[ippm] 答复: About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss

Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com> Tue, 05 March 2019 11:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dangjuanna@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754F9131059 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 03:08:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eVLS-n_RD6jA for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 03:08:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF5113109F for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 03:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 9869663F533A9E25F872 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:08:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.58) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:08:09 +0000
Received: from lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.58) by lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:08:08 +0000
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:08:08 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 19:08:04 +0800
From: Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
CC: "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss
Thread-Index: AdTSbRgw7vu0UTo0RZ2toNYCa3Eg6wAE8KqAACZfAGA=
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 11:08:04 +0000
Message-ID: <D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C6677B28@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C667752C@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CA+RyBmX1Fq0c1=C62hZB9_tp8iLMuU=wnBCXtDfS20OaiEr1Mg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmX1Fq0c1=C62hZB9_tp8iLMuU=wnBCXtDfS20OaiEr1Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.176.239]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_005_D3E4F603943C4046A08B2F4037A66BB7C6677B28NKGEML515MBXchi_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Yq79FDnFoYPwcsOqXm8TkeQQFpI>
Subject: [ippm] 答复: About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 11:08:14 -0000

Hi Greg,
Thank you for your reply.

I  carefully read your question and try to give  the  response.
I1, i2, i3 is the time.
Q1: I couldn't find the explanation of 'tp' parameter in the short-term measurement (I assume that the first equation is for the short-term measurement);
Tp is dpt which is transmission period of a measurement. For example, a measurement is trigged once dpt (such as 3.3 milliseconds).  If the path is no congestion,  the test message sent by Src at (I1+dpt) should be received  by Dst at (I2+dpt).

As the following figure is shown,  in long-term measurement  we focus on one complete measurement.
So  c = (( I3 - I2) / dpt ) -1
[cid:image002.jpg@01D4D386.BFE65A10]
Q2: the long-term measurement, as I understand, equates the e2e path congestion with the packet loss ratio as (SrcCountp - DstCountp)/DstCountp is the formula to calculate the packet loss ratio.
This formula is for short-term measurement. In this mode we focus on one cycle (that is one dpr).
For example, in one cycle, Src send 6 packets (there are p1, p2,p3,p4,p5,p6).
The path has the congestion and then Dst only receive 5 packet(there are p1, p2,p3,p4,p5). After (I2+dpt) Dst just receive P6.
So c =  (SrcCountp / DstCountp)-1
[cid:image005.jpg@01D4D386.BFE65A10]
As a result,

1.       If c is 0, the path is no congestion.

2.       If c is more than 0, the path has the congestion. C is greater while the path congestion is serious.

The above is my reply.

Best wishes,
Joanna

发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2019年3月5日 3:53
收件人: Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com>
抄送: ippm@ietf.org
主题: Re: [ippm] About path congestion metric, welcome to discuss

Hi Joanna,
thank you for sharing this work. I have a couple of questions on the proposed calculation of the e2e path congestion metric:

  *   I couldn't find the explanation of 'tp' parameter in the short-term measurement (I assume that the first equation is for the short-term measurement);
  *   the long-term measurement, as I understand, equates the e2e path congestion with the packet loss ratio as (SrcCountp - DstCountp)/DstCountp is the formula to calculate the packet loss ratio.
Much appreciate your consideration.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:38 AM Dangjuanna <dangjuanna@huawei.com<mailto:dangjuanna@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have submit a new individual draft named A One-Path Congestion Metric for IPPM.
Welcome to discuss.
Best wishes,

Joanna Dang

===============================================

A new version of I-D, draft-dang-ippm-congestion-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Joanna Dang and posted to the IETF repository.



Name:               draft-dang-ippm-congestion

Revision:  00

Title:                  A One-Path Congestion Metric for IPPM

Document date:       2019-03-04

Group:               Individual Submission

Pages:               10

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dang-ippm-congestion-00.txt

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dang-ippm-congestion/

Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dang-ippm-congestion-00

Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dang-ippm-congestion





Abstract:

   This memo defines a metric for one path congestion across Internet

   paths.  The traditional mode evaluates network congestion based on

   the bandwidth utilization of the link.  However, there is a lack of

   E2E path congestion that is truly service oriented.  So A Path

   Congestion Metric is required.









Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.



The IETF Secretariat



_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org<mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm