Network Working Group BM. Gaonkar Internet-Draft P. Ananthasankaran Intended status: Experimental S. Jacob Expires: February 5, 2017 Juniper Networks G. Fioccola Telecom Italia August 4, 2016 Packet Loss measurement Model draft-bhaprasud-ippm-pm-00.txt Abstract This document defines the loss measurement matrix models for service level packets on the network which can be implemented in different kind of network scenerios. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on February 5, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Loss Measurement Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Complete data measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Color based data measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. COS based Data measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4. COS and color based Data measurement . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Active and Passive performance measurements . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction Today, Performance monitoring is a key technology to strengthen service offers based on enhanced QoE and SLAs. The draft aims to define performance monitoring loss measurement matrix models for service level packets on the network. The network would be provisioned with multiple services having different SLAs based on the customers' requirement. This models aims at computing Loss measurement for these services independently for each defined SLA matrixes. The class-of-service defined in the network drives the SLA factors and the implementation to achieve these SLAs. This draft uses the class-of-service model for any given network to define the packet loss measurement for the different SLAs. The proposed matrix models is suitable mainly for passive performance measurements but can be considered for active and hybrid performance measurements as well. This solution models loss measurement in different kinds of network scenarios. The different models explaind here will help to analyse packet loss pattern, analyze the network congestion in a better way and model the network in a better way. Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016 Loss measurement is carried out between 2 end points. The underlying technology could be an active loss measurement or a Passive loss measurement. Any loss measurement will require 2 counters o Number of packets transmitted from one end point. o Number of packets received at the other end point. This draft explains the different ways to model the above data and get meaningful result for the loss measurement compulation. The underlying technology could be an MPLS Loss measurement, or based loss measurement or an IP based loss measurement. 2. Terminologies TBD 3. Loss Measurement Models 3.1. Complete data measurement This model uses the complete data traffic between the 2 end-points to compute loss measurement. This will result in computation of loss measurement for the entire traffic in the network in one direction. This is primerly used in cases of backbone traffic where traffic from different services are aggregated and send into the core network. 3.2. Color based data measurement This is same as the abve section of "complete data measurement" with a minor difference. In this model the packets are counted in any one of the following ways o Count all committed traffic between the 2 end-point for loss measurement. o Count all Excess traffic which is beyond the committed traffic for the specific network. When both of these are combined then it becomes the model for complete traffic as mentioned in the above section. In practice the Color of traffic can be using any mechanism based on the network encapsulation. As long as the packets could be treated Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016 differently based on the underlying encapsulation this mechanism could be used. This is used in core networks where the aggregated traffic has differential priority and loss measurement can be computed on the committed traffic which is guaranteed in the network when compared with excess traffic which could be dropped based on network load and provisioning. 3.3. COS based Data measurement This model uses the data traffic in the network which is flowing in a specific COS to measure the loss in the network. Based on the class of traffic in the network the transmitted and received packets are counted to calculate the loss measurement. Cos is differentiated with Color as COS treats different classes with a set of network streams whereas color differentiates a set of packets within the same COS stream itself. Primary use of this kind of loss measurement is to measure loss measurement for a specific service which has strict SLAs. The service could be a point-to-point layer2 service, an MPLS based service. 3.4. COS and color based Data measurement This model uses a combination of both Color based data measurement and Cos based data measurement. Packets are counter for a specific COS with a specific color. 4. Active and Passive performance measurements This model reinforces the use of well known methodologies for passive performance measurements. A very simple, flexible and straightforward mechanism is presented in [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark]. The basic idea is to virtually split traffic flows into consecutive batches of packets: each block represents a measurable entity unambiguously recognizable thanks to the alternate marking. This approach, called Alternate Marking method, is efficient both for passive performance monitoring and for active performance monitoring. 5. Acknowledgements TBD Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016 6. Appendix TBD 7. References [I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark] Fioccola, G., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, "Alternate Marking method for passive performance monitoring", draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-01 (work in progress), July 2016. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . Authors' Addresses Bharat M Gaonkar Juniper Networks 1133 Innovation Way Sunnyvale, California 94089 USA Phone: 1-408-526-4000 Email: gbharat@juniper.net Praveen Ananthasankaran Juniper Networks 1133 Innovation Way Sunnyvale, California 94089 USA Email: panantha@juniper.net Sudhin Jacob Juniper Networks 1133 Innovation Way Sunnyvale, California 94089 USA Email: sjacob@juniper.net Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PL Model August 2016 Giuseppe Fioccola Telecom Italia Via Reiss Romoli, 274 Torino 10148 Italy Email: giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it Gaonkar, et al. Expires February 5, 2017 [Page 6]