Internet DRAFT - draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m

draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m







Network Working Group                                         A. Capello
Internet-Draft                                               M. Cociglio
Intended status: Experimental                             L. Castaldelli
Expires: August 17, 2014                                  Telecom Italia
                                                         A. Tempia Bonda

                                                       February 13, 2014


        A packet based method for passive performance monitoring
                     draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m-04.txt

Abstract

   This document describes a passive method to perform packet loss,
   delay and jitter measurements on live traffic.  Implementation and
   deployment details are also explained in order to clarify how the
   tools and features currently available on existing routing platforms
   can be used to implement the method.  This method has been invented
   and engineered in Telecom Italia and it's currently being used in
   Telecom Italia's network.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2014.

Copyright 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



Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Overview of the method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Detailed description of the method  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Packet loss measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  One-way delay measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.1.  Average delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  Delay variation measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Implementation and deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  Coloring the packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  Counting the packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.3.  Collecting data and calculating packet loss . . . . . . .  15
   5.  Compliance with RFC6390 guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   Nowadays, most of the traffic in Service Providers' networks carries
   multimedia content.  Video contents are highly sensitive to packet
   loss [RFC2680], while interactive contents are sensitive to delay
   [RFC2679], and jitter [RFC3393].

   In front of this scenario, Service Providers need methodologies and
   tools to monitor and measure network performances with an adequate
   accuracy, in order to constantly control the quality of experience
   perceived by their customers.  On the other hand, performance
   monitoring provides useful information for improving network
   management (e.g.  isolation of network problems, troubleshooting,
   etc.).

   A lot of work related to OAM, that includes also performance
   monitoring techniques, has been done by Standards Developing
   Organizations: [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview] provides a good
   overview of existing OAM mechanisms defined in IETF, ITU-T and IEEE.
   Considering IETF, a lot of work has been done on fault detection and
   connectivity verification, while a minor effort has been dedicated so
   far to performance monitoring.  The IPPM WG has defined standard



Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   metrics to measure network performance; however, the methods
   developed in the WG mainly refer to active measurement techniques.
   More recently, the MPLS WG has defined mechanisms for measuring
   packet loss, one-way and two-way delay, and delay variation in MPLS
   networks[RFC6374], but their applicability to passive measurements
   has some limitations, especially for pure connection-less networks.

   The lack of adequate tools to measure packet loss with the desired
   accuracy drove an effort in Telecom Italia to design a new method for
   the performance monitoring of live traffic, possibly easy to
   implement and deploy.  The effort led to the method described in this
   document: basically, it is a passive performance monitoring
   technique, potentially applicable to any kind of packet based
   traffic, including Ethernet, IP, and MPLS, both unicast and
   multicast.  The method addresses primarily packet loss measurement,
   but it can be easily extended to one-way delay and delay variation
   measurements as well.  It doesn't require any protocol extension or
   interaction with existing protocols, thus avoiding any
   interoperability issue.  Even if the method doesn't raise any
   specific need for standardization, it could be further improved by
   means of some extension to existing protocols, but this aspect is
   left for further study and it is out of the scope of this document.

   The method has been explicitly designed for passive measurements but
   it can also be used with active probes.  Passive measurements are
   usually more easily understood by customers and provide a much better
   accuracy, especially for packet loss measurements.

   The method described in this document has been invented and
   engineered in Telecom Italia and it's currently being used in Telecom
   Italia's network.

   This document is organized as follows:

   o  Section 2 gives an overview of the method, including a comparison
      with alternate measurement strategies;

   o  Section 3 describes the method in detail

   o  Section 4 discusses implementation and deployment considerations,
      with special regard to the choices adopted in Telecom Italia's own
      implementation;

   o  Section 5 includes some considerations about security aspects;

   o  Section 6 finally summarizes some concluding remarks.





Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


2.  Overview of the method

   In order to perform packet loss measurements on a live traffic flow,
   different approaches exist.  The most intuitive one consists in
   numbering the packets, so that each router that receives the flow can
   immediately detect a packet missing.  This approach, though very
   simple in theory, is not simple to achieve: it requires the insertion
   of a sequence number into each packet and the devices must be able to
   extract the number and check it in real time.  Such a task can be
   difficult to implement on live traffic: if UDP is used as the
   transport protocol, the sequence number is not available; on the
   other hand, if a higher layer sequence number (e.g. in the RTP
   header) is used, extracting that information from each packet and
   process it in real time could overload the device.

   An alternate approach is to count the number of packets sent on one
   end, the number of packets received on the other end, and to compare
   the two values.  This operation is much simpler to implement, but
   requires that the devices performing the measurement are in sync: in
   order to compare two counters it is required that they refer exactly
   to the same set of packets.  Since a flow is continuous and cannot be
   stopped when a counter has to be read, it could be difficult to
   determine exactly when to read the counter.  A possible solution to
   overcome this problem is to virtually split the flow in consecutive
   blocks by inserting periodically a delimiter so that each counter
   refers exactly to the same block of packets.  The delimiter could be
   for example a special packet inserted artificially into the flow.
   However, delimiting the flow using specific packets has some
   limitations.  First, it requires generating additional packets within
   the flow and requires the equipment to be able to process those
   packets.  In addition, the method is vulnerable to out of order
   reception of delimiting packets and, to a lesser extent, to their
   loss.

   The method proposed in this document follows the second approach, but
   it doesn't use additional packets to virtually split the flow in
   blocks.  Instead, it "colors" the packets so that the packets
   belonging to the same block will have the same color, whilst
   consecutive blocks will have different colors.  Each change of color
   represents a sort of auto-synchronization signal that guarantees the
   consistency of measurements taken by different devices along the
   path.

   Figure 1 represents a very simple network and shows how the method
   can be used to measure packet loss on different network segments: by
   enabling the measurement on several interfaces along the path, it is
   possible to perform link monitoring, node monitoring or end-to-end
   monitoring.  The method is flexible enough to measure packet loss on



Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   any segment of the network and can be used to isolate the faulty
   element.

                            Traffic flow
        ========================================================>
          +------+       +------+       +------+       +------+
      ---<>  R1  <>-----<>  R2  <>-----<>  R3  <>-----<>  R4  <>---
          +------+       +------+       +------+       +------+
          .              .      .              .       .      .
          .              .      .              .       .      .
          .              <------>              <------->      .
          .          Node Packet Loss      Link Packet Loss   .
          .                                                   .
          <--------------------------------------------------->
                           End-to-End Packet loss

                     Figure 1: Available measurements

3.  Detailed description of the method

   This section describes in detail how the method.  A special emphasis
   is given to the measurement of packet loss, that represents the core
   application of the method, but applicability to delay and jitter
   measurements is also considered.

3.1.  Packet loss measurement

   The basic idea is to virtually split traffic flows into consecutive
   blocks: each block represents a measurable entity unambiguously
   recognizable by all network devices along the path.  By counting the
   number of packets in each block and comparing the values measured by
   different network devices along the path, it is possible to measure
   packet loss occurred in any single block between any two points.

   As discussed in the previous section, a simple way to create the
   blocks is to "color" the traffic (two colors are sufficient) so that
   packets belonging to different consecutive blocks will have different
   colors.  Whenever the color changes, the previous block terminates
   and the new one begins.  Hence, all the packets belonging to the same
   block will have the same color and packets of different consecutive
   blocks will have different colors.  The number of packets in each
   block depends on the criterion used to create the blocks: if the
   color is switched after a fixed number of packets, then each block
   will contain the same number of packets (except for any losses); but
   if the color is switched according to a fixed timer, then the number
   of packets may be different in each block depending on the packet
   rate.




Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   The following figure shows how a flow looks like when it is split in
   traffic blocks with colored packets.

   A: packet with A coloring
   B: packet with B coloring

            |           |           |           |           |
            |           |    Traffic flow       |           |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------->
     BBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------->
       ...  |  Block 5  |  Block 4  |  Block 3  |  Block 2  |  Block 1
            |           |           |           |           |


                        Figure 2: Traffic coloring

   Figure 3 shows how the method can be used to measure link packet loss
   between two adjacent nodes.

   Referring to the figure, let's assume we want to monitor the packet
   loss on the link between two routers: router R1 and router R2.
   According to the method, the traffic is colored alternatively with
   two different colors, A and B. Whenever the color changes, the
   transition generates a sort of square-wave signal, as depicted in the
   following figure.

 Color A    ----------+           +-----------+           +----------
                      |           |           |           |
 Color B              +-----------+           +-----------+
              Block n        ...      Block 3     Block 2     Block 1
            <---------> <---------> <---------> <---------> <--------->

                                Traffic flow
            ===========================================================>
 Color ... AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAA...
            ===========================================================>


      Figure 3: Application of the method to compute link packet loss

   Traffic coloring could be done by R1 itself or by an upward router.
   R1 needs two counters, C(A)R1 and C(B)R1, on its egress interface:
   C(A)R1 counts the packets with color A and C(B)R1 counts those with
   color B. As long as traffic is colored A, only counter C(A)R1 will be
   incremented, while C(B)R1 is not incremented; vice versa, when the
   traffic is colored as B, only C(B)R1 is incremented.  C(A)R1 and
   C(B)R1 can be used as reference values to determine the packet loss



Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   from R1 to any other measurement point down the path.  Router R2,
   similarly, will need two counters on its ingress interface, C(A)R2
   and C(B)R2, to count the packets received on that interface and
   colored with color A and B respectively.  When an A block ends, it is
   possible to compare C(A)R1 and C(A)R2 and calculate the packet loss
   within the block; similarly, when the successive B block terminates,
   it is possible to compare C(B)R1 with C(B)R2, and so on for every
   successive block.

   Likewise, by using two counters on R2 egress interface it is possible
   to count the packets sent out of R2 interface and use them as
   reference values to calculate the packet loss from R2 to any
   measurement point down R2.

   Using a fixed timer for color switching offers a better control over
   the method: the (time) length of the blocks can be chosen large
   enough to simplify the collection and the comparison of measures
   taken by different network devices.  It's preferable to read the
   value of the counters not immediately after the color switch: some
   packets could arrive out of order and increment the counter
   associated to the previous block (color), so it is worth waiting for
   some seconds.  The drawback is that the longer the duration of the
   block, the less frequent the measurement can be taken.

   The following table shows how the counters can be used to calculate
   the packet loss between R1 and R2.  The first column lists the
   sequence of traffic blocks while the other columns contain the
   counters of A-colored packets and B-colored packets for R1 and R2.
   In this example, we assume that the values of the counters are reset
   to zero whenever a block ends and its associated counter has been
   read: with this assumption, the table shows only relative values,
   that is the exact number of packets of each color within each block.
   If the values of the counters were not reset, the table would contain
   cumulative values, but the relative values could be determined simply
   by difference from the value of the previous block of the same color.

   The color is switched on the basis of a fixed timer (not shown in the
   table), so the number of packets in each block is different.













Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


           +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+
           | Block | C(A)R1 | C(B)R1 | C(A)R2 | C(B)R2 | Loss |
           +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+
           | 1     | 375    | 0      | 375    | 0      | 0    |
           |       |        |        |        |        |      |
           | 2     | 0      | 388    | 0      | 388    | 0    |
           |       |        |        |        |        |      |
           | 3     | 382    | 0      | 381    | 0      | 1    |
           |       |        |        |        |        |      |
           | 4     | 0      | 377    | 0      | 374    | 3    |
           |       |        |        |        |        |      |
           | ...   | ...    | ...    | ...    | ...    | ...  |
           |       |        |        |        |        |      |
           | n     | 0      | 387    | 0      | 387    | 0    |
           |       |        |        |        |        |      |
           | n+1   | 379    | 0      | 377    | 0      | 2    |
           +-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+

       Table 1: Evaluation of counters for packet loss measurements

   During an A block (blocks 1, 3 and n+1), all the packets are
   A-colored, therefore the C(A) counters are incremented to the number
   seen on the interface, while C(B) counters are zero.  Vice versa,
   during a B block (blocks 2, 4 and n), all the packets are B-colored:
   C(A) counters are zero, while C(B) counters are incremented.

   When a block ends (because of color switching) the relative counters
   stop incrementing and it is possible to read them, compare the values
   measured on router R1 and R2 and calculate the packet loss within
   that block.

   For example, looking at the table above, during the first block
   (A-colored), C(A)R1 and C(A)R2 have the same value (375), which
   corresponds to the exact number of packets of the first block (no
   loss).  Also during the second block (B-colored) R1 and R2 counters
   have the same value (388), which corresponds to the number of packets
   of the second block (no loss).  During blocks three and four, R1 and
   R2 counters are different, meaning that some packets have been lost:
   in the example, one single packet (382-381) was lost during block
   three and three packets (377-374) were lost during block four.

   The method applied to R1 and R2 can be extended to any other router
   and applied to more complex networks, as far as the measurement is
   enabled on the path followed by the traffic flow(s) being observed.







Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


3.2.  One-way delay measurement

   The same principle used to measure packet loss can be applied also to
   one-way delay measurement: the alternation of colors can be used as a
   time reference to calculate the delay.  Whenever the color changes
   (that means that a new block has started) a network device can store
   the timestamp of the first packet of the new block; that timestamp
   can be compared with the timestamp of the same packet on a second
   router to compute packet delay.  Considering Figure 4, R1 stores a
   timestamp TS(A1)R1 when it sends the first packet of block 1
   (A-colored), a timestamp TS(B2)R1 when it sends the first packet of
   block 2 (B-colored) and so on for every other block.  R2 performs the
   same operation on the receiving side, recording TS(A1)R2, TS(B2)R2
   and so on.  Since the timestamps refer to specific packets (the first
   packet of each block) we are sure that timestamps compared to compute
   delay refer to the same packets.  By comparing TS(A1)R1 with TS(A1)R2
   (and similarly TS(B2)R1 with TS(B2)R2 and so on) it is possible to
   measure the delay between R1 and R2.  In order to have more
   measurements, it is possible to take and store more timestamps,
   referring to other packets within each block.

   In order to coherently compare timestamps collected on different
   routers, the network nodes must be in sync.  Furthermore, a
   measurement is valid only if no packet loss occurs and if packet
   misordering can be avoided, otherwise the first packet of a block on
   R1 could be different from the first packet of the same block on R2
   (f.i. if that packet is lost between R1 and R2 or it arrives after
   the next one).

   The following table shows how timestamps can be used to calculate the
   delay between R1 and R2.  The first column lists the sequence of
   blocks while other columns contain the timestamp referring to the
   first packet of each block on R1 and R2.  The delay is computed as a
   difference between timestamps.  For the sake of simplicity, all the
   values are expressed in milliseconds.
















Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


      +-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
      | Block | TS(A)R1 | TS(B)R1 | TS(A)R2 | TS(B)R2 | Delay R1-R2 |
      +-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+
      | 1     | 12.483  | -       | 15.591  | -       | 3.108       |
      |       |         |         |         |         |             |
      | 2     | -       | 6.263   | -       | 9.288   | 3.025       |
      |       |         |         |         |         |             |
      | 3     | 27.556  | -       | 30.512  | -       | 2.956       |
      |       |         |         |         |         |             |
      |       | -       | 18.113  | -       | 21.269  | 3.156       |
      |       |         |         |         |         |             |
      | ...   | ...     | ...     | ...     | ...     | ...         |
      |       |         |         |         |         |             |
      | n     | 77.463  | -       | 80.501  | -       | 3.038       |
      |       |         |         |         |         |             |
      | n+1   | -       | 24.333  | -       | 27.433  | 3.100       |
      +-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+-------------+

         Table 2: Evaluation of timestamps for delay measurements

   The first row shows timestamps taken on R1 and R2 respectively and
   referring to the first packet of block 1 (which is A-colored).  Delay
   can be computed as a difference between the timestamp on R2 and the
   timestamp on R1.  Similarly, the second row shows timestamps (in
   milliseconds) taken on R1 and R2 and referring to the first packet of
   block 2 (which is B-colored).  Comparing timestamps taken on
   different nodes in the network and referring to the same packets
   (identified using the alternation of colors) it is possible to
   measure delay on different network segments.

   For the sake of simplicity, in the above example a single measurement
   is provided within a block, taking into account only the first packet
   of each block.  The number of measurements can be easily increased by
   considering multiple packets in the block: for instance, a timestamp
   could be taken every N packets, thus generating multiple delay
   measurements.  Taking this to the limit, in principle the delay could
   be measured for each packet, by taking and comparing the
   corresponding timestamps (possible but impractical from an
   implementation point of view).

3.2.1.  Average delay

   As mentioned before, the method previously exposed for measuring the
   delay is sensitive to out of order reception of packets.  In order to
   overcome this problem, a different approach has been considered: it
   is based on the concept of average delay.  The average delay is
   calculated by considering the average arrival time of the packets
   within a single block.  The network device locally stores a timestamp



Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   for each packet received within a single block: summing all the
   timestamps and dividing by the total number of packets received, the
   average arrival time for that block of packets can be calculated.  By
   subtracting the average arrival times of two adjacent devices it is
   possible to calculate the average delay between those nodes.  This
   method is robust to out of order packets and also to packet loss
   (only a small error is introduced).  Moreover, it greatly reduces the
   number of timestamps (only one per block for each network device)
   that have to be collected by the management system.  On the other
   hand, it only gives one measure for the duration of the block (f.i. 5
   minutes), and it doesn't give the minimum and maximum delay values.
   This limitation could be overcome by reducing the duration of the
   block (f.i. from 5 minutes to a few seconds) by means of an highly
   optimized implementation of the method.

   By summing the average delays of the two directions of a path, it is
   also possible to measure the two-way delay (round-trip delay).

3.3.  Delay variation measurement

   Similarly to one-way delay measurement, the method can also be used
   to measure the inter-arrival jitter.  The alternation of colors can
   be used as a time reference to measure delay variations.  Considering
   the example depicted in Figure 4, R1 stores a timestamp TS(A)R1
   whenever it sends the first packet of a block and R2 stores a
   timestamp TS(B)R2 whenever it receives the first packet of a block.
   The inter-arrival jitter can be easily derived from one-way delay
   measurement, by evaluating the delay variation of consecutive
   samples.

   The concept of average delay can also be applied to delay variation,
   by evaluating the variation of consecutive measures of the average
   delay.

4.  Implementation and deployment

   The methodology described in the previous sections has been
   implemented in Telecom Italia by leveraging functions and tools
   available on IP routers and it's currently being used to monitor
   packet loss in some portions of Telecom Italia's network.  The
   application of the method to delay measurement is currently being
   evaluated in Telecom Italia's labs.

   The fundamental steps for the implementation of the method can be
   summarized in the following items:

   o  coloring the packets;




Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   o  counting the packets;

   o  collecting data and calculating the packet loss.

   Before going deeper into the implementation details, it's worth
   mentioning two different strategies that can be used when
   implementing the method:

   o  flow-based: the flow-based strategy is used when only a limited
      number of traffic flows need to be monitored.  This could be the
      case, for example, of IPTV channels or other specific applications
      traffic with high QoS requirements.  According to this strategy,
      only a subset of the flows is colored.  Counters for packet loss
      measurements can be instantiated for each single flow, or for the
      set as a whole, depending on the desired granularity.  A relevant
      problem with this approach is the necessity to know in advance the
      path followed by flows that are subject to measurement.  Path
      rerouting and traffic load-balancing increase the issue
      complexity, especially for unicast traffic.  The problem is easier
      to solve for multicast traffic where load balancing is seldom
      used, especially for IPTV traffic where static joins are
      frequently used to force traffic forwarding and replication.

   o  link-based: measurements are performed on all the traffic on a
      link by link basis.  The link could be a physical link or a
      logical link (for instance an Ethernet VLAN or a MPLS PW).
      Counters could be instantiated for the traffic as a whole or for
      each traffic class (in case it is desired to monitor each class
      separately), but in the second case a couple of counters is needed
      for each class.

   The current implementation in Telecom Italia uses the first strategy.
   As mentioned, the flow-based measurement requires the identification
   of the flow to be monitored and the discovery of the path followed by
   the selected flow.  It is possible to monitor a single flow or
   multiple flows grouped together, but in this case measurement is
   consistent only if all the flows in the group follow the same path.
   Moreover, a Service Provider should be aware that, if a measurement
   is performed by grouping many flows, it is not possible to determine
   exactly which flow was affected by packets loss.  In order to have
   measures per single flow it is necessary to configure counters for
   each specific flow.  Once the flow(s) to be monitored have been
   identified, it is necessary to configure the monitoring on the proper
   nodes.  Configuring the monitoring means configuring the policy to
   intercept the traffic and configuring the counters to count the
   packets.  To have just an end-to-end monitoring, it is sufficient to
   enable the monitoring on the first and the last hop routers of the
   path: the mechanism is completely transparent to intermediate nodes



Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   and independent from the path followed by traffic flows.  On the
   contrary, to monitor the flow on a hop-by-hop basis along its whole
   path it is necessary to enable the monitoring on every node from the
   source to the destination.  In case the exact path followed by the
   flow is not known a priori (i.e. the flow has multiple paths to reach
   the destination) it is necessary to enable the monitoring system on
   every path: counters on interfaces traversed by the flow will report
   packet count, counters on other interfaces will be null.

4.1.  Coloring the packets

   The coloring operation is fundamental in order to create packet
   blocks.  This implies choosing where to activate the coloring and how
   to color the packets.

   In case of flow-based measurements, it is desirable, in general, to
   have a single coloring node because it is easier to manage and
   doesn't rise any risk of conflict (consider the case where two nodes
   color the same flow).  Thus it is necessary to color the flow as
   close as possible to the source.  In addition, coloring a flow close
   to the source allows an end-to-end measure if a measurement point is
   enabled on the last-hop router as well.  The only requirement is that
   the coloring must change periodically and every node along the path
   must be able to identify unambiguously the colored packets.  For
   link-based measurements, all traffic needs to be colored when
   transmitted on the link.  If the traffic had already been colored,
   then it has to be re-colored because the color must be consistent on
   the link.  This means that each hop along the path must (re-)color
   the traffic; the color is not required to be consistent along
   different links.

   Traffic coloring can be implemented by setting a specific bit in the
   packet header and changing the value of that bit periodically.  With
   current router implementations, only QoS-related fields and features
   offer the required flexibility to explicitly set the value of some
   bits in the packet header from the Command Line Interface (CLI).  In
   case a Service Provider only uses the three most significant bits of
   the DSCP field (corresponding to IP Precedence) for QoS
   classification and queuing, it is possible to use the two less
   significant bits of the DSCP field (bit 0 and bit 1) to implement the
   method without affecting QoS policies.  One of the two bits (bit 0)
   could be used to identify flows subject to traffic monitoring (set to
   1 if the flow is under monitoring, otherwise it is set to 0), while
   the second (bit 1) can be used for coloring the traffic (switching
   between values 0 and 1, corresponding to color A and B) and creating
   the blocks.





Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   In practice, coloring the traffic using the DSCP field can be
   implemented by configuring on the router output interface an access
   list that intercepts the flow(s) to be monitored and applies to them
   a policy that sets the DSCP field accordingly.  Since traffic
   coloring has to be switched between the two values over time, the
   policy needs to be modified periodically: an automatic script ca be
   used perform this task on the basis of a fixed timer.  In Telecom
   Italia's implementation this timer is set to 5 minutes: this value
   showed to be a good compromise between measurement frequency and
   stability of the measurement (i.e. possibility to collect all the
   measures referring to the same block).

4.2.  Counting the packets

   Assuming that the coloring of the packets is performed only by the
   source node, the nodes between source and destination (included) have
   to count the colored packets that they receive and forward: this
   operation can be enabled on every router along the path or only on a
   subset, depending on which network segment is being monitored (a
   single link, a particular metro area, the backbone, the whole path).

   Since the color switches periodically between two values, two
   counters (one for each value) are needed: one counter for packets
   with color A and one counter for packets with color B. For each flow
   (or group of flows) being monitored and for every interface where the
   monitoring is active, a couple of counters is needed.  For example,
   in order to monitor separately 3 flows on a router with 4 interfaces
   involved, 24 counters are needed (2 counters for each of the 3 flows
   on each of the 4 interfaces).  If traffic is colored using the DSCP
   field, as in Telecom Italia's implementation, an access-list that
   matches specific DSCP values can be used to count the packets of the
   flow(s) being monitored.

   In case of link-based measurements the behavior is similar except
   that coloring and counting operations are performed on a link by link
   basis at each endpoint of the link.

   Another important aspect to take into consideration is when to read
   the counters: in order to count the exact number of packets of a
   block the routers must perform this operation when that block has
   ended: in other words, the counter for color A must be read when the
   current block has color B, in order to be sure that the value of the
   counter is stable.  This task can be accomplished in two ways.  The
   general approach suggests to read the counters periodically, many
   times during a block duration, and to compare these successive
   readings: when the counter stops incrementing means that the current
   block has ended and its value can be elaborated safely.
   Alternatively, if the coloring operation is performed on the basis of



Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   a fixed timer, it is possible to configure the reading of the
   counters according to that timer: for example, if each block is 5
   minutes long, reading the counter for color A every 5 minute in the
   middle of the subsequent block (with color B) is a safe choice.  A
   sufficient margin should be considered between the end of a block and
   the reading of the counter, in order to take into account any out-of-
   order packets.  The choice of a 5 minutes timer for color switching
   was also suggested by these considerations

4.3.  Collecting data and calculating packet loss

   The nodes enabled to perform performance monitoring collect the value
   of the counters, but they are not able to directly use this
   information to measure packet loss, because they only have their own
   samples.  For this reason, an external Network Management System
   (NMS) is required to collect and elaborate data and to perform packet
   loss calculation.  The NMS compares the values of counters from
   different nodes and can calculate if some packets were lost (even a
   single packet) and also where packets were lost.

   The value of the counters needs to be transmitted to the NMS as soon
   as it has been read.  This can be accomplished by using SNMP or FTP
   and can be done in Push Mode or Polling Mode.  In the first case,
   each router periodically sends the information to the NMS, in the
   latter case it is the NMS that periodically polls routers to collect
   information.  In any case, the NMS has to collect all the relevant
   values from all the routers within one cycle of the timer (5
   minutes).

5.  Compliance with RFC6390 guidelines

   RFC6390 [RFC6390]defines a framework and a process for developing
   Performance Metrics for protocols above and below the IP layer (such
   as IP-based applications that operate over reliable or datagram
   transport protocols).

   This document doesn't aim to propose a new Performance Metric but a
   new method of measurement for a few Performance Metrics that have
   already been standardized.  Nevertheless, it's worth applying RFC6390
   guidelines to the present document, in order to provide a more
   complete and coherent description of the proposed method.  We used a
   subset of the Performance Metric Definition template defined by
   RFC6390.

   o  Metric name and description: as already stated, this document
      doesn't propose any new Performance Metric.  On the contrary, it
      describes a novel method for measuring packet loss[RFC2680].  The
      same concept, with small differences, can also be used to measure



Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


      delay[RFC2679], and jitter[RFC3393].  The document mainly
      describes the applicability to packet loss measurement.

   o  Method of Measurement or Calculation: according to the method
      described in the previous sections, the number of packets lost is
      calculated by subtracting the value of the counter on the source
      node from the value of the counter on the destination node.  Both
      counters must refer to the same color.  The calculation is
      performed when the value of the counters is in a steady state.

   o  Units of Measurement: the method calculates and reports the exact
      number of packets sent by the source node and not received by the
      destination node.

   o  Measurement Points: the measurement can be performed between
      adjacent nodes, on a per-link basis, or along a multi-hop path,
      provided that the traffic under measurement follows that path.  In
      case of a multi-hop path, the measurements can be performed both
      end-to-end and hop-by-hop.

   o  Measurement Timing: the method have a constraint on the frequency
      of measurements.  In order to perform a measure, the counter must
      be in a steady state: this happens when the traffic is being
      colored with the alternate color; in the current implementation
      the time interval is set to 5 minutes.

   o  Implementation: the current implementation of the method uses two
      encodings of the DSCP field to color the packets; this enables the
      use of policy configurations on the router to color the packets
      and accordingly configure the counter for each color.  The path
      followed by traffic being measured should be known in advance in
      order to configure the counters along the path and be able to
      compare the correct values.

   o  Use and Applications: the method can be used to measure packet
      loss with high precision (i.e. 10exp(-7)) on live traffic;
      moreover, by combining end-to-end and per-link measurements, the
      method is useful to pinpoint the single link that is experiencing
      loss events.

   o  Reporting Model: the value of the counters has to be sent to a
      centralized management system that perform the calculations; such
      samples must contain a reference to the time interval they refer
      to, so that the management system can perform the correct
      correlation; the samples have to be sent while the corresponding
      counter is in a steady state (within a time interval), otherwise
      the value of the sample should be stored locally.




Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   o  Dependencies: the values of the counters have to be correlated to
      the time interval they refer to; moreover, as far the current
      implementation is based on DSCP values, there are significant
      dependencies on the usage of the DSCP field: it must be possible
      to rely on unused DSCP values without affecting QoS-related
      configuration and behavior; moreover, the intermediate nodes must
      not change the value of the DSCP field not to alter the
      measurement.

   o  Organization of Results: the method of measurement produces
      singletons

   o  Parameters: currently, the main parameter of the method is the
      time interval used to alternate the colors and read the counters.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies a method to perform measurements in the
   context of a Service Provider's network and has not been developed to
   conduct Internet measurements, so it does not directly affect
   Internet security nor applications which run on the Internet.
   However, implementation of this method must be mindful of security
   and privacy concerns.

   There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by
   the measurements and potential harm to the measurements.  For what
   concerns the first point, the measurements described in this document
   are passive, so there are no packets injected into the network
   causing potential harm to the network itself and to data traffic.
   Nevertheless, the method implies modifications on the fly to the IP
   header of data packets: this must be performed in a way that doesn't
   alter the quality of service experienced by packets subject to
   measurements and that preserve stability and performance of routers
   doing the measurements.  The measurements themselves could be harmed
   by routers altering the coloring of the packets, or by an attacker
   injecting artificial traffic.  Authentication techniques, such as
   digital signatures, may be used where appropriate to guard against
   injected traffic attacks.

   The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited because the
   method only relies on information contained in the IP header without
   any release of user data.

7.  Conclusions

   The advantages of the method described in this document are:





Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   o  easy implementation: it can be implemented using features already
      available on major routing platforms;

   o  low computational effort: the additional load on processing is
      negligible;

   o  accurate packet loss measurement: single packet loss granularity
      is achieved with a passive measurement;

   o  potential applicability to any kind of packet/frame -based
      traffic: Ethernet, IP, MPLS, etc., both unicast and multicast;

   o  robustness: the method can tolerate out of order packets and it's
      not based on "special" packets whose loss could have a negative
      impact;

   o  no interoperability issues: the features required to implement the
      method are available on all current routing platforms.

   The method doesn't raise any specific need for standardization, but
   it could be further improved by means of some extension to existing
   protocols.  Specifically, the use of DiffServ bits for coloring the
   packets could not be a viable solution in some cases: a standard
   method to color the packets for this specific application could be
   beneficial.

8.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA actions required.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Domenico Laforgia, Daniele Accetta
   and Mario Bianchetti for their contribution to the definition and the
   implementation of the method.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
              Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, September 1999.

   [RFC2680]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way
              Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.






Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   [RFC3393]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
              Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
              November 2002.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview]
              Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
              Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
              and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-
              overview-13 (work in progress), January 2014.

   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.

   [RFC6390]  Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering New
              Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
              October 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Alessandro Capello
   Telecom Italia
   Via Reiss Romoli, 274
   Torino  10148
   Italy

   Email: alessandro.capello@telecomitalia.it


   Mauro Cociglio
   Telecom Italia
   Via Reiss Romoli, 274
   Torino  10148
   Italy

   Email: mauro.cociglio@telecomitalia.it


   Luca Castaldelli
   Telecom Italia
   Via Reiss Romoli, 274
   Torino  10148
   Italy

   Email: luca.castaldelli@telecomitalia.it





Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft  Method for passive performance monitoring  February 2014


   Alberto Tempia Bonda

   Email: alberto.tempia@gmail.com
















































Capello, et al.          Expires August 17, 2014               [Page 20]