets will be unique with respect to other APP packets and will be IANA Registered as "RAQMON" with all uppercase. The name field in RTCP APP Packet is interpreted as a sequence of four ASCII characters. application-dependent data: variable length RAQMON PDUs sent by the RDS in the format specified in Figure 4 will be interpreted by the RAQMON Report Collector (RRC) and not RTP itself. RAQMON PDUs must be a multiple of 32 bits long. + During a monitored real-time session, the RDS emits a Report PDU every M seconds toward the RRC as provisioned by the RDS. + The RRC collects the Report PDUs and correlate them with its database. Though this is a simple one-way send protocol, the RDSs will not be capable of inferring whether a PDU was received by the RRC as Report PDUs are transmitted over a lossy network. So one uses proposed RTCP like protocol as RDS/RRC Network Transport RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 18] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 Protocol each Report PDU must contain enough information to uniquely identify the PDUs and correlate to an ongoing session. RRCs could use DSRC field and a unique device ID (i.e. like 6 Octet MAC address or IP Address) to define a unique session. However this will cause 6-octet overhead worth wasted bandwidth per PDU. 5.2.1 - Pseudo code for RDS & RRC RDS: when (session starts} { report.identifier = session.endpoints, session.starttime; report.timestamp = 0; while (session in progress) { wait interval; report.statistics = update statistics; report.curtimestamp += interval; if encryption required report_data = encrypt(report, encrypt parameters); else report_data = report; raqmon_pdu = header, report_data; send raqmon-pdu; } } RRC: listen on raqmon port when ( raqmon_pdu received ) { decrypt raqmon_pdu.data if needed if report.identifier in database if report.current_time_stamp > last update update session statistics from report.statistics else discard report } 5.2.2 Port Assignment As specified in the previous sections that Transport of RAQMON PDUs can be performed using various underlying network transport protocol like TCP and UDP. Applications operating under RAQMON Framework may use any unreserved RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 19] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 UDP port. For example, a session management program can allocate the port randomly. A single fixed port cannot be required because multiple applications using RAQMON are likely to run on the same host, and there are some operating systems that do not allow multiple processes to use the same UDP port with different multicast addresses. However, port numbers 5XXX have been registered with IANA for use with those applications that choose to use them as the default port for RAQMON PDUs over RTCP. Hosts that run multiple applications may use this port as an indication to have used RAQMON if they are not subject to the constraint of the previous paragraph. Applications need not have a default and may require that the port be explicitly specified. The particular port number was chosen to lie in the range above 5000 to accommodate port number allocation practice within the Unix operating system, where privileged processes can only use port numbers below 1024 and port numbers between 1024 and 5000 are automatically assigned by the operating systems. 6. Normative References [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. [RFC2819] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base", STD 59, RFC 2819, May 2000 [RFC1889] Henning Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications" RFC 1889, January 1996. [RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. 7. Informative References [RFC2571] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 20] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April 1999. [RFC1155] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990. [RFC1212] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991. [RFC1215] M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991. [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990. [RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 1996. [RFC1906] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996. [RFC2572] Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999. [RFC2574] Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999. [RFC1905] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996. [RFC2573] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications", RFC 2573, April 1999. [RFC2575] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999. [RFC2570] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 21] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2613] Waterman, R., Lahaye, B., Romascanu, D., and S. Waldbusser, "Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions for Switched Networks, Version 1.0", RFC 2613, June 1999 [RFC1213] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, Editors, "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991. [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K., and Kastenholtz, F., "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. [RFC1890] H. Schulzrinne, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control" RFC 1890, January 1996. [RFC1305] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol Version 3", RFC 1305, March 1992. [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. [RFC1597] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., and G. de Groot, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", RFC 1597, March 1994. [RFC2679] G. Almes, S.kalidindi and M.Zekauskas, "A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999 [RFC2680] G. Almes, S.kalidindi and M.Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999 [RFC2681] G. Almes, S.kalidindi and M.Zekauskas, "A Round-Trip Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2681, September 1999 [WALDBUSSER] Steven Waldbusser, "Application Performance Measurement MIB", draft-ietf-rmonmib-apm-mib-04.txt, July 2001 [DIETZ] Russel Dietz, Robert Cole, "Transport Performance Metrics MIB", draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-03.txt, July 2001 [ISO10646] International Standards Organization, "ISO/IEC DIS 10646-1:1993 information technology -- universal multiple-octet coded RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 22] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 character set (UCS) -- part I: Architecture and basic multilingual plane," 1993. [UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, The Unicode Standard New York, New York:Addison-Wesley, 1991. [IEEE802.1D] Information technology-Telecommunications and information exchange between systems--Local and metropolitan area networks- Common Specification a--Media access control (MAC) bridges: 15802-3: 1998 (ISO/IEC) [ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D, 1998 Edition] [RFC1349] P. Almquist, "Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite", RFC 1349, July 1992 [RFC1812] F. Baker, "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers" RFC1812, June 1995 [RFC2474] K. Nicholas, S. Blake, F. Baker and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC2474, December 1998 [RFC2475] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E.Davies, Z.Wang and W.Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services" RFC2475, December 1998 [SIDDIQUI1] A. Siddiqui, D.Romascanu, E. Golovinsky, and R. Smith, "Real-time Application Quality of Service Monitoring (RAQMON) MIB", Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-mib- 00.txt, January 2003 [SIDDIQUI2] A. Siddiqui, D.Romascanu, and E. Golovinsky, "Framework for Real-time Application Quality of Service Monitoring (RAQMON)", Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-raqmon- framework-00.txt, January 2003 [SIDDIQUI3] A. Siddiqui, D.Romascanu, E. Golovinsky, and R. Smith, "Real-time Application Quality of Service Monitoring (RAQMON) MIB", Internet-Draft, draft-siddiqui-rmonmib-raqmon-mib- 01.txt, March 2002 8. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 23] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 9. Security Considerations There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB that have a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. Such objects may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. The support for SET operations in a non-secure environment without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations. It is thus important to control even GET access to these objects and possibly to even encrypt the values of these object when sending them over the network via SNMP. Not all versions of SNMP provide features for such a secure environment. SNMPv1 by itself is not a secure environment. Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in this MIB. It is RECOMMENDED that the implementers consider the security features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework. Specifically, the use of the User-based Security Model [RFC2274] and the View-based Access Control Model [RFC2275] is RECOMMENDED. It is then a customer/user responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an instance of this MIB, is properly configured to give access to the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. It is also imperative that the RAQMON framework be able to provide the RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 24] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 following protection mechanisms: 1. Authentication - the RRC should be able to verify that a RAQMON report was originated by whom ever claims to have sent it. 2. Privacy - RAQMON information include identification of the parties participating in a communication session. RAQMON framework should be able to provide protection from eavsdropping, to prevent an un-authorized third party from gathering potentially sensitive information. This can be achieved by using various payload encryption technologies like DES, 3-DES, AES 3. Protection from Denial of Service attacks directed at the RRC - RDSs send RAQMON reports as a side effect of an external event (for example, a phone call is being received). An attacker can try and overwhelm the RRC (or the network) by initiating a large number of events (i.e., calls) for the purpose of swamping the RRC with too many RAQMON PDUs. To prevent DoS attacks against RRC, the RDS will send the first report for a session only after the session has been in progress for the TBD reporting interval. Sessions shorter than that will not be reported. 4. NAT and Firewall Friendly Design: Presence for IP addresses, TCP/UDP ports information in RAQMON PDUs may be NAT un-friendly. In such a scenario, where NAT Friendliness is a requirement, the RDS may opt to not to provide IP Addresses in RAQMON PDU. Another way to avoid this problem is by using NAT Aware Application Layer Gateways (ALGs) to fill out IP Addresses in RAQMON PDUs. 10. IANA Considerations This memo introduces 2 new ports for IANA registration and a "name" for specific RTCP APP name == "RAQMON", as specified in Section 5.2.2, at http://www.iana.org/numbers.html 11. Authors' Addresses Anwar A. Siddiqui Avaya Labs 307 Middletown Lincroft Road Lincroft, New Jersey 07738 USA Tel: +1 732 852-3200 Fax: +1 732 817-5922 E-mail: anwars@avaya.com Dan Romascanu RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 25] INTERNET DRAFT RAQMON PDU January 2003 Avaya Inc. Atidim Technology Park, Bldg. #3 Tel Aviv, 61131 Israel Tel: +972-3-645-8414 Email: dromasca@avaya.com Eugene Golovinsky BMC Software 2101 CityWest Blvd. Houston, Texas 77042 USA Tel: +1 713 918-1816 Email: eugene_golovinsky@bmc.com A. Full Copyright Statement This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. RMON WG Expires July 2003 [Page 26]