[ippm] New draft: draft-mizrahi-ippm-multiplexed-alternate-marking
Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> Sun, 30 October 2016 08:57 UTC
Return-Path: <talmi@marvell.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 BEEC812944C for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 01:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 X4OWtYJYYFyU for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 01:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.148.174]) (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 BDF2F1293DF for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 01:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045849.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u9U8vgiA009239 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 01:57:42 -0700
Received: from il-exch02.marvell.com ([199.203.130.102]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 26d08chvna-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ippm@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 01:57:42 -0700
Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH02.marvell.com (10.4.102.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 10:57:39 +0200
Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 10:57:39 +0200
From: Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com>
To: "'ippm@ietf.org'" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: New draft: draft-mizrahi-ippm-multiplexed-alternate-marking
Thread-Index: AdIyi3YbHTJGirezQWqVoT79tooSZA==
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 08:57:39 +0000
Message-ID: <735fda90c0de4bd2bbcfbfd0429e6be0@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.4.102.210]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_735fda90c0de4bd2bbcfbfd0429e6be0ILEXCH01marvellcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-10-30_02:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1610300158
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/_kpzMe1tehtnNhbDlaEpX8FNgC4>
Subject: [ippm] New draft: draft-mizrahi-ippm-multiplexed-alternate-marking
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 08:57:44 -0000
Hi All, We have submitted a new draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mizrahi-ippm-multiplexed-alternate-marking/ Short summary: The alternate marking method of draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark can be used for (nearly) passive measurement of loss and delay. This method requires data packets to carry a field that marks (colors) the traffic, and enables passive measurement of packet loss, delay, and delay variation. Existing marking methods offer a tradeoff: the marking field can be two-bits long, allowing accurate loss and delay measurement, or it can be one-bit long at the expense of the delay measurement accuracy. The current memo introduces a marking method that uses a single marking bit and allows accurate loss and delay measurement. Comments will be appreciated. Regards, Tal Mizrahi.