G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas, "A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM." IETF, Request for Comments: 2680, 1999.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....QoS and the performance of networks are classified into two types: active and passive monitoring. Unfortunately, both types have drawbacks. They are briefly summarized as follows. a) Active measurement monitors QoS and the performance of a network by sending probe packets and monitoring them [6] [7], 22] There are various active methods to measure network performance such as available bandwidth [16] delay, loss, and to estimate their link by link performance [12] They monitor the QoS performance of the probe packet stream to determine the QoS performance of the user network indirectly. ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas. A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM. RFC2680, (1999).

....either standardised protocols (developed by IETF IPPM Working Group [5] or proprietary protocols are used. For example, in Surveyor project [6] standardised protocols are used. The standardised performance measurement procedures metrics are described in RFC2330 [7] RFC2679 [4] and RFC2680 [8]. In [9] we conducted performance measurements between a few Internet site using a proprietary protocol proposed by [10] The standard methods of measuring one way delay and delay variance in the Internet uses synchronous techniques which require clock synchronisation between source and ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM," RFC 2680, September 1999.

.... measurement packet from the source to the destination [1] IP Packet Delay Variation: The difference between the one way delay between two selected (usually consecutive) measurement packets [7] One way Packet Loss: The number of lost packets in a stream of packets from a source to a destination [2]. One way Packet Loss Patterns: The patterns of packet losses in a stream of packets, e.g. the number of consecutive lost packets, the number of loss periods, etc. 14] Goodput Throughput: The rate perceived by a flow in bit s. In case of TCP flows, the goodput of the payload is measured. The ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas. A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM. RFC 2680, IETF, September 1999.

....either standardized protocols (developed by IETF IPPM Working Group [2] or proprietary protocols are used. For example, in Surveyor project [6] standardized protocols are used. The standardized performance measurement procedures metrics are described in RFC2330 [3] RFC2679 [4] and RFC2680 [5]. Another project WAND [7] uses proprietary protocols. The standard method [4] of measuring one way delay and delay variance in the Internet uses synchronous techniques which require clock synchronization between source and destination. Such synchronous techniques are inherently prone to ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi et al, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC2680, September 1999.

....that are especially tailored for this type of measurement. 7.3 Verification of Loss Ratio The error ratio in an IP network is defined between two IP addresses, and over a set of IP packets. A procedure to measure the loss ratio is defined by the IETF IP Performance Metrics working group in [RFC2680] The measurement procedure involves sending a stream of IP measurement packets from the source IP address to the destination IP address, and determining of each packet if it is lost or not. The steps involved are the following. To determine if a packet is lost involves measuring the time it ....

Guy Almes, Sunil Kalidindi & Matthew J. Zekauskas. A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM. IETF RFC 2680, September 1999. ING WU2 D2.7: Service Level Agreements 21

.... would be impossible to emulate exactly) Active end to end probes (sampling based, indirect) In this approach, hosts (endpoints) connected to the network send probe packets to one or several other hosts to estimate path metrics, such as the packet loss rate and the round trip delay [5] 1] [2]. In a variation of this approach, hosts do not actually generate probe packets, but they collect and exchange measurements of the traffic of a multicast session (e.g. RTCP [25] This approach gives direct measurements of end to end path characteristics, such as round trip delay and packet loss ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas. A One-Way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM. RFC 2680, available from http://www.ietf.org/rfc, September 1999.

...., Florian Gruber , Daniel Karrenberg , Mark Santcroos , Ana Susanj , Henk Uijterwaal ;z and Ren e Wilhelm . Abstract The RIPE NCC has been active in the field of active measurements for the last 4 years. As a research project, it has implemented the IETF RFC s 2679 [1] and 2680 [2] on One Way Delay and Loss Measurements in a device called a test box . This device is described in this paper. As the RIPE NCC is a service organization for Internet Service Providers (ISP s) any research project will eventually have to be turned into a regular service for that community. For ....

.... RIPE NCC has been active in the field of active measurements for approximately the last 4 years with the Test Traffic Project , later renamed to Test Traffic Measurements [3] TTM) During this period, a measurement device, a so called test box , implementing the IETF RFC s 2679 [1] and 2680 [2] on one way delay and loss measurements has been developed. The test boxes are described in more detail in sections V and VI. During the development phase of the Test Traffic Project, the RIPE NCC installed a limited number of testboxes in collaboration with volunteers at various Internet ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

G.Almes et al, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC2680, September 1999.

.... fashion; this would be impossible to emulate exactly) Active end to end probes (sampling based, indirect) In this approach, hosts (endpoints) connected to the network send probe packets to one or several other hosts to estimate path metrics, such as the packet loss rate and the roundtrip delay [5, 1, 2]. In a variation of this approach, hosts 11 For some router models, ow caches already exist to speed up route and access control list (ACL) lookup. do not actually generate probe packets, but they collect and exchange measurements of the trac of a multicast session (e.g. RTCP [15] This ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas. A One-Way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM. RFC 2680, available from http://www.ietf.org/rfc, September 1999.

....namely the packets that never arrive and those that arrive too late to be useful to the application. Generally, only the former is considered when characterizing network paths. While ping measurements are most commonly used, it may be preferable to sample path loss with a Poisson process [58, 59]. In a network, packets are lost either because they are dropped when a router queue overflows or because a corrupted packet, detected by a link layer or IP header checksum, is discarded. For all but wireless links 5 Phil Karn, note to end to end mailing list, May 1999 6 Sanjay Waghray, ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas, "A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, May 1999. Work in progress.

.... would be impossible to emulate exactly) Active end to end probes (sampling based, indirect) In this approach, hosts (endpoints) connected to the network send probe packets to one or several other hosts to estimate path metrics, such as the packet loss rate and the round trip delay [5] 1] [2]. In a variation of this approach, hosts do not actually generate probe packets, but they collect and exchange measurements of the traffic of a multicast session (e.g. RTCP [24] This approach gives direct measurements of end to end path characteristics, such as round trip delay and packet loss ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas. A One-Way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM. RFC 2680, available from http://www.ietf.org/rfc, September 1999.

....Engineering Task Force s IPPM Working Group (http: www.ietf.org html.charters ippmcharter. html) has published several speci cations for measuring delay and loss. The following table is a partial summary: Document Reference Topics Covered RFC 2679 [2] one way delay measurement RFC 2680 [3] one way loss measurement RFC 2681 [4] two way (round trip) delay measurement ippm loss pattern [20] one way loss pattern characterization ippm ipdv [12] jitter measurement RFC 2679 has several key characteristics. First, it states that the clock di erence and drift at both sender and receiver ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas. A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM. Request for Comments (Proposed Standard) 2680, Internet Engineering Task Force, September 1999.

....[1] Standards bodies such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU T) the T1 Standards Committee (T1A1) the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Cross Industry Working Team (XIWT) have played a major role in the development of performance standards. Specifically, I. 380 [2] was developed by T1A1.3 to meet the need of Internet Protocol (IP) performance standards. I.380 has areas in it that need advancement. Our capstone project which examines the validity of throughput probes (discussed in detail later) as a measurement method of IP performance, is hoped to advance ....

....in it that need advancement. Our capstone project which examines the validity of throughput probes (discussed in detail later) as a measurement method of IP performance, is hoped to advance the I.380 standard and make a contribution in this area. 1.1 Goal In reference to ITU I. 380 Appendix C [2], we will attempt to answer the following three questions: 1. Is the throughput probe method a valid approach in the assessment of IP service performance 2. Is IP packet loss really greater for throughput probes than for isolated packets (discussed in detail later) 3. Since throughput probes do ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

G. Almes, S, Kalidindi, M. Zekauskas, "One way packet loss metric for IPPM," November 11, 1998. IETF Draft Work in Progress, expiration 6/99 http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-delay-05.txt

....Packet Networks The IP Performance Metrics Working Group (IPPM) of IETF [IPPM] is conducting a major effort for the definition of a set of standard metrics that can be applied to evaluate data delivery services. IPPM considers QoS characteristics (such as delay or loss) independently [24] 1] [2], 16] In spite of IPPM and other work, there isn t, as far as the authors know, a comprehensive way to measure QoS considering different characteristics altogether. The metric developed at LCT UC intends to address this challenge: to provide a broad and coherent view of the QoS given to ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2680.txt

.... fashion; this would be impossible to emulate exactly) Active end to end probes (sampling based, indirect) In this approach, hosts (endpoints) connected to the network send probe packets to one or several other hosts to estimate path metrics, such as the packet loss rate and the roundtrip delay [5, 1, 2]. In a variation of this approach, hosts 11 For some router models, flow caches already exist to speed up route and access control list (ACL) lookup. do not actually generate probe packets, but they collect and exchange measurements of the traffic of a multicast session (e.g. RTCP [15] This ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas. A One-Way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM. RFC 2680, available from http://www.ietf.org/rfc, September 1999.

....along each test path, this should be negligible. Small EF aggregates must be reserved for EF active measurement streams, which must take care not to exceed the service parameters of these reservations. Required active metrics for each test path include: the IETF IPPM one way packet loss metric [16]; an instantaneous one way packet delay variation metric based on the draft documents [17] and [18] periodic traceroutes for each behavior aggregate (formal metrics such as for interdomain path stability could later be derived from these) The second class of required metrics must be ....

G. Almes, S. Kalindi, M. Zekauskas, A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM , IETF Internet Draft, February 1999.

....n and the maximum buffer size B. All the lost (dropped) packets were recorded as the output of the ns simulations. We generate a set of (time, loss) pairs, where time represents the time of the packet generation, and loss has a binary value of 1 or 0 depending whether the packet was lost or not [1]. Besides the packet generation time, we also record the instances when loss occurs at the common buffer. Loss distance is defined as difference in sequence numbers of two successively lost packets that may or may not be separated by successfully received packets [8] Loss episode begins with ....

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zakeuskas, "A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM," RFC 2680, IETF, Sept. 1996.

No context found.

Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.

No context found.

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas, "A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM." IETF, Request for Comments: 2680, 1999.

No context found.

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas, "A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM." IETF, IP Performance Metrics, Request for Comments: 2680, 1999.

No context found.

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas. A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM. RFC 2680, Sept. 1999.

No context found.

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, M. Zekauskas, A one-way packet loss metric for IPPM, IETF RFC 2680, 1999.

No context found.

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.

No context found.

Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.

No context found.

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi, and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM," RFC 2680, Sept. 1999.

No context found.

G. Almes, S. Kalidindi et al, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC2680, September 1999.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC