Re: [lmap] One example of a "passive measurement peer"

Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27951A077D for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 edDqKEMZ3a-o for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm5-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm5-vm6.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [216.109.114.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F911A076C for <lmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [66.196.81.163] by nm5.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Mar 2014 15:55:01 -0000
Received: from [66.196.81.135] by tm9.access.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Mar 2014 15:55:01 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1011.access.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Mar 2014 15:55:01 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 556691.52389.bm@omp1011.access.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 75351 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Mar 2014 15:55:00 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1394553300; bh=wPUWtPhIjN/c5u0X3VViOcGoIInFgYAsz/PQhb6l5T0=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=uaCpehKLm5Ddy+r7Tw3HzI/iLFT5n+43Lnsp4kcRwa8Zayjyx0BaTXmkfYsizAXThISZ+6QN+o2HyvzGTyBJFI59LqMQgjN8yQXo6vgZ1TnqOJIfteY0fDm+JNGKw58aTofa3vYmBQ/4GtcDoj0y7fY4Rn10RzO0g6X2hh4MtK4=
X-YMail-OSG: J6SrJxYVM1mxZSa2eANqN2ozlVhYHmb7H9wne6HcVO9Vcy4 Coq4hknYU4WVr1iEDSD6GiFhrLhJ88GxaviCPlgZHC1Ey3FsZKX6UzHuTCqr Bu_9ga21r0vvxZxCNBw5IZFxHZPvuOm_6q48WNtTGm_cuS1r_Bni3mC9G1V5 oAWE8GMmTq4Dcc2XhcS.x1ylgnGR6nBk6xkS8OIT6C1BjO4N4OWwbukYauIb rlRCQ1Jo5blY1You9PrwFGTg1QQJ2K7tkcUpq.FTMzyjMkP.ScSWt_c5LANu bjkEl1j3UNj9vGJWbgmhMgcxzNraMpmbdeXg0FGxrPd9pCueKFkauqIdHTIk NBj7Cip7iaOph1AVPfWqXGpR6EgQTRlW6xXk8YidsfiC1sG0U_d3x3tMuNSV MxTr6Joef4ODF92I5EGfpyDz8OF8GeOza92WnKp1h0cF4HNndxevMUdelD.C z6H2O7VHsSHYN9jLTxfPHkSrjKcDcsldOP3vZ.k.MNPhpYEDn5jnAcXWpl5x Fle4J7J_X1hLkzX.FzGf6y.lv5ZfJ030Rw_sX8ANNU1ozimiqnYtNOeXIZOn iRjccx9ZQqoGrOciVg9ZH6G3M8mV0lw0AH8J365vNyUTYCdBrDJbhwjPoUfc 9c.pxWrjeqi31J7pw6S0qTynFrP7KnPS9EOkzD2B8BYeB_.kreO4DrNTgUee iD7x4EEg240bXSWJlSaiX0d7Zyg21HTQtWmkVjQSi_1RwYg1NwtoiWx0-
Received: from [24.130.37.147] by web2805.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:00 PDT
X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, SSB0aG91Z2h0IHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHdhcyBjb3VsZCB0aGVyZSBwb3NzaWJseSBiZSBhICJwYXNzaXZlIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IHBlZXIiLgoKSWYgSSBhbSBub3QgbWlzdGFrZW4sIHRoZSBzY2VuYXJpbyBiZWxvdyB3b3VsZCBiZSBhICJoeWJyaWQgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgcGVlciIuCgpXaHkgd291bGQgdGhpcyBpbnRlcmFjdGlvbiBiZSBvdXQgb2Ygc2NvcGUgaWYgT1dBTVAgYW5kIFRXQU1QIGNvbnRyb2wgcHJvdG9jb2xzIGFyZSBpbiBzY29wZT8gwqDCoAoKwqAKVGhhbmtzLAoKTmFsaW5pIEVsa2lucwoBMAEBAQE-
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.177.636
References: <CAH56bmCPk0XcxdpgNg=U1w+5EJp-sXU51YT+DTWBazjHBwVLjg@mail.gmail.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA2E44A926@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <98184277-C341-4622-ABED-990702554F8C@trammell.ch> <A68F3CAC468B2E48BB775ACE2DD99B5E04AACF15@podcwmbxex505.ctl.intranet> <20140311145912.GA78853@elstar.local> <75C0E47A1889264493A2DCB2869AC09633C7083F@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> <1394550952.54174.YahooMailNeo@web2804.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20140311154614.GB78913@elstar.local>
Message-ID: <1394553300.79370.YahooMailNeo@web2805.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:55:00 -0700
From: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20140311154614.GB78913@elstar.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/FPOUT2mN0oxxZe5-HTvqNDo48aE
Cc: "'lmap@ietf.org'" <lmap@ietf.org>, 'Dan Romascanu' <dromasca@avaya.com>, 'Matt Mathis' <mattmathis@google.com>, 'Brian Trammell' <ietf@trammell.ch>, "Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" <aakhter@cisco.com>, "Bugenhagen, Michael K" <Michael.K.Bugenhagen@centurylink.com>
Subject: Re: [lmap] One example of a "passive measurement peer"
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:55:10 -0000

I thought the discussion was could there possibly be a "passive measurement peer".

If I am not mistaken, the scenario below would be a "hybrid measurement peer".

Why would this interaction be out of scope if OWAMP and TWAMP control protocols are in scope?   

 
Thanks,

Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
(831) 659-8360
www.insidethestack.com



----- Original Message -----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
Cc: Aamer Akhter (aakhter) <aakhter@cisco.com>; "Bugenhagen, Michael K" <Michael.K.Bugenhagen@centurylink.com>; 'Brian Trammell' <ietf@trammell.ch>; 'Dan Romascanu' <dromasca@avaya.com>; 'Matt Mathis' <mattmathis@google.com>; "'lmap@ietf.org'" <lmap@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [lmap] One example of a "passive measurement peer"

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 08:15:52AM -0700, Nalini Elkins wrote:
> Guys,
> 
> If I look in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eardley-lmap-terminology-02, I see the definition of measurement peer as:
> 
> Measurement Peer: The function that receives control messages and test packets from a Measurement Agent and may reply to the
> Measurement Agent as defined by the Measurement Method. 
>
> Is this correct?

Note that the terminology was moved into

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lmap-framework-03

and there is another udpate of this document pending...

> Now, imagine the following scenario in a hybrid measurement technique:
> 
> 1.  In the MA, the hybrid technique is to have the MA to append x bytes of diagnostic data to each passive packet.  For example, via a command to the operating system.
> 
> 2.  The MA resides in the client
> 
> 3. It would be ideal to have the partner that the client is having the session with (let's call it "server") also participate in this appending of x bytes of diagnostic data from his side.  (Leaving aside for the moment the potential for this to be a DoS vector.  That is a separate discussion). 
> 
> 4.  In this case, could the MA not ask the "other end" to participate in extra data gathering?  This would be a control message from an MA as defined above.
> 
> Would this be an example of a Measurement Peer in a hybrid scenario?
> 
> I ask because this is what we are thinking we may want to do.
> 
> What am I missing?  Is my understanding of this OK?  Please advise.

Sure, an MA can have a control dialog with a remote MP. TWAMP and
OWAMP would be examples of such control protocols. From an LMAP
perspective, this interaction is out of scope of the LMAP protocol(s).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>