diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc5481.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5481.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc5481.txt | 2187 |
1 files changed, 2187 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5481.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5481.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..14c9710 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5481.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2187 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group A. Morton +Request for Comments: 5481 AT&T Labs +Category: Informational B. Claise + Cisco Systems, Inc. + March 2009 + + + Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement + +Status of This Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of + publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). + Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights + and restrictions with respect to this document. + + This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF + Contributions published or made publicly available before November + 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this + material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow + modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. + Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling + the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified + outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may + not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format + it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other + than English. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +Abstract + + Packet delay variation metrics appear in many different standards + documents. The metric definition in RFC 3393 has considerable + flexibility, and it allows multiple formulations of delay variation + through the specification of different packet selection functions. + + Although flexibility provides wide coverage and room for new ideas, + it can make comparisons of independent implementations more + difficult. Two different formulations of delay variation have come + into wide use in the context of active measurements. This memo + examines a range of circumstances for active measurements of delay + variation and their uses, and recommends which of the two forms is + best matched to particular conditions and tasks. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................4 + 1.1. Requirements Language ......................................5 + 1.2. Background Literature in IPPM and Elsewhere ................5 + 1.3. Organization of the Memo ...................................6 + 2. Purpose and Scope ...............................................7 + 3. Brief Descriptions of Delay Variation Uses ......................7 + 3.1. Inferring Queue Occupation on a Path .......................7 + 3.2. Determining De-Jitter Buffer Size ..........................8 + 3.3. Spatial Composition .......................................10 + 3.4. Service-Level Comparison ..................................10 + 3.5. Application-Layer FEC Design ..............................10 + 4. Formulations of IPDV and PDV ...................................10 + 4.1. IPDV: Inter-Packet Delay Variation ........................11 + 4.2. PDV: Packet Delay Variation ...............................11 + 4.3. A "Point" about Measurement Points ........................12 + 4.4. Examples and Initial Comparisons ..........................12 + 5. Survey of Earlier Comparisons ..................................13 + 5.1. Demichelis' Comparison ....................................13 + 5.2. Ciavattone et al. .........................................15 + 5.3. IPPM List Discussion from 2000 ............................16 + 5.4. Y.1540 Appendix II ........................................18 + 5.5. Clark's ITU-T SG 12 Contribution ..........................18 + 6. Additional Properties and Comparisons ..........................18 + 6.1. Packet Loss ...............................................18 + 6.2. Path Changes ..............................................19 + 6.2.1. Lossless Path Change ...............................20 + 6.2.2. Path Change with Loss ..............................21 + 6.3. Clock Stability and Error .................................22 + 6.4. Spatial Composition .......................................24 + 6.5. Reporting a Single Number (SLA) ...........................24 + 6.6. Jitter in RTCP Reports ....................................25 + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + 6.7. MAPDV2 ....................................................25 + 6.8. Load Balancing ............................................26 + 7. Applicability of the Delay Variation Forms and + Recommendations ................................................27 + 7.1. Uses ......................................................27 + 7.1.1. Inferring Queue Occupancy ..........................27 + 7.1.2. Determining De-Jitter Buffer Size (and FEC + Design) ............................................27 + 7.1.3. Spatial Composition ................................28 + 7.1.4. Service-Level Specification: Reporting a + Single Number ......................................28 + 7.2. Challenging Circumstances .................................28 + 7.2.1. Clock and Storage Issues ...........................28 + 7.2.2. Frequent Path Changes ..............................29 + 7.2.3. Frequent Loss ......................................29 + 7.2.4. Load Balancing .....................................29 + 7.3. Summary ...................................................30 + 8. Measurement Considerations .....................................31 + 8.1. Measurement Stream Characteristics ........................31 + 8.2. Measurement Devices .......................................32 + 8.3. Units of Measurement ......................................33 + 8.4. Test Duration .............................................33 + 8.5. Clock Sync Options ........................................33 + 8.6. Distinguishing Long Delay from Loss .......................34 + 8.7. Accounting for Packet Reordering ..........................34 + 8.8. Results Representation and Reporting ......................35 + 9. Security Considerations ........................................35 + 10. Acknowledgments ...............................................35 + 11. Appendix on Calculating the D(min) in PDV .....................35 + 12. References ....................................................36 + 12.1. Normative References .....................................36 + 12.2. Informative References ...................................37 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +1. Introduction + + There are many ways to formulate packet delay variation metrics for + the Internet and other packet-based networks. The IETF itself has + several specifications for delay variation [RFC3393], sometimes + called jitter [RFC3550] or even inter-arrival jitter [RFC3550], and + these have achieved wide adoption. The International + Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization Sector + (ITU-T) has also recommended several delay variation metrics (called + parameters in their terminology) [Y.1540] [G.1020], and some of these + are widely cited and used. Most of the standards above specify more + than one way to quantify delay variation, so one can conclude that + standardization efforts have tended to be inclusive rather than + selective. + + This memo uses the term "delay variation" for metrics that quantify a + path's ability to transfer packets with consistent delay. [RFC3393] + and [Y.1540] both prefer this term. Some refer to this phenomenon as + "jitter" (and the buffers that attempt to smooth the variations as + de-jitter buffers). Applications of the term "jitter" are much + broader than packet transfer performance, with "unwanted signal + variation" as a general definition. "Jitter" has been used to + describe frequency or phase variations, such as data stream rate + variations or carrier signal phase noise. The phrase "delay + variation" is almost self-defining and more precise, so it is + preferred in this memo. + + Most (if not all) delay variation metrics are derived metrics, in + that their definitions rely on another fundamental metric. In this + case, the fundamental metric is one-way delay, and variation is + assessed by computing the difference between two individual one-way- + delay measurements, or a pair of singletons. One of the delay + singletons is taken as a reference, and the result is the variation + with respect to the reference. The variation is usually summarized + for all packets in a stream using statistics. + + The industry has predominantly implemented two specific formulations + of delay variation (for one survey of the situation, see + [Krzanowski]): + + 1. Inter-Packet Delay Variation, IPDV, where the reference is the + previous packet in the stream (according to sending sequence), + and the reference changes for each packet in the stream. + Properties of variation are coupled with packet sequence in this + formulation. This form was called Instantaneous Packet Delay + Variation in early IETF contributions, and is similar to the + packet spacing difference metric used for interarrival jitter + calculations in [RFC3550]. + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + 2. Packet Delay Variation, PDV, where a single reference is chosen + from the stream based on specific criteria. The most common + criterion for the reference is the packet with the minimum delay + in the sample. This term derives its name from a similar + definition for Cell Delay Variation, an ATM performance metric + [I.356]. + + It is important to note that the authors of relevant standards for + delay variation recognized there are many different users with + varying needs, and allowed sufficient flexibility to formulate + several metrics with different properties. Therefore, the comparison + is not so much between standards bodies or their specifications as it + is between specific formulations of delay variation. Both Inter- + Packet Delay Variation and Packet Delay Variation are compliant with + [RFC3393], because different packet selection functions will produce + either form. + +1.1. 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]. + +1.2. Background Literature in IPPM and Elsewhere + + With more people joining the measurement community every day, it is + possible this memo is the first from the IP Performance Metrics + (IPPM) Working Group that the reader has consulted. This section + provides a brief road map and background on the IPPM literature, and + the published specifications of other relevant standards + organizations. + + The IPPM framework [RFC2330] provides a background for this memo and + other IPPM RFCs. Key terms such as singleton, sample, and statistic + are defined there, along with methods of collecting samples (Poisson + streams), time-related issues, and the "packet of Type-P" convention. + + There are two fundamental and related metrics that can be applied to + every packet transfer attempt: one-way loss [RFC2680] and one-way + delay [RFC2679]. The metrics use a waiting time threshold to + distinguish between lost and delayed packets. Packets that arrive at + the measurement destination within their waiting time have finite + delay and are not lost. Otherwise, packets are designated lost and + their delay is undefined. Guidance on setting the waiting time + threshold may be found in [RFC2680] and [IPPM-Reporting]. + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + Another fundamental metric is packet reordering as specified in + [RFC4737]. The reordering metric was defined to be "orthogonal" to + packet loss. In other words, the gap in a packet sequence caused by + loss does not result in reordered packets, but a rearrangement of + packet arrivals from their sending order constitutes reordering. + + Derived metrics are based on the fundamental metrics. The metric of + primary interest here is delay variation [RFC3393], a metric that is + derived from one-way delay [RFC2680]. Another derived metric is the + loss patterns metric [RFC3357], which is derived from loss. + + The measured values of all metrics (both fundamental and derived) + depend to great extent on the stream characteristics used to collect + them. Both Poisson streams [RFC3393] and Periodic streams [RFC3432] + have been used with the IPDV and PDV metrics. The choice of stream + specification for active measurement will depend on the purpose of + the characterization and the constraints of the testing environment. + Periodic streams are frequently chosen for use with IPDV and PDV, + because the application streams that are most sensitive to delay + variation exhibit periodicity. Additional details that are method- + specific are discussed in Section 8 on "Measurement Considerations". + + In the ITU-T, the framework, fundamental metrics, and derived metrics + for IP performance are specified in Recommendation Y.1540 [Y.1540]. + [G.1020] defines additional delay variation metrics, analyzes the + operation of fixed and adaptive de-jitter buffers, and describes an + example adaptive de-jitter buffer emulator. Appendix II of [G.1050] + describes the models for network impairments (including delay + variation) that are part of standardized IP network emulator that may + be useful when evaluating measurement techniques. + +1.3. Organization of the Memo + + The Purpose and Scope follows in Section 2. We then give a summary + of the main tasks for delay variation metrics in Section 3. + Section 4 defines the two primary forms of delay variation, and + Section 5 presents summaries of four earlier comparisons. Section 6 + adds new comparisons to the analysis, and Section 7 reviews the + applicability and recommendations for each form of delay variation. + Section 8 then looks at many important delay variation measurement + considerations. Following the Security Considerations, there is an + appendix on the calculation of the minimum delay for the PDV form. + + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +2. Purpose and Scope + + The IPDV and PDV formulations have certain features that make them + more suitable for one circumstance and less so for another. The + purpose of this memo is to compare two forms of delay variation, so + that it will be evident which of the two is better suited for each of + many possible uses and their related circumstances. + + The scope of this memo is limited to the two forms of delay variation + briefly described above (Inter-Packet Delay Variation and Packet + Delay Variation), circumstances related to active measurement, and + uses that are deemed relevant and worthy of inclusion here through + IPPM Working Group consensus. + + It is entirely possible that the analysis and conclusions drawn here + are applicable beyond the intended scope, but the reader is cautioned + to fully appreciate the circumstances of active measurement on IP + networks before doing so. + + The scope excludes assessment of delay variation for packets with + undefined delay. This is accomplished by conditioning the delay + distribution on arrival within a reasonable waiting time based on an + understanding of the path under test and packet lifetimes. The + waiting time is sometimes called the loss threshold [RFC2680]: if a + packet arrives beyond this threshold, it may as well have been lost + because it is no longer useful. This is consistent with [RFC3393], + where the Type-P-One-way-ipdv is undefined when the destination fails + to receive one or both packets in the selected pair. Furthermore, it + is consistent with application performance analysis to consider only + arriving packets, because a finite waiting time-out is a feature of + many protocols. + +3. Brief Descriptions of Delay Variation Uses + + This section presents a set of tasks that call for delay variation + measurements. Here, the memo provides several answers to the + question, "How will the results be used?" for the delay variation + metric. + +3.1. Inferring Queue Occupation on a Path + + As packets travel along the path from source to destination, they + pass through many network elements, including a series of router + queues. Some types of the delay sources along the path are constant, + such as links between two locations. But the latency encountered in + each queue varies, depending on the number of packets in the queue + when a particular packet arrives. If one assumes that at least one + of the packets in a test stream encounters virtually empty queues all + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + along the path (and the path is stable), then the additional delay + observed on other packets can be attributed to the time spent in one + or more queues. Otherwise, the delay variation observed is the + variation in queue time experienced by the test stream. + + It is worth noting that delay variation can occur beyond IP router + queues, in other communication components. Examples include media + contention: DOCSIS, IEEE 802.11, and some mobile radio technologies. + + However, delay variation from all sources at the IP layer and below + will be quantified using the two formulations discussed here. + +3.2. Determining De-Jitter Buffer Size + + Note -- while this memo and other IPPM literature prefer the term + "delay variation", the terms "jitter buffer" and the more accurate + "de-jitter buffer" are widely adopted names for a component of packet + communication systems, and they will be used here to designate that + system component. + + Most isochronous applications (a.k.a. real-time applications) employ + a buffer to smooth out delay variation encountered on the path from + source to destination. The buffer must be big enough to accommodate + the expected variation of delay, or packet loss will result. + However, if the buffer is too large, then some of the desired + spontaneity of communication will be lost and conversational dynamics + will be affected. Therefore, application designers need to know the + range of delay variation they must accommodate, whether they are + designing fixed or adaptive buffer systems. + + Network service providers also attempt to constrain delay variation + to ensure the quality of real-time applications, and monitor this + metric (possibly to compare with a numerical objective or Service + Level Agreement). + + De-jitter buffer size can be expressed in units of octets of storage + space for the packet stream, or in units of time that the packets are + stored. It is relatively simple to convert between octets and time + when the buffer read rate (in octets per second) is constant: + + read_rate * storage_time = storage_octets + + Units of time are used in the discussion below. + + The objective of a de-jitter buffer is to compensate for all prior + sources of delay variation and produce a packet stream with constant + delay. Thus, a packet experiencing the minimum transit delay from + source to destination, D_min, should spend the maximum time in a + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + de-jitter buffer, B_max. The sum of D_min and B_max should equal the + sum of the maximum transit delay (D_max) and the minimum buffer time + (B_min). We have + + Constant = D_min + B_max = D_max + B_min, + + after rearranging terms, + + B_max - B_min = D_max - D_min = range(B) = range(D) + + where range(B) is the range of packet buffering times, and range(D) + is the range of packet transit delays from source to destination. + + Packets with transit delay between the max and min spend a + complementary time in the buffer and also see the constant delay. + + In practice, the minimum buffer time, B_min, may not be zero, and the + maximum transit delay, D_max, may be a high percentile (99.9th + percentile) instead of the maximum. + + Note that B_max - B_min = range(B) is the range of buffering times + needed to compensate for delay variation. The actual size of the + buffer may be larger (where B_min > 0) or smaller than range(B). + + There must be a process to align the de-jitter buffer time with + packet transit delay. This is a process to identify the packets with + minimum delay and schedule their play-out time so that they spend the + maximum time in the buffer. The error in the alignment process can + be accounted for by a variable, A. In the equation below, the range + of buffering times *available* to the packet stream, range(b), + depends on buffer alignment with the actual arrival times of D_min + and D_max. + + range(b) = b_max - b_min = D_max - D_min + A + + where variable b represents the *available* buffer in a system with a + specific alignment, A, and b_max and b_min represent the limits of + the available buffer. + + When A is positive, the de-jitter buffer applies more delay than + necessary (where Constant = D_max + b_min + A represents one possible + alignment). When A is negative, there is insufficient buffer time + available to compensate for range(D) because of misalignment. + Packets with D_min may be arriving too early and encountering a full + buffer, or packets with D_max may be arriving too late, and in either + case, the packets would be discarded. + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + In summary, the range of transit delay variation is a critical factor + in the determination of de-jitter buffer size. + +3.3. Spatial Composition + + In Spatial Composition, the tasks are similar to those described + above, but with the additional complexity of a multiple network path + where several sub-paths are measured separately and no source-to- + destination measurements are available. In this case, the source-to- + destination performance must be estimated, using Composed Metrics as + described in [IPPM-Framework] and [Y.1541]. Note that determining + the composite delay variation is not trivial: simply summing the sub- + path variations is not accurate. + +3.4. Service-Level Comparison + + IP performance measurements are often used as the basis for + agreements (or contracts) between service providers and their + customers. The measurement results must compare favorably with the + performance levels specified in the agreement. + + Packet delay variation is usually one of the metrics specified in + these agreements. In principle, any formulation could be specified + in the Service Level Agreement (SLA). However, the SLA is most + useful when the measured quantities can be related to ways in which + the communication service will be utilized by the customer, and this + can usually be derived from one of the tasks described above. + +3.5. Application-Layer FEC Design + + The design of application-layer Forward Error Correction (FEC) + components is closely related to the design of a de-jitter buffer in + several ways. The FEC designer must choose a protection interval + (time to send/receive a block of packets in a constant packet rate + system) consistent with the packet-loss characteristics, but also + mindful of the extent of delay variation expected. Further, the + system designer must decide how long to wait for "late" packets to + arrive. Again, the range of delay variation is the relevant + expression delay variation for these tasks. + +4. Formulations of IPDV and PDV + + This section presents the formulations of IPDV and PDV, and provides + some illustrative examples. We use the basic singleton definition in + [RFC3393] (which itself is based on [RFC2679]): + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + "Type-P-One-way-ipdv is defined for two packets from Src to Dst + selected by the selection function F, as the difference between the + value of the Type-P-One-way-delay from Src to Dst at T2 and the value + of the Type-P-One-Way-Delay from Src to Dst at T1". + +4.1. IPDV: Inter-Packet Delay Variation + + If we have packets in a stream consecutively numbered i = 1,2,3,... + falling within the test interval, then IPDV(i) = D(i)-D(i-1) where + D(i) denotes the one-way delay of the ith packet of a stream. + + One-way delays are the difference between timestamps applied at the + ends of the path, or the receiver time minus the transmission time. + + So D(2) = R2-T2. With this timestamp notation, it can be shown that + IPDV also represents the change in inter-packet spacing between + transmission and reception: + + IPDV(2) = D(2) - D(1) = (R2-T2) - (R1-T1) = (R2-R1) - (T2-T1) + + An example selection function given in [RFC3393] is "Consecutive + Type-P packets within the specified interval". This is exactly the + function needed for IPDV. The reference packet in the pair is the + previous packet in the sending sequence. + + Note that IPDV can take on positive and negative values (and zero). + One way to analyze the IPDV results is to concentrate on the positive + excursions. However, this approach has limitations that are + discussed in more detail below (see Section 5.3). + + The mean of all IPDV(i) for a stream is usually zero. However, a + slow delay change over the life of the stream, or a frequency error + between the measurement system clocks, can result in a non-zero mean. + +4.2. PDV: Packet Delay Variation + + The name Packet Delay Variation is used in [Y.1540] and its + predecessors, and refers to a performance parameter equivalent to the + metric described below. + + The Selection Function for PDV requires two specific roles for the + packets in the pair. The first packet is any Type-P packet within + the specified interval. The second, or reference packet is the + Type-P packet within the specified interval with the minimum one-way + delay. + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + Therefore, PDV(i) = D(i)-D(min) (using the nomenclature introduced in + the IPDV section). D(min) is the delay of the packet with the lowest + value for delay (minimum) over the current test interval. Values of + PDV may be zero or positive, and quantiles of the PDV distribution + are direct indications of delay variation. + + PDV is a version of the one-way-delay distribution, shifted to the + origin by normalizing to the minimum delay. + +4.3. A "Point" about Measurement Points + + Both IPDV and PDV are derived from the one-way-delay metric. One-way + delay requires knowledge of time at two points, e.g., the source and + destination of an IP network path in end-to-end measurement. + Therefore, both IPDV and PDV can be categorized as 2-point metrics + because they are derived from one-way delay. Specific methods of + measurement may make assumptions or have a priori knowledge about one + of the measurement points, but the metric definitions themselves are + based on information collected at two measurement points. + +4.4. Examples and Initial Comparisons + + Note: This material originally presented in Slides 2 and 3 of + [Morton06]. + + The Figure below gives a sample of packet delays, calculates IPDV and + PDV values, and depicts a histogram for each one. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + Packet # 1 2 3 4 5 + ------------------------------- + Delay, ms 20 10 20 25 20 + + IPDV U -10 10 5 -5 + + PDV 10 0 10 15 10 + + | | + 4| 4| + | | + 3| 3| H + | | H + 2| 2| H + | | H + H H 1| H H 1|H H H + H H | H H |H H H + ---------+-------- +--------------- + -10 -5 0 5 10 0 5 10 15 + + IPDV Histogram PDV Histogram + + Figure 1: IPDV and PDV Comparison + + The sample of packets contains three packets with "typical" delays of + 20 ms, one packet with a low delay of 10 ms (the minimum of the + sample) and one packet with 25 ms delay. + + As noted above, this example illustrates that IPDV may take on + positive and negative values, while the PDV values are greater than + or equal to zero. The histograms of IPDV and PDV are quite different + in general shape, and the ranges are different, too (IPDV range = + 20ms, PDV range = 15 ms). Note that the IPDV histogram will change + if the sequence of delays is modified, but the PDV histogram will + stay the same. PDV normalizes the one-way-delay distribution to the + minimum delay and emphasizes the variation independent from the + sequence of delays. + +5. Survey of Earlier Comparisons + + This section summarizes previous work to compare these two forms of + delay variation. + +5.1. Demichelis' Comparison + + In [Demichelis], Demichelis compared the early versions of two forms + of delay variation. Although the IPDV form would eventually see + widespread use, the ITU-T work-in-progress he cited did not utilize + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + the same reference packets as PDV. Demichelis compared IPDV with the + alternatives of using the delay of the first packet in the stream and + the mean delay of the stream as the PDV reference packet. Neither of + these alternative references were used in practice, and they are now + deprecated in favor of the minimum delay of the stream [Y.1540]. + + Active measurements of a transcontinental path (Torino to Tokyo) + provided the data for the comparison. The Poisson test stream had + 0.764 second average inter-packet interval, with more than 58 + thousand packets over 13.5 hours. Among Demichelis' observations + about IPDV are the following: + + 1. IPDV is a measure of the network's ability to preserve the + spacing between packets. + + 2. The distribution of IPDV is usually symmetrical about the origin, + having a balance of negative and positive values (for the most + part). The mean is usually zero, unless some long-term delay + trend is present. + + 3. IPDV singletons distinguish quick-delay variations (short-term, + on the order of the interval between packets) from longer-term + variations. + + 4. IPDV places reduced demands on the stability and skew of + measurement clocks. + + He also notes these features of PDV: + + 1. The PDV distribution does not distinguish short-term variation + from variation over the complete test interval. (Comment: PDV + can be determined over any sub-intervals when the singletons are + stored.) + + 2. The location of the distribution is very sensitive to the delay + of the first packet, IF this packet is used as the reference. + This would be a new formulation that differs from the PDV + definition in this memo (PDV references the packet with minimum + delay, so it does not have this drawback). + + 3. The shape of the PDV distribution is identical to the delay + distribution, but shifted by the reference delay. + + 4. Use of a common reference over measurement intervals that are + longer than a typical session length may indicate more PDV than + would be experienced by streams that support such sessions. + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + (Ideally, the measurement interval should be aligned with the + session length of interest, and this influences determination of + the reference delay, D(min).) + + 5. The PDV distribution characterizes the range of queue occupancies + along the measurement path (assuming the path is fixed), but the + range says nothing about how the variation took place. + + The summary metrics used in this comparison were the number of values + exceeding a +/-50ms range around the mean, the Inverse Percentiles, + and the Inter-Quartile Range. + +5.2. Ciavattone et al. + + In [Cia03], the authors compared IPDV and PDV (referred to as delta) + using a periodic packet stream conforming to [RFC3432] with inter- + packet interval of 20 ms. + + One of the comparisons between IPDV and PDV involves a laboratory + setup where a queue was temporarily congested by a competing packet + burst. The additional queuing delay was 85 ms to 95 ms, much larger + than the inter-packet interval. The first packet in the stream that + follows the competing burst spends the longest time queued, and + others experience less and less queuing time until the queue is + drained. + + The authors observed that PDV reflects the additional queuing time of + the packets affected by the burst, with values of 85, 65, 45, 25, and + 5 ms. Also, it is easy to determine (by looking at the PDV range) + that a de-jitter buffer of >85 ms would have been sufficient to + accommodate the delay variation. Again, the measurement interval is + a key factor in the validity of such observations (it should have + similar length to the session interval of interest). + + The IPDV values in the congested queue example are very different: + 85, -20, -20, -20, -20, -5 ms. Only the positive excursion of IPDV + gives an indication of the de-jitter buffer size needed. Although + the variation exceeds the inter-packet interval, the extent of + negative IPDV values is limited by that sending interval. This + preference for information from the positive IPDV values has prompted + some to ignore the negative values, or to take the absolute value of + each IPDV measurement (sacrificing key properties of IPDV in the + process, such as its ability to distinguish delay trends). + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + Note that this example illustrates a case where the IPDV distribution + is asymmetrical, because the delay variation range (85 ms) exceeds + the inter-packet spacing (20 ms). We see that the IPDV values 85, + -20, -20, -20, -20, -5 ms have zero mean, but the left side of the + distribution is truncated at -20 ms. + + Elsewhere in the article, the authors considered the range as a + summary statistic for IPDV, and the 99.9th percentile minus the + minimum delay as a summary statistic for delay variation, or PDV. + +5.3. IPPM List Discussion from 2000 + + Mike Pierce made many comments in the context of a working version of + [RFC3393]. One of his main points was that a delay histogram is a + useful approach to quantifying variation. Another point was that the + time duration of evaluation is a critical aspect. + + Carlo Demichelis then mailed his comparison paper [Demichelis] to the + IPPM list, as discussed in more detail above. + + Ruediger Geib observed that both IPDV and the delay histogram (PDV) + are useful, and suggested that they might be applied to different + variation time scales. He pointed out that loss has a significant + effect on IPDV, and encouraged that the loss information be retained + in the arrival sequence. + + Several example delay variation scenarios were discussed, including: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + Packet # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 + ------------------------------------------------------- + Ex. A + Lost + + Delay, ms 100 110 120 130 140 150 140 130 120 110 100 + + IPDV U 10 10 10 10 10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 + + PDV 0 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 0 + + ------------------------------------------------------- + Ex. B + Lost L + + Delay, ms 100 110 150 U 120 100 110 150 130 120 100 + + IPDV U 10 40 U U -10 10 40 -20 -10 -20 + + PDV 0 10 50 U 20 0 10 50 30 20 0 + + Figure 2: Delay Examples + + Clearly, the range of PDV values is 50 ms in both cases above, and + this is the statistic that determines the size of a de-jitter buffer. + The IPDV range is minimal in response to the smooth variation in + Example A (20 ms). However, IPDV responds to the faster variations + in Example B (60 ms range from 40 to -20). Here the IPDV range is + larger than the PDV range, and overestimates the buffer size + requirements. + + A heuristic method to estimate buffer size using IPDV is to sum the + consecutive positive or zero values as an estimate of PDV range. + However, this is more complicated to assess than the PDV range, and + has strong dependence on the actual sequence of IPDV values (any + negative IPDV value stops the summation, and again causes an + underestimate). + + IPDV values can be viewed as the adjustments that an adaptive de- + jitter buffer would make, if it could make adjustments on a packet- + by-packet basis. However, adaptive de-jitter buffers don't make + adjustments this frequently, so the value of this information is + unknown. The short-term variations may be useful to know in some + other cases. + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +5.4. Y.1540 Appendix II + + Appendix II of [Y.1540] describes a secondary terminology for delay + variation. It compares IPDV, PDV (referred to as 2-point PDV), and + 1-point packet delay variation (which assumes a periodic stream and + assesses variation against an ideal arrival schedule constructed at a + single measurement point). This early comparison discusses some of + the same considerations raised in Section 6 below. + +5.5. Clark's ITU-T SG 12 Contribution + + Alan Clark's contribution to ITU-T Study Group 12 in January 2003 + provided an analysis of the root causes of delay variation and + investigated different techniques for measurement and modeling of + "jitter" [COM12.D98]. Clark compared a metric closely related to + IPDV, Mean Packet-to-Packet Delay Variation, MPPDV = mean(abs(D(i)- + D(i-1))) to the newly proposed Mean Absolute Packet Delay Variation + (MAPDV2, see [G.1020]). One of the tasks for this study was to + estimate the number of packet discards in a de-jitter buffer. Clark + concluded that MPPDV did not track the ramp delay variation he + associated access link congestion (similar to Figure 2, Example A + above), but MAPDV2 did. + + Clark also briefly looked at PDV (as described in the 2002 version of + [Y.1541]). He concluded that if PDV was applied to a series of very + short measurement intervals (e.g., 200 ms), it could be used to + determine the fraction of intervals with high packet discard rates. + +6. Additional Properties and Comparisons + + This section treats some of the earlier comparison areas in more + detail and introduces new areas for comparison. + +6.1. Packet Loss + + The measurement of packet loss is of great influence for the delay + variation results, as displayed in the Figures 3 and 4 (L means Lost + and U means Undefined). Figure 3 shows that in the extreme case of + every other packet loss, the IPDV metric doesn't produce any results, + while the PDV produces results for all arriving packets. + + + + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 18] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + Packet # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 + Lost L L L L L + --------------------------------------- + Delay, ms 3 U 5 U 4 U 3 U 4 U + + IPDV U U U U U U U U U U + + PDV 0 U 2 U 1 U 0 U 1 U + + Figure 3: Path Loss Every Other Packet + + In case of a burst of packet loss, as displayed in Figure 4, both the + IPDV and PDV metrics produce some results. Note that PDV still + produces more values than IPDV. + + Packet # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 + Lost L L L L L + --------------------------------------- + Delay, ms 3 4 U U U U U 5 4 3 + + IPDV U 1 U U U U U U -1 -1 + + PDV 0 1 U U U U U 2 1 0 + + Figure 4: Burst of Packet Loss + + In conclusion, the PDV results are affected by the packet-loss ratio. + The IPDV results are affected by both the packet-loss ratio and the + packet-loss distribution. In the extreme case of loss of every other + packet, IPDV doesn't provide any results. + +6.2. Path Changes + + When there is little or no stability in the network under test, then + the devices that attempt to characterize the network are equally + stressed, especially if the results displayed are used to make + inferences that may not be valid. + + Sometimes the path characteristics change during a measurement + interval. The change may be due to link or router failure, + administrative changes prior to maintenance (e.g., link-cost change), + or re-optimization of routing using new information. All these + causes are usually infrequent, and network providers take appropriate + measures to ensure this. Automatic restoration to a back-up path is + seen as a desirable feature of IP networks. + + Frequent path changes and prolonged congestion with substantial + packet loss clearly make delay variation measurements challenging. + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 19] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + Path changes are usually accompanied by a sudden, persistent increase + or decrease in one-way delay. [Cia03] gives one such example. We + assume that a restoration path either accepts a stream of packets or + is not used for that particular stream (e.g., no multi-path for + flows). + + In any case, a change in the Time to Live (TTL) (or Hop Limit) of the + received packets indicates that the path is no longer the same. + Transient packet reordering may also be observed with path changes, + due to use of non-optimal routing while updates propagate through the + network (see [Casner] and [Cia03] ) + + Many, if not all, packet streams experience packet loss in + conjunction with a path change. However, it is certainly possible + that the active measurement stream does not experience loss. This + may be due to use of a long inter-packet sending interval with + respect to the restoration time, and it becomes more likely as "fast + restoration" techniques see wider deployment (e.g., [RFC4090]). + + Thus, there are two main cases to consider, path changes accompanied + by loss, and those that are lossless from the point of view of the + active measurement stream. The subsections below examine each of + these cases. + +6.2.1. Lossless Path Change + + In the lossless case, a path change will typically affect only one + IPDV singleton. For example, the delay sequence in the Figure below + always produces IPDV=0 except in the one case where the value is 5 + (U, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0). + + Packet # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 + Lost + ------------------------------------ + Delay, ms 4 4 4 4 9 9 9 9 9 + + IPDV U 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 + + PDV 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 + + Figure 5: Lossless Path Change + + However, if the change in delay is negative and larger than the + inter-packet sending interval, then more than one IPDV singleton may + be affected because packet reordering is also likely to occur. + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + The use of the new path and its delay variation can be quantified by + treating the PDV distribution as bi-modal, and characterizing each + mode separately. This would involve declaring a new path within the + sample, and using a new local minimum delay as the PDV reference + delay for the sub-sample (or time interval) where the new path is + present. + + The process of detecting a bi-modal delay distribution is made + difficult if the typical delay variation is larger than the delay + change associated with the new path. However, information on a TTL + (or Hop Limit) change or the presence of transient reordering can + assist in an automated decision. + + The effect of path changes may also be reduced by making PDV + measurements over short intervals (minutes, as opposed to hours). + This way, a path change will affect one sample and its PDV values. + Assuming that the mean or median one-way delay changes appreciably on + the new path, then subsequent measurements can confirm a path change + and trigger special processing on the interval to revise the PDV + result. + + Alternatively, if the path change is detected, by monitoring the test + packets TTL or Hop Limit, or monitoring the change in the IGP link- + state database, the results of measurement before and after the path + change could be kept separated, presenting two different + distributions. This avoids the difficult task of determining the + different modes of a multi-modal distribution. + +6.2.2. Path Change with Loss + + If the path change is accompanied by loss, such that there are no + consecutive packet pairs that span the change, then no IPDV + singletons will reflect the change. This may or may not be + desirable, depending on the ultimate use of the delay variation + measurement. Figure 6, in which L means Lost and U means Undefined, + illustrates this case. + + Packet # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 + Lost L L + ------------------------------------ + Delay, ms 3 4 3 3 U U 8 9 8 + + IPDV U 1 -1 0 U U U 1 -1 + + PDV 0 1 0 0 U U 5 6 5 + + Figure 6: Path Change with Loss + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 21] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + PDV will again produce a bi-modal distribution. But here, the + decision process to define sub-intervals associated with each path is + further assisted by the presence of loss, in addition to TTL, + reordering information, and use of short measurement intervals + consistent with the duration of user sessions. It is reasonable to + assume that at least loss and delay will be measured simultaneously + with PDV and/or IPDV. + + IPDV does not help to detect path changes when accompanied by loss, + and this is a disadvantage for those who rely solely on IPDV + measurements. + +6.3. Clock Stability and Error + + Low cost or low complexity measurement systems may be embedded in + communication devices that do not have access to high stability + clocks, and time errors will almost certainly be present. However, + larger time-related errors (~1 ms) may offer an acceptable trade-off + for monitoring performance over a large population (the accuracy + needed to detect problems may be much less than required for a + scientific study, ~0.01 ms for example). + + Maintaining time accuracy <<1 ms has typically required access to + dedicated time receivers at all measurement points. Global + positioning system (GPS) receivers have often been installed to + support measurements. The GPS installation conditions are fairly + restrictive, and many prospective measurement efforts have found the + deployment complexity and system maintenance too difficult. + + As mentioned above, [Demichelis] observed that PDV places greater + demands on clock synchronization than for IPDV. This observation + deserves more discussion. Synchronization errors have two + components: time-of-day errors and clock-frequency errors (resulting + in skew). + + Both IPDV and PDV are sensitive to time-of-day errors when attempting + to align measurement intervals at the source and destination. Gross + misalignment of the measurement intervals can lead to lost packets, + for example, if the receiver is not ready when the first test packet + arrives. However, both IPDV and PDV assess delay differences, so the + error present in any two one-way-delay singletons will cancel as long + as the error is constant. So, the demand for NTP or GPS + synchronization comes primarily from one-way-delay measurement time- + of-day accuracy requirements. Delay variation and measurement + interval alignment are relatively less demanding. + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 22] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + Skew is a measure of the change in clock time over an interval with + respect to a reference clock. Both IPDV and PDV are affected by + skew, but the error sensitivity in IPDV singletons is less because + the intervals between consecutive packets are rather small, + especially when compared to the overall measurement interval. Since + PDV computes the difference between a single reference delay (the + sample minimum) and all other delays in the measurement interval, the + constraint on skew error is greater to attain the same accuracy as + IPDV. Again, use of short PDV measurement intervals (on the order of + minutes, not hours) provides some relief from the effects of skew + error. Thus, the additional accuracy demand of PDV can be expressed + as a ratio of the measurement interval to the inter-packet spacing. + + A practical example is a measurement between two hosts, one with a + synchronized clock and the other with a free-running clock having 50 + parts per million (ppm) long term accuracy. + + o If IPDV measurements are made on packets with a 1 second spacing, + the maximum singleton error will be 1 x 5 x 10^-5 seconds, or 0.05 + ms. + + o If PDV measurements are made on the same packets over a 60 second + measurement interval, then the delay variation due to the max + free-running clock error will be 60 x 5 x 10-5 seconds, or 3 ms + delay variation error from the first packet to the last. + + Therefore, the additional accuracy required for equivalent PDV error + under these conditions is a factor of 60 more than for IPDV. This is + a rather extreme scenario, because time-of-day error of 1 second + would accumulate in ~5.5 hours, potentially causing the measurement + interval alignment issue described above. + + If skew is present in a sample of one-way delays, its symptom is + typically a nearly linear growth or decline over all the one-way- + delay values. As a practical matter, if the same slope appears + consistently in the measurements, then it may be possible to fit the + slope and compensate for the skew in the one-way-delay measurements, + thereby avoiding the issue in the PDV calculations that follow. See + [RFC3393] for additional information on compensating for skew. + + Values for IPDV may have non-zero mean over a sample when clock skew + is present. This tends to complicate IPDV analysis when using the + assumptions of a zero mean and a symmetric distribution. + + There is a third factor related to clock error and stability: this is + the presence of a clock-synchronization protocol (e.g., NTP) and the + time-adjustment operations that result. When a time error is + detected (typically on the order of a few milliseconds), the host + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 23] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + clock frequency is continuously adjusted to reduce the time error. + If these adjustments take place during a measurement interval, they + may appear as delay variation when none was present, and therefore + are a source of error (regardless of the form of delay variation + considered). + +6.4. Spatial Composition + + ITU-T Recommendation [Y.1541] gives a provisional method to compose a + PDV metric using PDV measurement results from two or more sub-paths. + Additional methods are considered in [IPPM-Spatial]. + + PDV has a clear advantage at this time, since there is no validated + method to compose an IPDV metric. In addition, IPDV results depend + greatly on the exact sequence of packets and may not lend themselves + easily to the composition problem, where segments must be assumed to + have independent delay distributions. + +6.5. Reporting a Single Number (SLA) + + Despite the risk of over-summarization, measurements must often be + displayed for easy consumption. If the right summary report is + prepared, then the "dashboard" view correctly indicates whether there + is something different and worth investigating further, or that the + status has not changed. The dashboard model restricts every + instrument display to a single number. The packet network dashboard + could have different instruments for loss, delay, delay variation, + reordering, etc., and each must be summarized as a single number for + each measurement interval. The single number summary statistic is a + key component of SLAs, where a threshold on that number must be met + x% of the time. + + The simplicity of the PDV distribution lends itself to this + summarization process (including use of the percentiles, median or + mean). An SLA of the form "no more than x% of packets in a + measurement interval shall have PDV >= y ms, for no less than z% of + time" is relatively straightforward to specify and implement. + [Y.1541] introduced the notion of a pseudo-range when setting an + objective for the 99.9th percentile of PDV. The conventional range + (max-min) was avoided for several reasons, including stability of the + maximum delay. The 99.9th percentile of PDV is helpful to + performance planners (seeking to meet some user-to-user objective for + delay) and in design of de-jitter buffer sizes, even those with + adaptive capabilities. + + IPDV does not lend itself to summarization so easily. The mean IPDV + is typically zero. As the IPDV distribution will have two tails + (positive and negative), the range or pseudo-range would not match + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 24] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + the needed de-jitter buffer size. Additional complexity may be + introduced when the variation exceeds the inter-packet sending + interval, as discussed above (in Sections 5.2 and 6.2.1). Should the + Inter-Quartile Range be used? Should the singletons beyond some + threshold be counted (e.g., mean +/- 50 ms)? A strong rationale for + one of these summary statistics has yet to emerge. + + When summarizing IPDV, some prefer the simplicity of the single-sided + distribution created by taking the absolute value of each singleton + result, abs(D(i)-D(i-1)). This approach sacrifices the two-sided + inter-arrival spread information in the distribution. It also makes + the evaluation using percentiles more confusing, because a single + late packet that exceeds the variation threshold will cause two pairs + of singletons to fail the criteria (one positive, the other negative + converted to positive). The single-sided PDV distribution is an + advantage in this category. + +6.6. Jitter in RTCP Reports + + Section 6.4.1 of [RFC3550] gives the calculation of the "inter- + arrival jitter" field for the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) report, + with a sample implementation in an Appendix. + + The RTCP "interarrival jitter" value can be calculated using IPDV + singletons. If there is packet reordering, as defined in [RFC4737], + then estimates of Jitter based on IPDV may vary slightly, because + [RFC3550] specifies the use of receive-packet order. + + Just as there is no simple way to convert PDV singletons to IPDV + singletons without returning to the original sample of delay + singletons, there is no clear relationship between PDV and [RFC3550] + "interarrival jitter". + +6.7. MAPDV2 + + MAPDV2 stands for Mean Absolute Packet Delay Variation (version) 2, + and is specified in [G.1020]. The MAPDV2 algorithm computes a + smoothed running estimate of the mean delay using the one-way delays + of 16 previous packets. It compares the current one-way delay to the + estimated mean, separately computes the means of positive and + negative deviations, and sums these deviation means to produce + MAPVDV2. In effect, there is a MAPDV2 singleton for every arriving + packet, so further summarization is usually warranted. + + Neither IPDV or PDV forms assist in the computation of MAPDV2. + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 25] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +6.8. Load Balancing + + Network traffic load balancing is a process to divide packet traffic + in order to provide a more even distribution over two or more equally + viable paths. The paths chosen are based on the IGP cost metrics, + while the delay depends on the path's physical layout. Usually, the + balancing process is performed on a per-flow basis to avoid delay + variation experienced when packets traverse different physical paths. + + If the sample includes test packets with different characteristics + such as IP addresses/ports, there could be multi-modal delay + distributions present. The PDV form makes the identification of + multiple modes possible. IPDV may also reveal that multiple paths + are in use with a mixed-flow sample, but the different delay modes + are not easily divided and analyzed separately. + + Should the delay singletons using multiple addresses/ports be + combined in the same sample? Should we characterize each mode + separately? (This question also applies to the Path Change case.) + It depends on the task to be addressed by the measurement. + + For the task of de-jitter buffer sizing or assessing queue + occupation, the modes should be characterized separately because + flows will experience only one mode on a stable path. Use of a + single flow description (address/port combination) in each sample + simplifies this analysis. Multiple modes may be identified by + collecting samples with different flow attributes, and + characterization of multiple paths can proceed with comparison of the + delay distributions from each sample. + + For the task of capacity planning and routing optimization, + characterizing the modes separately could offer an advantage. + Network-wide capacity planning (as opposed to link capacity planning) + takes as input the core traffic matrix, which corresponds to a matrix + of traffic transferred from every source to every destination in the + network. Applying the core traffic matrix along with the routing + information (typically the link state database of a routing protocol) + in a capacity planning tool offers the possibility to visualize the + paths where the traffic flows and to optimize the routing based on + the link utilization. In the case where equal cost multiple paths + (ECMPs) are used, the traffic will be load balanced onto multiple + paths. If each mode of the IP delay multi-modal distribution can be + associated with a specific path, the delay performance offers an + extra optimization parameter, i.e., the routing optimization based on + the IP delay variation metric. As an example, the load balancing + across ECMPs could be suppressed so that the Voice over IP (VoIP) + calls would only be routed via the path with the lower IP delay + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 26] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + variation. Clearly, any modifications can result in new delay + performance measurements, so there must be a verification step to + ensure the desired outcome. + +7. Applicability of the Delay Variation Forms and Recommendations + + Based on the comparisons of IPDV and PDV presented above, this + section matches the attributes of each form with the tasks described + earlier. We discuss the more general circumstances first. + +7.1. Uses + +7.1.1. Inferring Queue Occupancy + + The PDV distribution is anchored at the minimum delay observed in the + measurement interval. When the sample minimum coincides with the + true minimum delay of the path, then the PDV distribution is + equivalent to the queuing time distribution experienced by the test + stream. If the minimum delay is not the true minimum, then the PDV + distribution captures the variation in queuing time and some + additional amount of queuing time is experienced, but unknown. One + can summarize the PDV distribution with the mean, median, and other + statistics. + + IPDV can capture the difference in queuing time from one packet to + the next, but this is a different distribution from the queue + occupancy revealed by PDV. + +7.1.2. Determining De-Jitter Buffer Size (and FEC Design) + + This task is complimentary to the problem of inferring queue + occupancy through measurement. Again, use of the sample minimum as + the reference delay for PDV yields a distribution that is very + relevant to de-jitter buffer size. This is because the minimum delay + is an alignment point for the smoothing operation of de-jitter + buffers. A de-jitter buffer that is ideally aligned with the delay + variation adds zero buffer time to packets with the longest + accommodated network delay (any packets with longer delays are + discarded). Thus, a packet experiencing minimum network delay should + be aligned to wait the maximum length of the de-jitter buffer. With + this alignment, the stream is smoothed with no unnecessary delay + added. Figure 5 of [G.1020] illustrates the ideal relationship + between network delay variation and buffer time. + + The PDV distribution is also useful for this task, but different + statistics are preferred. The range (max-min) or the 99.9th + percentile of PDV (pseudo-range) are closely related to the buffer + size needed to accommodate the observed network delay variation. + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 27] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + The PDV distribution directly addresses the FEC waiting time + question. When the PDV distribution has a 99th percentile of 10 ms, + then waiting 10 ms longer than the FEC protection interval will allow + 99% of late packets to arrive and be used in the FEC block. + + In some cases, the positive excursions (or series of positive + excursions) of IPDV may help to approximate the de-jitter buffer + size, but there is no guarantee that a good buffer estimate will + emerge, especially when the delay varies as a positive trend over + several test packets. + +7.1.3. Spatial Composition + + PDV has a clear advantage at this time, since there is no validated + method to compose an IPDV metric. + +7.1.4. Service-Level Specification: Reporting a Single Number + + The one-sided PDV distribution can be constrained with a single + statistic, such as an upper percentile, so it is preferred. The IPDV + distribution is two-sided, usually has zero mean, and no universal + summary statistic that relates to a physical quantity has emerged in + years of experience. + +7.2. Challenging Circumstances + + Note that measurement of delay variation may not be the primary + concern under unstable and unreliable circumstances. + +7.2.1. Clock and Storage Issues + + When appreciable skew is present between measurement system clocks, + IPDV has an advantage because PDV would require processing over the + entire sample to remove the skew error. However, significant skew + can invalidate IPDV analysis assumptions, such as the zero-mean and + symmetric-distribution characteristics. Small skew may well be + within the error tolerance, and both PDV and IPDV results will be + usable. There may be a portion of the skew, measurement interval, + and required accuracy 3-D space where IPDV has an advantage, + depending on the specific measurement specifications. + + Neither form of delay variation is more suited than the other to + on-the-fly summarization without memory, and this may be one of the + reasons that [RFC3550] RTCP Jitter and MAPDV2 in [G.1020] have + attained deployment in low-cost systems. + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 28] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +7.2.2. Frequent Path Changes + + If the network under test exhibits frequent path changes, on the + order of several new routes per minute, then IPDV appears to isolate + the delay variation on each path from the transient effect of path + change (especially if there is packet loss at the time of path + change). However, if one intends to use IPDV to indicate path + changes, it cannot do this when the change is accompanied by loss. + + It is possible to make meaningful PDV measurements when paths are + unstable, but great importance would be placed on the algorithms that + infer path change and attempt to divide the sample on path change + boundaries. + + When path changes are frequent and cause packet loss, delay variation + is probably less important than the loss episodes and attention + should be turned to the loss metric instead. + +7.2.3. Frequent Loss + + If the network under test exhibits frequent loss, then PDV may + produce a larger set of singletons for the sample than IPDV. This is + due to IPDV requiring consecutive packet arrivals to assess delay + variation, compared to PDV where any packet arrival is useful. The + worst case is when no consecutive packets arrive and the entire IPDV + sample would be undefined, yet PDV would successfully produce a + sample based on the arriving packets. + +7.2.4. Load Balancing + + PDV distributions offer the most straightforward way to identify that + a sample of packets have traversed multiple paths. The tasks of + de-jitter buffer sizing or assessing queue occupation with PDV should + be use a sample with a single flow because flows will experience only + one mode on a stable path, and it simplifies the analysis. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 29] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +7.3. Summary + + +---------------+----------------------+----------------------------+ + | Comparison | PDV = D(i)-D(min) | IPDV = D(i)-D(i-1) | + | Area | | | + +---------------+----------------------+----------------------------+ + | Challenging | Less sensitive to | Preferred when path | + | Circumstances | packet loss, and | changes are frequent or | + | | simplifies analysis | when measurement clocks | + | | when load balancing | exhibit some skew | + | | or multiple paths | | + | | are present | | + |---------------|----------------------|----------------------------| + | Spatial | All validated | Has sensitivity to | + | Composition | methods use this | sequence and spacing | + | of DV metric | form | changes, which tends to | + | | | break the requirement for | + | | | independent distributions | + | | | between path segments | + |---------------|----------------------|----------------------------| + | Determine | "Pseudo-range" | No reliable relationship, | + | De-Jitter | reveals this | but some heuristics | + | Buffer Size | property by | | + | Required | anchoring the | | + | | distribution at the | | + | | minimum delay | | + |---------------|----------------------|----------------------------| + | Estimate of | Distribution has | No reliable relationship | + | Queuing Time | one-to-one | | + | and Variation | relationship on a | | + | | stable path, | | + | | especially when | | + | | sample min = true | | + | | min | | + |---------------|----------------------|----------------------------| + | Specification | One constraint | Distribution is two-sided, | + | Simplicity: | needed for | usually has zero mean, and | + | Single Number | single-sided | no universal summary | + | SLA | distribution, and | statistic that relates to | + | | easily related to | a physical quantity | + | | quantities above | | + +---------------+----------------------+----------------------------+ + + Summary of Comparisons + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 30] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +8. Measurement Considerations + + This section discusses the practical aspects of delay variation + measurement, with special attention to the two formulations compared + in this memo. + +8.1. Measurement Stream Characteristics + + As stated in Section 1.2, there is a strong dependency between the + active measurement stream characteristics and the results. The IPPM + literature includes two primary methods for collecting samples: + Poisson sampling described in [RFC2330], and Periodic sampling in + [RFC3432]. The Poisson method was intended to collect an unbiased + sample of performance, while the Periodic method addresses a "known + bias of interest". Periodic streams are required to have random + start times and limited stream duration, in order to avoid unwanted + synchronization with some other periodic process, or cause + congestion-aware senders to synchronize with the stream and produce + atypical results. The random start time should be different for each + new stream. + + It is worth noting that [RFC3393] was developed in parallel with + [RFC3432]. As a result, all the stream metrics defined in [RFC3393] + specify the Poisson sampling method. + + Periodic sampling is frequently used in measurements of delay + variation. Several factors foster this choice: + + 1. Many application streams that are sensitive to delay variation + also exhibit periodicity, and so exemplify the bias of interest. + If the application has a constant packet spacing, this constant + spacing can be the inter-packet gap for the test stream. VoIP + streams often use 20 ms spacing, so this is an obvious choice for + an Active stream. This applies to both IPDV and PDV forms. + + 2. The spacing between packets in the stream will influence whether + the stream experiences short-range dependency, or only long-range + dependency, as investigated in [Li.Mills]. The packet spacing + also influences the IPDV distribution and the stream's + sensitivity to reordering. For example, with a 20 ms spacing the + IPDV distribution cannot go below -20 ms without packet + reordering. + + 3. The measurement process may make several simplifying assumptions + when the send spacing and send rate are constant. For example, + the inter-arrival times at the destination can be compared with + an ideal sending schedule, and allowing a one-point measurement + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 31] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + of delay variation (described in [Y.1540]) that approximates the + IPDV form. Simplified methods that approximate PDV are possible + as well (some are discussed in Appendix II of [Y.1541]). + + 4. Analysis of truncated, or non-symmetrical IPDV distributions is + simplified. Delay variations in excess of the periodic sending + interval can cause multiple singleton values at the negative + limit of the packet spacing (see Section 5.2 and [Cia03]). Only + packet reordering can cause the negative spacing limit to be + exceeded. + + Despite the emphasis on inter-packet delay differences with IPDV, + both Poisson [Demichelis] and Periodic [Li.Mills] streams have been + used, and these references illustrate the different analyses that are + possible. + + The advantages of using a Poisson distribution are discussed in + [RFC2330]. The main properties are to avoid predicting the sample + times, avoid synchronization with periodic events that are present in + networks, and avoid inducing synchronization with congestion-aware + senders. When a Poisson stream is used with IPDV, the distribution + will reflect inter-packet delay variation on many different time + scales (or packet spacings). The unbiased Poisson sampling brings a + new layer of complexity in the analysis of IPDV distributions. + +8.2. Measurement Devices + + One key aspect of measurement devices is their ability to store + singletons (or individual measurements). This feature usually is + closely related to local calculation capabilities. For example, an + embedded measurement device with limited storage will like provide + only a few statistics on the delay variation distribution, while + dedicated measurement systems store all the singletons and allow + detailed analysis (later calculation of either form of delay + variation is possible with the original singletons). + + Therefore, systems with limited storage must choose their metrics and + summary statistics in advance. If both IPDV and PDV statistics are + desired, the supporting information must be collected as packets + arrive. For example, the PDV range and high percentiles can be + determined later if the minimum and several of the largest delays are + stored while the measurement is in-progress. + + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 32] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +8.3. Units of Measurement + + Both IPDV and PDV can be summarized as a range in milliseconds. + + With IPDV, it is interesting to report on a positive percentile, and + an inter-quantile range is appropriate to reflect both positive and + negative tails (e.g., 5% to 95%). If the IPDV distribution is + symmetric around a mean of zero, then it is sufficient to report on + the positive side of the distribution. + + With PDV, it is sufficient to specify the upper percentile (e.g., + 99.9%). + +8.4. Test Duration + + At several points in this memo, we have recommended use of test + intervals on the order of minutes. In their paper examining the + stability of Internet path properties [Zhang.Duff], Zhang et al. + concluded that consistency was present on the order of minutes for + the performance metrics considered (loss, delay, and throughput) for + the paths they measured. + + The topic of temporal aggregation of performance measured in small + intervals to estimate some larger interval is described in the Metric + Composition Framework [IPPM-Framework]. + + The primary recommendation here is to test using durations that are + similar in length to the session time of interest. This applies to + both IPDV and PDV, but is possibly more relevant for PDV since the + duration determines how often the D_min will be determined, and the + size of the associated sample. + +8.5. Clock Sync Options + + As with one-way-delay measurements, local clock synchronization is an + important matter for delay variation measurements. + + There are several options available: + + 1. Global Positioning System receivers + + 2. In some parts of the world, Cellular Code Division Multiple + Access (CDMA) systems distribute timing signals that are derived + from GPS and traceable to UTC. + + 3. Network Time Protocol [RFC1305] is a convenient choice in many + cases, but usually offers lower accuracy than the options above. + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 33] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + When clock synchronization is inconvenient or subject to appreciable + errors, then round-trip measurements may give a cumulative indication + of the delay variation present on both directions of the path. + However, delay distributions are rarely symmetrical, so it is + difficult to infer much about the one-way-delay variation from round- + trip measurements. Also, measurements on asymmetrical paths add + complications for the one-way-delay metric. + +8.6. Distinguishing Long Delay from Loss + + Lost and delayed packets are separated by a waiting time threshold. + Packets that arrive at the measurement destination within their + waiting time have finite delay and are not lost. Otherwise, packets + are designated lost and their delay is undefined. Guidance on + setting the waiting time threshold may be found in [RFC2680] and + [IPPM-Reporting]. + + In essence, [IPPM-Reporting] suggests to use a long waiting time to + serve network characterization and revise results for specific + application delay thresholds as needed. + +8.7. Accounting for Packet Reordering + + Packet reordering, defined in [RFC4737], is essentially an extreme + form of delay variation where the packet stream arrival order differs + from the sending order. + + PDV results are not sensitive to packet arrival order, and are not + affected by reordering other than to reflect the more extreme + variation. + + IPDV results will change if reordering is present because they are + sensitive to the sequence of delays of arriving packets. The main + example of this sensitivity is in the truncation of the negative tail + of the distribution. + + o When there is no reordering, the negative tail is limited by the + sending time spacing between packets. + + o If reordering occurs (and the reordered packets are not + discarded), the negative tail can take on any value (in + principal). + + In general, measurement systems should have the capability to detect + when sequence has changed. If IPDV measurements are made without + regard to packet arrival order, the IPDV will be under-reported when + reordering occurs. + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 34] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +8.8. Results Representation and Reporting + + All of the references that discuss or define delay variation suggest + ways to represent or report the results, and interested readers + should review the various possibilities. + + For example, [IPPM-Reporting] suggests reporting a pseudo-range of + delay variation based on calculating the difference between a high + percentile of delay and the minimum delay. The 99.9th percentile + minus the minimum will give a value that can be compared with + objectives in [Y.1541]. + +9. Security Considerations + + The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of + live networks are relevant here as well. See the "Security + Considerations" sections in [RFC2330], [RFC2679], [RFC3393], + [RFC3432], and [RFC4656]. + + Security considerations do not contribute to the selection of PDV or + IPDV forms of delay variation, because measurements using these + metrics involve exactly the same security issues. + +10. Acknowledgments + + The authors would like to thank Phil Chimento for his suggestion to + employ the convention of conditional distributions of delay to deal + with packet loss, and his encouragement to "write the memo" after + hearing "the talk" on this topic at IETF 65. We also acknowledge + constructive comments from Alan Clark, Loki Jorgenson, Carsten + Schmoll, and Robert Holley. + +11. Appendix on Calculating the D(min) in PDV + + Practitioners have raised several questions that this section intends + to answer: + + - How is this D_min calculated? Is it DV(99%) as mentioned in + [Krzanowski]? + + - Do we need to keep all the values from the interval, then take the + minimum? Or do we keep the minimum from previous intervals? + + The value of D_min used as the reference delay for PDV calculations + is simply the minimum delay of all packets in the current sample. + The usual single value summary of the PDV distribution is D_(99.9th + percentile) minus D_min. + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 35] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + It may be appropriate to segregate sub-sets and revise the minimum + value during a sample. For example, if it can be determined with + certainty that the path has changed by monitoring the Time to Live or + Hop Count of arriving packets, this may be sufficient justification + to reset the minimum for packets on the new path. There is also a + simpler approach to solving this problem: use samples collected over + short evaluation intervals (on the order of minutes). Intervals with + path changes may be more interesting from the loss or one-way-delay + perspective (possibly failing to meet one or more SLAs), and it may + not be necessary to conduct delay variation analysis. Short + evaluation intervals are preferred for measurements that serve as a + basis for troubleshooting, since the results are available to report + soon after collection. + + It is not necessary to store all delay values in a sample when + storage is a major concern. D_min can be found by comparing each new + singleton value with the current value and replacing it when + required. In a sample with 5000 packets, evaluation of the 99.9th + percentile can also be achieved with limited storage. One method + calls for storing the top 50 delay singletons and revising the top + value list each time 50 more packets arrive. + +12. References + +12.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, + "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, + May 1998. + + [RFC2679] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One- + way Delay Metric for IPPM", RFC 2679, + September 1999. + + [RFC2680] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., and M. Zekauskas, "A One- + way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, + September 1999. + + [RFC3393] Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay + Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics + (IPPM)", RFC 3393, November 2002. + + [RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and A. Morton, + "Network performance measurement with periodic + streams", RFC 3432, November 2002. + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 36] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute + Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, + May 2005. + + [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., + and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement + Protocol (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006. + + [RFC4737] Morton, A., Ciavattone, L., Ramachandran, G., + Shalunov, S., and J. Perser, "Packet Reordering + Metrics", RFC 4737, November 2006. + +12.2. Informative References + + [COM12.D98] Clark, A., "Analysis, measurement and modelling of + Jitter", ITU-T Delayed Contribution COM 12 - D98, + January 2003. + + [Casner] Casner, S., Alaettinoglu, C., and C. Kuan, "A Fine- + Grained View of High Performance Networking", + NANOG 22, May 20-22, 2001, + <http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0105/agenda.html>. + + [Cia03] Ciavattone, L., Morton, A., and G. Ramachandran, + "Standardized Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP + Backbone", IEEE Communications Magazine, p. 90-97, + June 2003. + + [Demichelis] Demichelis, C., "Packet Delay Variation Comparison + between ITU-T and IETF Draft Definitions", + November 2000, <http://www.advanced.org/ippm/ + archive.3/att-0075/01-pap02.doc>. + + [G.1020] ITU-T, "Performance parameter definitions for the + quality of speech and other voiceband applications + utilizing IP networks", ITU-T + Recommendation G.1020, 2006. + + [G.1050] ITU-T, "Network model for evaluating multimedia + transmission performance over Internet Protocol", + ITU-T Recommendation G.1050, November 2005. + + [I.356] ITU-T, "B-ISDN ATM Layer Cell Transfer + Performance", ITU-T Recommendation I.356, + March 2000. + + [IPPM-Framework] Morton, A., "Framework for Metric Composition", + Work in Progress, October 2008. + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 37] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + + [IPPM-Reporting] Morton, A., Ramachandran, G., and G. Maguluri, + "Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View", Work + in Progress, January 2009. + + [IPPM-Spatial] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of + Metrics", Work in Progress, July 2008. + + [Krzanowski] Presentation at IPPM, IETF-64, "Jitter Definitions: + What is What?", November 2005. + + [Li.Mills] Li, Q. and D. Mills, "The Implications of Short- + Range Dependency on Delay Variation Measurement", + Second IEEE Symposium on Network Computing + and Applications, 2003. + + [Morton06] Morton, A., "A Brief Jitter Metrics Comparison, and + not the last word, by any means...", slide + presentation at IETF 65, IPPM Session, March 2006. + + [RFC1305] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (Version 3) + Specification, Implementation", RFC 1305, + March 1992. + + [RFC3357] Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, "One-way Loss Pattern + Sample Metrics", RFC 3357, August 2002. + + [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. + Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time + Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. + + [Y.1540] ITU-T, "Internet protocol data communication + service - IP packet transfer and availability + performance parameters", ITU-T Recommendation + Y.1540, November 2007. + + [Y.1541] ITU-T, "Network Performance Objectives for IP-Based + Services", ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541, + February 2006. + + [Zhang.Duff] Zhang, Y., Duffield, N., Paxson, V., and S. + Shenker, "On the Constancy of Internet Path + Properties", Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Internet + Measurement Workshop, November 2001. + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 38] + +RFC 5481 Delay Variation AS March 2009 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Al Morton + AT&T Labs + 200 Laurel Avenue South + Middletown, NJ 07748 + USA + + Phone: +1 732 420 1571 + Fax: +1 732 368 1192 + EMail: acmorton@att.com + URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/ + + + Benoit Claise + Cisco Systems, Inc. + De Kleetlaan 6a b1 + Diegem, 1831 + Belgium + + Phone: +32 2 704 5622 + EMail: bclaise@cisco.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Morton & Claise Informational [Page 39] + |