[ippm] Minutes for IPPM at IETF 56 / San Francisco
Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu> Mon, 14 April 2003 03:17 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11131 for <ippm-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:17:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3E3Oop03564 for ippm-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:24:50 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3E3On803561 for <ippm-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:24:49 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11110 for <ippm-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:16:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 194uVB-000773-00 for ippm-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:19:25 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 194uVB-00076z-00 for ippm-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:19:25 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3E3Mw803504; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:22:58 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3E3Fp803311 for <ippm@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:15:51 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10932; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:07:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 194uMV-00074T-00; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:10:27 -0400
Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([207.75.164.22]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 194uMU-00074Q-00; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:10:26 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8587B4A6; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:10:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from slip-12-65-37-142.mis.prserv.net (slip-32-103-128-178.ny.us.prserv.net [32.103.128.178]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52B77B4A3; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:10:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:09:10 -0400
From: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu>
To: minutes@ietf.org
Cc: Matt Zekauskas <matt@internet2.edu>, Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com>, ippm@ietf.org
Message-ID: <398028985.1050275350@localhost>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (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 AMaViS 0.3.12pre8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [ippm] Minutes for IPPM at IETF 56 / San Francisco
Sender: ippm-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org >
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm) Tuesday, March 18, 2003 at 15:45 to 16:45 ========================================= The meeting was moderated by the working group chairs, Matt Zekauskas and Merike Kaeo. Dave McDysan took notes, which were edited into these minutes by the chairs. Thanks also to Simon Leinen, who scribed the meeting into Jabber; some of his notes were used while generating this text. AGENDA: 1. Agenda bashing, Working Group Milestones Status 2. One-way Metric Applicability Statement 3. Discussion on One-Way Active Measurements Protocol 4. Discussion on Packet Reordering 5. IPPM Reporting MIB 6. IPPM Metrics Registry 1. Agenda bashing & Working Group Milestones Status There were no suggestions to modify the agenda. Slides presented by Matt Z noted a new RFC, and overviewed the current work. Matt called for Implementation Reports to move to existing metrics to draft standard - send Email to a chair if you know of an implementation. (Advancement requires an advancing metrics RFC approved by the transport ADs and the IESG first, however; that work is currently in the Transport WG.) Matt noted there were a number of milestones that had no progress. If no interest is expressed, they will be dropped from the charter. We are looking for people to contribute on the following topics (assuming the group still feels they are worthwhile): * parameter sensitivity * ITU (e.g., Y.1540) vs IETF metrics Al Morton indicated that these are similar, recommend dropping this item from the charter * Path bottleneck definitions, * CAP (or other BTC metric) 2. One-way Metric Applicability Statement --Henk Uijterwaal Henk noted that there were no comments on the draft since the Atlanta meeting, and that perhaps it just wasn't time to do this work. However, Merike has been working to see if there was interest in the provider community, and today Henk and Merike met with people from two providers and they were interested in moving the work forward. They were looking for specific questions; Henk and Merike will identify areas where input is needed from people, and they will send questions off to providers. They would welcome help. 3. Discussion on One-Way Active Measurements Protocol -- Stanislav Shalunov First, the requirements document. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-reqs-06.txt The requirements document passed WG last call, and IESG comments are being addressed. Steve Bellovin was worried about replay attacks; but in some sense that is what we want to measure... we would like to measure duplication, which may or may not be malicious. Similarly, an attacker could add delay and we would like to measure that as well. We do have a requirement that traffic is hard to spot, for example there should be no fixed port number. It would be non-trivial to place OWDP traffic in a separate queue. Allison Mankin came to the mike as AD. She mentioned that authorization text for control protocol design needs to be strengthened - it needs to be more than IP address per current draft. OWAMP needs strong authentication for users since it is a powerful protocol. Anonymous identity wording was also problematic. Stanislav clarified that cryptographic authentication implementation is required; however, a user could request a less secure authentication (e.g., based on IP addresss) Allison, Stanislav, Merike to agree on wording -- could be along lines of clarifying mandatory implementation but optional invocation in the security considerations section. Next, we moved to the current OWAMP protocol specification. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-06.txt There are changes in the current draft based upon implementation experience, they are shown in the slides. Three new items: First, advertise server uptime at the beginning of each connection (helps with long-term monitoring) -- this disambiguates between whether the other end crashed or the network failed. Second, stop-sessions now supplies number of packets sent in each appropriate session to help decide if the last packet was lost. Third, the algorithm to compute exponentially distributed pseudo-random deviates was documented, and sample code supplied to ensure that all implementations generate the same sequence. Vectors will be added to allow code testing. 4. Discussion on Packet Reordering -- Al Morton http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-02.txt As background, group asked to review Stanislav's n-reordering draft. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shalunov-reordering-definition-02. txt There was an independent draft from Colorado State also submitted, but none of the authors were at meeting. A minority of people in the room had read the draft. Al gave a 'tutorial' on reordering. He noted that the independent draft -- a "density" metric -- took into account lost packets, and was therefore not acceptable. Out of order packets can be viewed as "early" or "late". "Late" packets trigger reordering computation at the receiver. We had trouble merging all metrics to section 4.2, in particular we could not include Stanislav's n-reordering without change. However, there was significant editing to unify notation. A "gap" metric was added (section 4.4) based on a input from Jon Bennett, as the distance between the beginning of reordering events. Matt Mathis asked how this handle nested reordering events caused by multiple reordering events. e.g., the arrival is 1,2,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,8,3,12. Jon stated that this metric might be trying to keep track of too much state and structure. Authors to think about this and discuss. Al proposed to fix the problem (with merging the metrics) in the draft by reorganization. Keep section 3 (determining whether or not packet order is maintained), then to quantify the extent of the changes split into two sections: Sec 4 - Metrics leaning to network characterization (frequency, distance, and a metric for multiple events (e.g., reordering gap). Sec 5 - Metrics primarily for receiver assessment. n-reordering goes here (n=3 predicts NewReno TCP unnecessary retransmissions). Potentially a modified version of the reordering density metric proposed. Matt noted that we should be discerning when adding metrics; there should be a good reason for adding another. A question from the group asked if reordering distance referred to a distribution or average. Al noted that it depends on whether you are talking about singleton metrics or statistics. The questioner clarified that he was assuming there are multiple samples. Stanslav mentioned mentioned that you can have a complete distribution if the number of values presented is small, and can then generate statistics. Al presented his idea of a potential fix to make n-reordering match the 4.2.3 singleton definition is to change "all" to "ANY" in Definition 1. The intent is to identify all packets that participate in a reordering event. [Chair note: We believe Al is looking to change the statement from universally quantified to existentially quantified. The proposed fix conveys this idea, but isn't correct mathematically (it has the same semantics as the original statement).] Greg Woodhouse asked if the measure is trying to quantify amount of effort (resources steps, memory) to restore order? Is it a hamming distance? Al Morton replied no, it is trying to quantify amount of buffer needed to restore order. Many metrics do not consider loss. Stanislav said that n-reordering was measuring the quantity of packets that are as good as lost for natural application behavior. Dave McDysan asked if the VoIP example dropped from Stanislav's draft? Stanislav answered that it was not intended to be dropped, will look at this again. Al Morton noted that what is important for VoIP is the time measure of reordering (a packet that arrives too late is as good as lost). In addition, VoIP jitter absorption buffers can reset. 5. IPPM Reporting MIB -- Jessie Jewitt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-02.txt See slides for detailed changes. Lots of editing for simplification, presentation, and to correct errors found when running SMILINT. They have a working prototype SNMP agent. TypeP was changed from an octet string to snmpadminstring for readability. Added scalars to control what happens when a log is full; suspend, resume and wrap the log were defined based on previous CMIP experience. Comments are solicited. A number of changes were made to the tables, based on implementation and working group suggestions. See slides. A couple of open issues were noted. First, is there a need for a count parameter for TypeP now that it is text instead of binary? Second, is there a problem with spaces in TypePaddress? Perhaps it too needs a count parameter. There were no immediate comments on these issues. Andy Bierman had some comments on the MIB, which he will send in detail to the list. In the meeting, Andy noted that some of the changes were not consistent across ippm OwnerString, SnmpAdminString. There is also still overlap with the control provided by the owners and shared-owners table and VACM. [A standard SNMPv3 access control method.] Emile noted that in the module compliance section this control is not mandatory if VACM is used; Andy did not feel that would be enough to get approved. The recommendation is to remove this control. Andy noted that the MIB has been cleaned up substantially; and that this is a very heavyweight (from an implementation resource point of view) MIB. This is in the same category as RMON probes with a dedicated processor and significant storage. The limit of the index on history (64K entries) seemed artificially low; Andy suggested that some case study thinking should be done to see how quickly this would wrap. Why wasn't it just made a 32 bit quantity? 6. Metrics Registry discussion --Emile Stephan http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-metrics-registry-02.txt Finally, and with only a few minutes remaining, Emile Stephan presented the changes to the metrics registry. See the slides for specific points. The biggest changes are with the tree (the "draft" subtree was removed), and instructions for draft authors that want to add a new metric to the registry were clarified. Emile thinks that the draft is stable, and is looking for a last call. He suggested that people review by mid-April, and then a last call should be issued. Andy Bierman noted that the registry looks good; it has been cleaned up. He also stated that RMON needs the registry. Matt said that a last-call will begin soon, and reiterated that the list will be moved to ietf.org (ippm@ietf.org) soon after this meeting. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- [ippm] Minutes for IPPM at IETF 56 / San Francisco Matthew J Zekauskas