July 2010Geib/Morton/Fardid/Steinmitz / draft-ietf-metrictest-001 Testing Standards Track Metrics Draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00 Geib, Morton, Fardid, Steinmitz IETF-78 July 2010

July 2010Geib/Morton/Fardid/Steinmitz / draft-ietf-metrictest-002 Draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00 Tunnels: Criteria and a tested candidate  must map packets of different interfaces onto the same tunnel, carrying an identical outer IP address/port for all packets.  easily accessible/commodity implementation  low operational overhead  reliable  low cost Candidates after practical experience seem to be (ordered by best match to the above criteria):  Ethernet over L2TPv3 using port mode (RFC 4719)  Ethernet PW using port mode

July 2010Geib/Morton/Fardid/Steinmitz / draft-ietf-metrictest-003 Draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00. Networking conditions and evaluation.  Metric implementations will be operated in real networks. Metric compliance should be tested under live network conditions too, if possible.  Avoid accidental results (more positive: ensure reliable results).  Work with n singletons per evaluation interval and repeat test n times.  A rule of thumb says n = 5 or more.  Example C++ code for an Anderson Darling 2 sample test is included now.

July 2010Geib/Morton/Fardid/Steinmitz / draft-ietf-metrictest-004 Draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00. Next steps.  Is there community interest in setting up a test of the proposed metric test?  Clarify which (parts of) metric specifications preferrably are tested by using the Internet as “Network under Test” and which should be tested under laboratory conditions.

July 2010Geib/Morton/Fardid/Steinmitz / draft-ietf-metrictest-005 Draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00. Experimental set up and experiences (1). Metric test set up verified by a diploma thesis  Realised Ethernet over L2TPv3 tunnel in port mode and utilise Ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100) transport to avoid local routing.  Execute Anderson Darling K-sample test for two instances of one implementation.  5 parallel measurement streams per implementation, each terminating on a different port.  One metric implementation had no GPS synch and there was undefined local load. Conditions close to metric test specification, but not fully meeting these.

July 2010Geib/Morton/Fardid/Steinmitz / draft-ietf-metrictest-006 Draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00. Experimental set up and experiences (2). Metric Implement. A1 Tunnel termination 1 Tunnel termination 2 Internet „Repeating“ measurements under identical network conditions with a single implementation by measuring with two identical implementations (five flows by using separate IP ports). Ports IP Addresses VLAN ID and MAC addresses Ports IP Addresses Ethernet over L2TPv3 / port mode Tunnel Structure L2TPv3 IP: same origin and destiantion IP address and ports for all VLAN IDs  one path through the IP network. Metric Implement. A2 IEEE 802.1Q VLAN IDs vary (2 at least)  port mode avoids single tunnels per VLAN ID. Measurement IP adresses and ports vary. Avoid local routing by tunneling a layer 2 port over the Internet.

July 2010Geib/Morton/Fardid/Steinmitz / draft-ietf-metrictest-007 Draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-00. Experimental set up and experiences (3). Some new results  We’ve tested single implementation precision by 5 parallel flows.  We’ve tested single implementation Round trip time metric and required adjustments of less than 20  s to pass AD2 sample tests (see figure).  One way delay measurements of single implementations passed ADK test for both implememntations without any adjustment (with one exception).  Comparing the results of the two implementations wasn’t successful (broken GPS in the one system probably is one of the causes).