IPPM metrics registry extension draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext-00.txt 79th IETF Meeting – November 2010 IPPM Working Group Emile Stephan.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Computer Networks Performance Metrics Advanced Computer Networks.
Advertisements

December 10, Policy Terminology - 01 Report for 49th IETF Preview for AAA Arch RG John Schnizlein.
Computer Networks: Performance Measures1 Computer Network Performance Measures.
Networks: Performance Measures1 Network Performance Measures.
Efficient agent-based selection of DiffServ SLAs over MPLS networks Thanasis G. Papaioannou a,b, Stelios Sartzetakis a, and George D. Stamoulis a,b presented.
Performance Management (Best Practices) REF: Document ID
Infrastructure to Application Exposure - USE CASE: CDN – Jan Seedorf IETF 83, Paris i2aex BoF Monday, March
Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamical Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized MPLS Networks draft-xie-ccamp-lsp-dppm-00.txt Guowu Xie,SJTU Guoying.
Delay and Loss Traffic Engineering Problem Statement for MPLS draft-fuxh-mpls-delay-loss-te-problem-statement-01 November 8, 2012 IETF 85, Atlanta 8/3/121.
Maputo, Mozambique, April 2014 QoS Framework for Broadband Internet Service Country Case: Mauritius Roubee GADEVADOO, Engineer/Licensing Officer,
Emile Stéphan56th IETF - RMON WG1 56th IETF Meeting - March RMON Working Group Emile STEPHAN France Telecom R&D IPv6 & SUBIP Protocol identifiers.
Nov. 2010Geib/Morton/Fardid/Steinmitz / draft-ietf-metrictest-011 Testing Standards Track Metrics Draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-01 Geib, Morton, Fardid, Steinmitz.
XACML Gyanasekaran Radhakrishnan. Raviteja Kadiyam.
MPlane – Building an Intelligent Measurement Plane for the Internet Maurizio Dusi – NEC Laboratories Europe NSF Workshop on perfSONAR.
Doc.: IEEE /0787r0 Submission July 2013 Wu TianyuSlide 1 Follow-up Discussions on HEW Functional Requirements Date: Authors:
December 13, Policy Terminology - 01 Report for 49th IETF Andrea Westerinen.
Large Scale Broadband Measurement Activities within the IETF, Broadband Forum and EU Leone project Trevor Burbridge, 16 th May 2013 The research leading.
Unrestricted Connection manager MIF WG IETF 78, Maastricht Gaëtan Feige, Cisco (presenter) Pierrick Seïté, France Telecom -
WG RAQMON Internet-Drafts RMON MIB WG Meeting Washington, Nov. 11, 2004.
and LMAP liaison Document Number: IEEE R0
Division of IT Convergence Engineering Towards Unified Management A Common Approach for Telecommunication and Enterprise Usage Sung-Su Kim, Jae Yoon Chung,
POSTECH DP&NM Lab. Internet Traffic Monitoring and Analysis: Methods and Applications (1) 2. Network Monitoring Metrics.
(Long-Term) Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View Al Morton Gomathi Ramachandran Ganga Maguluri November 2010 draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-04.
The Grid Component Model: an Overview “Proposal for a Grid Component Model” DPM02 “Basic Features of the Grid Component Model (assessed)” -- DPM04 CoreGrid.
Discussion on IEEE metrics guidelines Document Number: IEEE R0 Date Submitted: Source: Antonio BovoVoice:
An XML Schema for NMWG Yee-Ting Li, UCL. Metrics All results from Network Monitoring stored in some format All results from Network Monitoring stored.
68th IETF – OPS area – XML MIB Modules XML MIB Modules draft-stephan-ops-xml-mib-module-template-00 draft-stephan-ops-xml-mib-module-template-00.
Standards for Network Administration Week-5. Standards for Network Administration 1. Management Information Base A structured database about a network.
Application Performance Metrics APM BOF July 25, 2007 Alan Clark Al Morton IETF 69 – Chicago – July 2007.
Monitoring and Measurement System in EuQoS project dr Andrzej Beben Telecommunication Network Technology Group Warsaw University.
IPPM IETF65 Tuesday March 21 17:40-19:50. IPPM Working Group Chairs: –Henk Uijterwaal –Matt Zekauskas
Internet A simple introduction 黃韻文 申逸慈.
QoS monitoring -- Nicolas Simar Monitoring Infrastructure SEQUIN workshop, Amsterdam, 1 February 2002 Nicolas Simar DANTE.
1 draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-00 Loss Episode Metrics for IPPM Nick Duffield, Al Morton, AT&T Joel Sommers, Colgate University IETF 79, Beijing,
CINBAD CERN/HP ProCurve Joint Project on Networking 26 May 2009 Ryszard Erazm Jurga - CERN Milosz Marian Hulboj - CERN.
Is your Service Available? or Common Network Metrics Nevil Brownlee, CAIDA NANOG 19, Albuquerque, June 2000.
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, November
24/11/2015 NGN related standardization issues : End-to-end QoS Hyungsoo Kim KT 1GSC-9, Seoul SOURCE:TTA TITLE:Additional Requirements for the standardization.
ALTO Server Discovery draft-ietf-alto-server-discovery-03 IETF#83, Paris, France S. Kiesel, M. Stiemerling, N. Schwan, M. Scharf, H. Song
NMWG GGF7 Tokyo March 2003 R. Hughes-Jones Manchester A Hierarchy of Network Measurements for Grid Applications and Services Les Cottrell, Richard Hughes-Jones,
UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ 2005 Multicast Admission Control in DiffServ Networks Department of Mathematical Information Technology University of Jyväskylä.
Visualizing QoS. Background(1/2) A tremendous growth in the development and deployment of networked applications such as video streaming, IP telephony,
1 draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01.txt Nick Duffield, Al Morton, AT&T Joel Sommers, Colgate University IETF 76, Hiroshima, Japan 11/10/2009.
International Telecommunication Union Workshop on End-to-End Quality of Service.What is it? How do we get it? Geneva, 1-3 October 2003 IPPM REPORTING MIB.
1 PSAMP WG 64th IETF Vancouver November 10, 2005 Discussion: (in Body: subscribe)
Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View (revisions and discussion) Al Morton Gomathi Ramachandran Ganga Maguluri December3, 2007 draft-morton-ippm-reporting-metrics-03.
63rd IETF - IPFIX WG dratf-stephan-isp-template-00.txt I nteroperability requirement for ISPs.
SLA/SLS Fundamental concepts SLAs/SLSs are the essential mechanisms for agreeing, configuring, delivering, guaranteeing and evaluating the obtained QoS.
Performance Management (Best Practices) REF: Document ID
Draft Policy LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions.
1 Header Compression over IPsec (HCoIPsec) Emre Ertekin, Christos Christou, Rohan Jasani {
QoS Model for Networks Using 3GPP QoS Classes (draft-jeong-nsis-3gpp-qosm-00) Seong-Ho Jeong, Sung-Hyuck Lee, Jongho Bang, Byoung-Jun Lee IETF NSIS Interim.
Update on the IPPM WG Working Item: Multimetric ID 68 th IETF meeting Prague, Czech Republic, March 2007.
EGEE is a project funded by the European Union under contract IST Study of Performance Standards, kick off (Task 1.1.1) Robert Stoy DFN EGEE.
November 10, 2010IETF 79 – Beijing, China A method for IP multicast performance monitoring draft-cociglio-mboned-multicast-pm-01 Alessandro Capello Luca.
Multicast Routing Optimization Juan-Carlos Zúñiga Luis M. Contreras Carlos J. Bernardos Seil Jeon Younghan Kim MULTIMOB WG, July
and LMAP liaison Document Number: IEEE R0 Date Submitted: Source: Antonio BovoVoice:
MODERN BoF Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, and Registering telephone Numbers IETF 92.
Providing QoS in IP Networks
ALTO: A Multi Dimensional Peer Selection Problem IETF 73 Saumitra Das
EGEE is a project funded by the European Union under contract IST Aims and organization of the Biomedical VO Yannick Legré CNRS/IN2P3 NA4/SA1.
Unique Packet Identifiers for Multipoint Monitoring of QoS Parameters Juraj Giertl, František Jakab Gorazd Baldovský, Ján Genči.
78th IETF – IPPM WG IPPM metrics registry extension draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext-00.txt 78th IETF Meeting – July 2010.
U Innsbruck Informatik - 1 Specification of a Network Adaptation Layer for the Grid GGF7 presentation Michael Welzl University.
Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries
LMAP BoF 1. ISP use case 2. Framework
(Long-Term) Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View
CCN application-domains: brainstorming from GreenICN project
IP Performance Specifications - Progress and Next Steps
draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-00
Presentation transcript:

IPPM metrics registry extension draft-stephan-ippm-registry-ext-00.txt 79th IETF Meeting – November 2010 IPPM Working Group Emile Stephan

(2) 79th IETF – IPPM WG IETF IPPM WG IP Performance metrics 83 metrics – 'Core' metrics Connectivity (5) One-way delay (6) packet lost (3) Round-trip Delay (6) Lost pattern(6) Ipdv (6) – 'Ancillary' metrics periodic streams metric (1) Reordering metrics (12) Duplicate packets metrics (6) – Spatial metrics (7): – one-to-group metrics (12): – Composition metrics(13): IANA metrics registry ( See – Identifying each metric defined by the IPPM WG – Each metric has an individual number; point to each individual metric definition instead of to the RFC.

(3) 79th IETF – IPPM WG IANA IPPM metrics registry 83 metrics 1 ietfInstantUnidirConnectivity 2 ietfInstantBidirConnectivity 3 ietfIntervalUnidirConnectivity 4 ietfIntervalBidirConnectivity 5 ietfIntervalTemporalConnectivity 6 ietfOneWayDelay 7 ietfOneWayDelayPoissonStream 8 ietfOneWayDelayPercentile 9 ietfOneWayDelayMedian 10 ietfOneWayDelayMinimum 11 ietfOneWayDelayInversePercentile 12 ietfOneWayPktLoss 13 ietfOneWayPktLossPoissonStream 14 ietfOneWayPktLossAverage 15 ietfRoundTripDelay 16 ietfRoundTripDelayPoissonStream 17 ietfRoundTripDelayPercentile 18 ietfRoundTripDelayMedian 19 ietfRoundTripDelayMinimum 20 ietfRoundTripDelayInvPercentile 21 ietfOneWayLossDistanceStream 22 ietfOneWayLossPeriodStream 23 ietfOneWayLossNoticeableRate 24 ietfOneWayLossPeriodTotal 25 ietfOneWayLossPeriodLengths 26 ietfOneWayInterLossPeriodLengths 27 ietfOneWayIpdv 28 ietfOneWayIpdvPoissonStream 29 ietfOneWayIpdvPercentile 30 ietfOneWayIpdvInversePercentile 31 ietfOneWayIpdvJitter 32 ietfOneWayPeakToPeakIpdv 33 ietfOneWayDelayPeriodicStream 34 ietfReorderedSingleton 35 ietfReorderedPacketRatio 36 ietfReorderingExtent 37 ietfReorderingLateTimeOffset 38 ietfReorderingByteOffset 39 ietfReorderingGap 40 ietfReorderingGapTime 41 ietfReorderingFreeRunx 42 ietfReorderingFreeRunq 43 ietfReorderingFreeRunp 44 ietfReorderingFreeRuna 45 ietfnReordering 46 ietfOneWayPacketArrivalCount 47 ietfOneWayPacketDuplication 48 ietfOneWayPacketDuplicationPoissonStream 49 ietfOneWayPacketDuplicationPeriodicStream 50 ietfOneWayPacketDuplicationFraction 51 ietfOneWayReplicatedPacketRate 52 ietfSpatialOneWayDelayVector 53 ietfSpatialPacketLossVector 54 ietfSpatialOneWayIpdvVector 55 ietfSegmentOneWayDelayStream 56 ietfSegmentPacketLossStream 57 ietfSegmentIpdvPrevStream 58 ietfSegmentIpdvMinStream 59 ietfOneToGroupDelayVector 60 ietfOneToGroupPacketLossVector 61 ietfOneToGroupIpdvVector 62 ietfOnetoGroupReceiverNMeanDelay 63 ietfOneToGroupMeanDelay 64 ietfOneToGroupRangeMeanDelay 65 ietfOneToGroupMaxMeanDelay 66 ietfOneToGroupReceiverNLossRatio 67 ietfOneToGroupReceiverNCompLossRatio 68 ietfOneToGroupLossRatio 69 ietfOneToGroupRangeLossRatio 70 ietfOneToGroupRangeDelayVariation 71 ietfFiniteOneWayDelayStream 72 ietfFiniteOneWayDelayMean 73 ietfCompositeOneWayDelayMean 74 ietfFiniteOneWayDelayMinimum 75 ietfCompositeOneWayDelayMinimum 76 ietfOneWayPktLossEmpiricProb 77 ietfCompositeOneWayPktLossEmpiricProb 78 ietfOneWayPdvRefminStream 79 ietfOneWayPdvRefminMean 80 ietfOneWayPdvRefminVariance 81 ietfOneWayPdvRefminSkewness 82 ietfCompositeOneWayPdvRefminQtil 83 ietfCompositeOneWayPdvRefminNPA

(4) 79th IETF – IPPM WG IANA IPPM metrics registry The IPPM WG is reconsidering its need – Is it used? What is missing? – Is it needed? Why is it needed? Current usage is very limited – Provide only an identifier per metrics – Limited to human (RFP…); – MIB modules;

(5) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Inputs received

(6) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Inputs from the inside of IETF The registry should be obsoleted or More standardization is needed – NMS needs more than an identifier – Registry language should be understandable by all the NM community (i.e. parsable by XML based NM syst) – Results exported should be simple (1 id, 1 result, 1 unit) – Units should be explicitly specified – Should carry metrics options

(7) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Inputs from collaborative projects App or ISP ISP – The projects ETICS and Envision are working on uses cases where application and infrastructure entities require network performance information from optimizing resources consumption and for improving the QoE and the QoS served to customers.

(8) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Inputs from collaborative projects – Networks and Applications need to optimize their resources to face the increase of the among of multimedia contents to distribute – They are in relation with numerous other applications and networks. – The exchange of Network performance information is a key aspect. – They don't care on the methodology: active, passive end-to-end and passive on-the-path measures… – They are looking for various statistics of delay, jitter, packet Lost and throughput – An application looking for one statistic (e.g. OneWayDelay minimum) from several ISPs accepts this statistic to be computed by differently in each ISP (direct measure stat, composition, division…)

(9) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Analysis of the IPPM metrics In this context

(10) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Siblings Metrics Sibling metrics are metrics which use different but very close methods to capture exactly the same dimension. E.g.: – OneWayDelayMinimum ietfOneWayDelayMinimum ietfFiniteOneWayDelayMinimum ietfCompositeOneWayDelayMinimum – OneWayPktLossStream ietfOneWayPktLossPoissonStream ietfSegmentPacketLossStream

(11) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Siblings Metrics One-way-delay between 2 points may be given by One way delay singleton, Division of a One way delay, One way delay resulting of a composition of delays These metrics results are interchangeable The extension of the registry should describe the siblings metrics – For simplifying the reporting to end-user – To clarify the set of metrics usable for composition

(12) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Metric Flavor Metric flavor concept – Profiling a metric One metric definition may have several flavor – i.e. traffic generation laws, statistics – option parameters – results parameters … – Gathering sibling definitions in one flavor for reporting For composition

(13) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Metric Reporting Reporting metrics must be simplified. – They are 4 definitions of One-way-delay singletons Why should those metrics results be perceived as different ? How to describe that they are very close ? Example of a metric flavor which gathers 4 metrics: ietfReportingOneWayDelay identifier84 description"OneWayDelay singleton" originMetricietfOneWayDelay originMetricietfOneWayPeriodicDelay originMetricietfFiniteOneWayDelay originMetricietfSpatialOneWayDelay outputCardinality1 outputUnitmillisecond

(14) 79th IETF – IPPM WG IPPM metrics statistics Statistics definitions are based on 'Stream' metrics Siblings metrics should have the same set of statistics (mean, average, median, peak… ). In fact statistics definitions are missing in several RFCs: – One-Way-Delay Minimum example: not defined in the "spatial and multicast" document (RFC5644) Defined in "Composition of Metrics" RFC to be vey soon … The extension of the registry should provide siblings metrics with the same set of statistics.

(15) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Harmonize statistics definitions Statistics are missing in several RFCs. – One-Way-Delay Minimum example: not defined in Segment metrics RFC Defined in Spatial Composition of Metrics RFCtoBe … 'Streams' metrics are always defined. A flavor statistic may be defined on the top of a set of sibling 'Streams'. Example OneWayDelayMinimum identifier85 description"Computed on one of the following stream according to the One-Way Delay Minimum definitions of RFC2679 and the framework of RFC2330" AggregateMetricietfFiniteOneWayDelayStream AggregateMetric ietfSegmentOneWayDelayStream AggregateMetric ietfOneWayDelayPoissonStream AggregateMetric ietfOneWayDelayPeriodicStream outputCardinality1 outputUnitmillisecond

(16) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Long-term MRTG-like reporting More standardization (unit & period) for LT metrics (examples): ietfOneWayDelayMean1mn identifier86 originMetricietfFiniteOneWayDelayMean ObservationPeriod 60 outputCardinality 1 outputUnitmillisecond ietfOneWayDelayMean15mn identifier87 originMetricietfFiniteOneWayDelayMean observationPeriod 900 outputCardinality 1 outputUnitmillisecond ietfOneWayDelayMean1hour identifier88 originMetricietfFiniteOneWayDelayMean observationPeriod 3600 outputCardinality 1 outputUnitmillisecond ietfOneWayDelayMean1day identifier89 originMetricietfFiniteOneWayDelayMean observationPeriod outputCardinality 1 outputUnitmillisecond

(17) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Discussion Adding Metric flavors in the registry to – Define clear LT metrics – Define sibling metrics – Harmonize statistics definitions

(18) 79th IETF – IPPM WG Acknowledgements Emile Stephan is partially supported by the ENVISION project ( project.org), a research project supported by the European Commission under its 7th Framework Program (contract no ). The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the ENVISION project or the European Commission.