Subject: [ippm] Minutes for IPPM at IETF 56 / San Francisco

From: Matthew J Zekauskas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:09:10 -0400

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 ([email-masked]) soon after
this meeting.

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm