[ippm] IPPM Minutes for IETF 60, version 0
Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu> Thu, 02 September 2004 00:12 UTC
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18796 for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:12:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2eoa-00048h-7j; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:46:56 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2ehJ-0005u8-29 for ippm@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:39:25 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17036 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:39:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([207.75.164.22]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2eja-0005ek-BL for ippm@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:41:46 -0400
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFB21CD673; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:39:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25211-04; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:39:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BMW (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0E91CD669; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:39:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:39:21 -0400
From: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu>
To: ippm@ietf.org
Message-ID: <B83EF36DDB649E2B9CA7C324@DCFF15AFC1F6764BA3927E50>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.3 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1924de3f9fb68e58c31920136007eb1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>, Matt Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu>
Subject: [ippm] IPPM Minutes for IETF 60, version 0
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org >
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org >
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Here is a complete cut at the minutes. If anyone has a comment, get it to me or the list before 3pm or so EDT on Friday (they are due by 5pm EDT). The presentations are all linked off of http://people.internet2.edu/~matt/IPPM/Meetings/ietf60/ --Matt -=- IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) Monday, August 2, 2004 at 1300-1500 =================================== The meeting was moderated by the working group chairs, Henk Uijterwaal and Matt Zekauskas. Al Morton and Matt Zekauskas took notes, which were edited into these minutes by the chairs. Simon Leinen scribed to Jabber. AGENDA: 1. Administrivia, Milestone Status 2. One-Way Active Measurements Protocol 3. A Hardware Timestamper for One-way Delay Measurements 4. Reordering Density (RD) and Reorder Buffer-occupancy Density (RBD): Metrics for packet reordering 5. Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM 6. Implementation reports for RFC2678-2681: RIPE NCC Test Traffic Measurements (TTM) 7. Implementation report: Surveyor 8. IPPM Reporting MIB and Metrics Registry discussion 1. Administrivia, Milestone Status We are looking for a volunteer to act as editor on link bandwidth draft, there is some existing material to base it on. [Note: after the meeting, Phil Chimento volunteered to edit.] Reviewing the rest of the milestones, OWAMP appears to be on track, reordering schedule will depend on today's discussion. 2. One-Way Active Measurements Protocol http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-09.txt - Stanislav Shalunov There were two wire protocol changes and a bunch of clarifications since the last version (see slides). Changes were made in response to the approved requirements draft, two wire protocol changes (to expose TTL, and a minor change in reporting lost packets, both in response to implementation experience). Stanislav reported that there were pending changes to remove a feature that caused some ambiguity (essentially "start in the past"), and a reordering of values in one message to make it more likely that the timestamp falls on a nice word boundary. Stanislav mentioned that the protocol really needed a thorough security review. TTL is intended to count hops, was not specified before, now receiver must report actual received value (sender uses 255). Matt asked why 255? Why not negotiated? Stanislav said that it made sense to have it large and equal. Timmons Player asked what if an implementation cannot set the value? Stanislav said that then you get back what you get back ("junk"); it should be possible to report if you know what it is set to (so you can understand in context). Al Morton asked a question on send scheduling for test packets. He was wondering if there was a way to have a random start time, then a periodic schedule after that. It seems that the current scheme would try to do random, periodic, and then back to random again. Stas believed it could be done with the current scheme; Stas and Al will work on this afterwards. 3. A Hardware Timestamper for One-way Delay Measurements - Zhang Shu Zhang Shu reported on a hardware implementation of OWAMP, in particular, timestamping the packets in hardware, to get rid of inaccuracies due to software overhead and timing within the measurement node. The limitations are that it supports unauthenticated mode only, one measurement stream only, and on INPUT the UDP checksum is zeroed (when the input timestamp is added). They showed the results of measurements in Japan using IPv4 and IPv6. They claim high precision (see slides). Stanislav thought this was splendid. He noted that they apparently did not make use of OWAMP-CTL anywhere. That is true. So, they should make it clear that they use the test versus the full OWAMP protocol. Matt asked about support of more than one port number or stream? not yet. Matt also asked if before the UDP checksum was cleared, was it checked? Right now, it is cleared. Zhang felt that in the current internet there isn't much chance for this to happen. Emile Stephan asked how the test endpoints were set up without OWAMP-control. Zhang responded that setup was performed manually. 4. Reordering Density (RD) and Reorder Buffer-occupancy Density (RBD): Metrics for packet reordering http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jayasumana-reorder-density-03.txt - Anura Jayasumana Anura Jayasumana presented an update on his team's work on "reorder density" (see slides). He presented a new version of reorder density that he says is orthogonal to loss and duplication, but it still doesn't use the same base definitions as in the current IPPM reordering draft. He says that this provides a "reorder response" similar to "impulse response" in engineering control theory, which has a formal proof in a recent paper; they are looking to use this as a base for a version of TCP that sets "dupthresh" automatically. He also said the results on individual segments are composable. He may be interested in submitting this as an additional work item, or move it forward personally if the group is not interested. Mark Allman asked what do the numbers output by these metrics say? He didn't think the interpretation was obvious; how do you get insight into how the network is working from the numbers? Anura responded that it gives insight into the nature of the reordering; they give a distribution. Al Morton thought the real value was the ability to measure segments and combine. This is a desirable quality in current IPPM reordering draft. However, intuitively he doesn't believe that these distributions are independent of packet spacing. Al would like to harmonize basic definition of reordering (so same as what current draft is, and what others use). Anura said that to understand the independence of spacing, look at system theory. You are not predicting the effect on any given packet, but statistical nature. With respect to the current ippm draft, The current definitions only work with "early" or "late" packets, don't combine the two. You need this combination in order to get the insight. 5. Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-06.txt - Al Morton Al Morton presented the current state of the IPPM reordering draft. The fragmentation additions were complex enough to be confusing in the mainline text, so the discussion has been moved to the appendix. There were many clarification changes based on comments on the list and at meetings. Two groups have implemented the metric (and there was some discussion on the list). 6. Implementation reports for RFC2678-2681: RIPE NCC Test Traffic Measurements (TTM) Henk presented an template for producing an implementation report, including what was asked for at the last IETF meeting and on the mailing list. The purpose of these presentations are to provide complete examples, and encourage other implementers to contribute. For 2679, all metrics were implemented except Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile. For 2680, all were implemented. 2678 (connectivity) and 2681 (round trip delay) were not implemented by this system. Specific percentiles and averaging intervals used were given. 7. Implementation report: Surveyor Matt Zekauskas made a similar report for Surveyor. For 2679, all were implemented except the inverse percentile metric (although histograms of delays were computed). Matt gave more details on the "Type-P" used, as well as transmission rates. He also gave percentiles and averaging intervals used. As with the RIPE system Surveyor implemented all of the 2680 metrics, and non of 2678 or 2681. 8. IPPM Reporting MIB and Metrics Registry discussion http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-06.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-metrics-registry-07.txt - Emile Stephan Emile noted that there was a move to stop work on the MIB as a working group item. He also noted that in other groups he observed that there wasn't much discussion on the respective groups. He then noted what made the IPPM MIB different from some others, and presented a list of questions the group. He also briefly updated the latest changes. Matt presented the chairs position that there appears to be no consensus to continue with the current document, and that the plan will be to once again query the mailing list looking for interest in either this MIB, or the simpler MIB; if none then we would drop this item from the charter (and Emile would be free to request publication as an Informational RFC). Andy Bierman noted that perhaps because the group was interested in measurement, not management (defining metrics, not MIBs) there was little interest in the MIB. Andy said that it is a very complicated MIB, and it needs better use cases. The packet generation is not typical. The idea of fast report is not typical. There is some overlap with TPM MIB, for some of the metrics. Also, once you get into views, filtering, aggregation, something like TPM already does it. He's of the opinion that we should not proceed with the MIB. Phil Chimento asked if it made sense to have a general MIB at all, or is it better to have reporting in the context of an application? Andy agreed to the need to provide results in the context of an application. There was some short discussion of the pros and cons of a simple ring-buffer based MIB, and whether the update rates would just overwhelm a simple implementation. Was there a use case for a simple MIB? Finally, Matt presented the remaining open issue with the MIB registry, whether to include branches for enterprises and "other standards bodies". Andy was of the opinion that a centralized place to look for the values is enough. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- [ippm] IPPM Minutes for IETF 60, version 0 Matthew J Zekauskas