Re: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis

Giuseppe Fioccola <> Wed, 06 July 2022 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6851C14CF1A; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eyMej-RXw4qv; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 14:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DDD3C14CF08; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 14:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LdXvp69tjz6H6rh; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 05:37:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 23:40:42 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Wed, 6 Jul 2022 23:40:42 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <>
To: John Scudder <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis
Thread-Index: AQHYkLLmqpaBE+gTBUiMTPQbdw9KoK1w8RoAgACZB4CAAE0SoA==
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 21:40:41 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 21:40:48 -0000

Hi John,
Yes, it is correct, the cluster definition and the related network partition is a general concept valid for any connected graph of routers. It is not specific of the Alt-Mark methodology. But, since the Alt-Mark method allows to batch packets for precise loss measurement and can be extended to a multipoint environment, it has the feature to leverage the cluster partition in order to enable flexible performance measurement.



-----Original Message-----
From: John Scudder <> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 8:31 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis

Yes, that’s a lot clearer, thanks.

But, although it’s clearer, it brings me back to the question that took me to the document to begin with — doesn’t that statement describe any connected graph of routers, from a single router all the way up to an entire network? In order to drain or introduce packets you have to include a host, since you’ve already excluded packet loss. (I’m assuming that you’re excluding packets that are destined for routers themselves, e.g. management traffic.)


> On Jul 6, 2022, at 3:42 AM, Giuseppe Fioccola <> wrote:
> Hi John,
> Thank you for raising this point.
> A cluster is a subnetwork where the number of packets that go in is the same as the number that go out, as also stated in the Terminology section.
> We can modify the wording in Section 5 accordingly:
> "A cluster graph is a subnetwork of the entire monitoring network graph that still satisfies the condition that the number of packets that go in is the same as the number that go out, if no packet loss occurs."
> Regards,
> Giuseppe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder <>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 11:05 PM
> To:;
> Subject: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis
> Hi Authors (and WG),
> I have a question about Section 5, Network Clustering. It says,
>   A cluster graph is a subnetwork of the entire monitoring network
>   graph that still satisfies the packet loss equation (introduced in
>   the previous section), where PL in this case is the number of packets
>   lost in the cluster.  As for the entire monitoring network graph, the
>   cluster is defined on a per-flow basis.
> But when I look back at the previous section, all I see is
>   PL = (PI1 + PI2 +...+ PIn) - (PO1 + PO2 +...+ POm)
> But that’s just a definition of what PL is, it can take on any value based on its inputs. What does it mean for it b be “satisfied”? That’s a term that typically requires us to state what condition is to be satisfied, and as far as I can tell you haven’t stated a condition.
> Thanks,
> —John