doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 955 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7536.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7536.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..72cd670
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7536.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,955 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        M. Linsner
+Request for Comments: 7536                                 Cisco Systems
+Category: Informational                                       P. Eardley
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                             T. Burbridge
+                                                                      BT
+                                                             F. Sorensen
+                                                                    Nkom
+                                                                May 2015
+
+
+              Large-Scale Broadband Measurement Use Cases
+
+Abstract
+
+   Measuring broadband performance on a large scale is important for
+   network diagnostics by providers and users, as well as for public
+   policy.  Understanding the various scenarios and users of measuring
+   broadband performance is essential to development of the Large-scale
+   Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) framework, information
+   model, and protocol.  This document details two use cases that can
+   assist in developing that framework.  The details of the measurement
+   metrics themselves are beyond the scope of this document.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
+   published for informational purposes.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
+   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
+   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7536.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2015 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
+   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+   described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................3
+   2. Use Cases .......................................................3
+      2.1. Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case ...................3
+      2.2. Regulator Use Case .........................................4
+   3. Details of ISP Use Case .........................................5
+      3.1. Understanding the Quality Experienced by Customers .........5
+      3.2. Understanding the Impact and Operation of New Devices
+           and Technology .............................................6
+      3.3. Design and Planning ........................................6
+      3.4. Monitoring Service Level Agreements ........................7
+      3.5. Identifying, Isolating, and Fixing Network Problems ........7
+   4. Details of Regulator Use Case ...................................8
+      4.1. Providing Transparent Performance Information ..............8
+      4.2. Measuring Broadband Deployment .............................9
+      4.3. Monitoring Traffic Management Practices ...................10
+   5. Implementation Options .........................................10
+   6. Conclusions ....................................................12
+   7. Security Considerations ........................................13
+   8. Informative References .........................................15
+   Contributors ......................................................17
+   Authors' Addresses ................................................17
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   This document describes two use cases for the Large-scale Measurement
+   of Broadband Performance (LMAP).  The use cases contained in this
+   document are (1) the Internet Service Provider Use Case and (2) the
+   Regulator Use Case.  In the first, a network operator wants to
+   understand the performance of the network and the quality experienced
+   by customers, while in the second, a regulator wants to provide
+   information on the performance of the ISPs in their jurisdiction.
+   There are other use cases that are not the focus of the initial LMAP
+   work (for example, end users would like to use measurements to help
+   identify problems in their home network and to monitor the
+   performance of their broadband provider); it is expected that the
+   same mechanisms are applicable.
+
+   Large-scale measurements raise several security concerns, including
+   privacy issues.  These are summarized in Section 7 and considered in
+   further detail in [Framework].
+
+2.  Use Cases
+
+   From the LMAP perspective, there is no difference between fixed
+   service and mobile (cellular) service used for Internet access.
+   Hence, like measurements will take place on both fixed and mobile
+   networks.  Fixed services include technologies like Digital
+   Subscriber Line (DSL), Cable, and Carrier Ethernet.  Mobile services
+   include all those advertised as 2G, 3G, 4G, and Long Term Evolution
+   (LTE).  A metric defined to measure end-to-end services will execute
+   similarly on all access technologies.  Other metrics may be access
+   technology specific.  The LMAP architecture covers both IPv4 and IPv6
+   networks.
+
+2.1.  Internet Service Provider (ISP) Use Case
+
+   A network operator needs to understand the performance of their
+   networks, the performance of the suppliers (downstream and upstream
+   networks), the performance of Internet access services, and the
+   impact that such performance has on the experience of their
+   customers.  Largely, the processes that ISPs operate (which are based
+   on network measurement) include:
+
+   o  Identifying, isolating, and fixing problems, which may be in the
+      network, with the service provider, or in the end-user equipment.
+      Such problems may be common to a point in the network topology
+      (e.g., a single exchange), common to a vendor or equipment type
+      (e.g., line card or home gateway), or unique to a single user line
+      (e.g., copper access).  Part of this process may also be helping
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+      users understand whether the problem exists in their home network
+      or with a third-party application service instead of with their
+      broadband (BB) product.
+
+   o  Design and planning.  Through monitoring the end-user experience,
+      the ISP can design and plan their network to ensure specified
+      levels of user experience.  Services may be moved closer to end
+      users, services upgraded, the impact of QoS assessed, or more
+      capacity deployed at certain locations.  Service Level Agreements
+      (SLAs) may be defined at network or product boundaries.
+
+   o  Understanding the quality experienced by customers.  The network
+      operator would like to gain better insight into the end-to-end
+      performance experienced by its customers.  "End-to-end" could, for
+      instance, incorporate home and enterprise networks, and the impact
+      of peering, caching, and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs).
+
+   o  Understanding the impact and operation of new devices and
+      technology.  As a new product is deployed, or a new technology
+      introduced into the network, it is essential that its operation
+      and its impact are measured.  This also helps to quantify the
+      advantage that the new technology is bringing and support the
+      business case for larger roll-out.
+
+2.2.  Regulator Use Case
+
+   A regulator may want to evaluate the performance of the Internet
+   access services offered by operators.
+
+   While each jurisdiction responds to distinct consumer, industry, and
+   regulatory concerns, much commonality exists in the need to produce
+   datasets that can be used to compare multiple Internet access service
+   providers, diverse technical solutions, geographic and regional
+   distributions, and marketed and provisioned levels and combinations
+   of broadband Internet access services.
+
+   Regulators may want to publish performance measures of different ISPs
+   as background information for end users.  They may also want to track
+   the growth of high-speed broadband deployment, or to monitor the
+   traffic management practices of Internet providers.
+
+   A regulator's role in the development and enforcement of broadband
+   Internet access service policies requires that the measurement
+   approaches meet a high level of verifiability, accuracy, and
+   provider-independence to support valid and meaningful comparisons of
+   Internet access service performance.  Standards can help regulators'
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   shared needs for scalable, cost-effective, scientifically robust
+   solutions to the measurement and collection of broadband Internet
+   access service performance information.
+
+3.  Details of ISP Use Case
+
+3.1.  Understanding the Quality Experienced by Customers
+
+   Operators want to understand the quality of experience (QoE) of their
+   broadband customers.  The understanding can be gained through a
+   "panel", i.e., measurement probes deployed to several customers.  A
+   probe is a device or piece of software that makes measurements and
+   reports the results, under the control of the measurement system.
+   Implementation options are discussed in Section 5.  The panel needs
+   to include a representative sample of the operator's technologies and
+   broadband speeds.  For instance, it might encompass speeds ranging
+   from below 8 Mbps to over 100 Mbps.  The operator would like the
+   end-to-end view of the service, rather than just the access portion.
+   This involves relating the pure network parameters to something like
+   a 'mean opinion score' [MOS], which will be service dependent (for
+   instance, web-browsing QoE is largely determined by latency above a
+   few Mbps).
+
+   An operator will also want compound metrics such as "reliability",
+   which might involve packet loss, DNS failures, retraining of the
+   line, video streaming under-runs, etc.
+
+   The operator really wants to understand the end-to-end service
+   experience.  However, the home network (Ethernet, Wi-Fi, powerline)
+   is highly variable and outside its control.  To date, operators (and
+   regulators) have instead measured performance from the home gateway.
+   However, mobile operators clearly must include the wireless link in
+   the measurement.
+
+   Active measurements are the most obvious approach, i.e., special
+   measurement traffic is sent by -- and to -- the probe.  In order not
+   to degrade the service of the customer, the measurement data should
+   only be sent when the user is silent, and it shouldn't reduce the
+   customer's data allowance.  The other approach is passive
+   measurements on the customer's ordinary traffic; the advantage is
+   that it measures what the customer actually does, but it creates
+   extra variability (different traffic mixes give different results)
+   and, in particular, it raises privacy concerns.  [RFC6973] discusses
+   privacy considerations for Internet protocols in general, while
+   [Framework] discusses them specifically for large-scale measurement
+   systems.
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   From an operator's viewpoint, understanding customer experience
+   enables it to offer better services.  Also, simple metrics can be
+   more easily understood by senior managers who make investment
+   decisions and by sales and marketing.
+
+3.2.  Understanding the Impact and Operation of New Devices and
+      Technology
+
+   Another type of measurement is to test new capabilities before they
+   are rolled out.  For example, the operator may want to:
+
+   o  Check whether a customer can be upgraded to a new broadband
+      option.
+
+   o  Understand the impact of IPv6 before it is made available to
+      customers.  Questions such as these could be assessed: Will v6
+      packets get through?  What will the latency be to major websites?
+      What transition mechanisms will be most appropriate?
+
+   o  Check whether a new capability can be signaled using TCP options
+      (how often it will be blocked by a middlebox -- along the lines of
+      the experiments described in [Extend-TCP]).
+
+   o  Investigate a QoS mechanism (e.g., checking whether Diffserv
+      markings are respected on some path).
+
+3.3.  Design and Planning
+
+   Operators can use large-scale measurements to help with their network
+   planning -- proactive activities to improve the network.
+
+   For example, by probing from several different vantage points the
+   operator can see that a particular group of customers has performance
+   below that expected during peak hours, which should help with
+   capacity planning.  Naturally, operators already have tools to help
+   with this -- a network element reports its individual utilization
+   (and perhaps other parameters).  However, making measurements across
+   a path rather than at a point may make it easier to understand the
+   network.  There may also be parameters like bufferbloat that aren't
+   currently reported by equipment and/or that are intrinsically path
+   metrics.
+
+   With information gained from measurement results, capacity planning
+   and network design can be more effective.  Such planning typically
+   uses simulations to emulate the measured performance of the current
+   network and understand the likely impact of new capacity and
+   potential changes to the topology.  Simulations, informed by data
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   from a limited panel of probes, can help quantify the advantage that
+   a new technology brings and support the business case for larger
+   roll-out.
+
+   It may also be possible to use probes to run stress tests for risk
+   analysis.  For example, an operator could run a carefully controlled
+   and limited experiment in which probing is used to assess the
+   potential impact if some new application becomes popular.
+
+3.4.  Monitoring Service Level Agreements
+
+   Another example is that the operator may want to monitor performance
+   where there is a Service Level Agreement (SLA).  This could be with
+   its own customers; in particular, enterprises may have an SLA.  The
+   operator can proactively spot when the service is degrading near the
+   point of the SLA limit and get information that will enable more
+   informed conversations with the customer at contract renewal.
+
+   An operator may also want to monitor the performance of its
+   suppliers, to check whether they meet their SLA or to compare two
+   suppliers if it is dual-sourcing.  This could include its transit
+   operator, CDNs, peering, video source, or local network provider for
+   a global operator in countries where it doesn't have its own network.
+   A virtual operator may monitor the whole underlying network.
+
+   Through a better understanding of its own network and its suppliers,
+   the operator should be able to focus investment more effectively --
+   in the right place at the right time with the right technology.
+
+3.5.  Identifying, Isolating, and Fixing Network Problems
+
+   Operators can use large-scale measurements to help identify a fault
+   more rapidly and decide how to solve it.
+
+   Operators already have Test and Diagnostic tools, where a network
+   element reports some problem or failure to a management system.
+   However, many issues are not caused by a point failure but something
+   wider and so will trigger too many alarms, while other issues will
+   cause degradation rather than failure and so not trigger any alarm.
+   Large-scale measurements can help provide a more nuanced view that
+   helps network management to identify and fix problems more rapidly
+   and accurately.  The network management tools may use simulations to
+   emulate the network and so help identify a fault and assess possible
+   solutions.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   An operator can obtain useful information without measuring the
+   performance on every broadband line.  By measuring a subset, the
+   operator can identify problems that affect a group of customers.  For
+   example, the issue could be at a shared point in the network topology
+   (such as an exchange), or common to a vendor, or equipment type; for
+   instance, [IETF85-Plenary] describes a case where a particular home
+   gateway upgrade had caused a (mistaken!) drop in line rate.
+
+   A more extensive deployment of the measurement capability to every
+   broadband line would enable an operator to identify issues unique to
+   a single customer.  Overall, large-scale measurements can help an
+   operator fix the fault more rapidly and/or allow the affected
+   customers to be informed of what's happening.  More accurate
+   information enables the operator to reassure customers and take more
+   rapid and effective action to cure the problem.
+
+   Often, customers experience poor broadband due to problems in the
+   home network -- the ISP's network is fine.  For example, they may
+   have moved too far away from their wireless access point.
+   Anecdotally, a large fraction of customer calls about fixed BB
+   problems are due to in-home wireless issues.  These issues are
+   expensive and frustrating for an operator, as they are extremely hard
+   to diagnose and solve.  The operator would like to narrow down
+   whether the problem is in the home (a problem with the home network,
+   edge device, or home gateway), in the operator's network, or with an
+   application service.  The operator would like two capabilities:
+   firstly, self-help tools that customers use to improve their own
+   service or understand its performance better -- for example, to
+   reposition their devices for better Wi-Fi coverage; and secondly,
+   on-demand tests that the operator can run instantly, so that the call
+   center person answering the phone (or e-chat) could trigger a test
+   and get the result while the customer is still in an online session.
+
+4.  Details of Regulator Use Case
+
+4.1.  Providing Transparent Performance Information
+
+   Some regulators publish information about the quality of the various
+   Internet access services provided in their national market.  Quality
+   information about service offers could include speed, delay, and
+   jitter.  Such information can be published to facilitate end users'
+   choice of service provider and offer.  Regulators may check the
+   accuracy of the marketing claims of Internet service providers and
+   may also encourage ISPs to all use the same metrics in their service
+   level contracts.  The goal of these transparency mechanisms is to
+   promote competition for end users and potentially also help content,
+   application, service, and device providers develop their Internet
+   offerings.
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   The published information needs to be:
+
+   o  Accurate - the measurement results must be correct and not
+      influenced by errors or side effects.  The results should be
+      reproducible and consistent over time.
+
+   o  Comparable - common metrics should be used across different ISPs
+      and service offerings, and over time, so that measurement results
+      can be compared.
+
+   o  Meaningful - the metrics used for measurements need to reflect
+      what end users value about their broadband Internet access
+      service.
+
+   o  Reliable - the number and distribution of measurement agents, and
+      the statistical processing of the raw measurement data, need to be
+      appropriate.
+
+   In practical terms, the regulators may measure network performance
+   from users towards multiple content and application providers,
+   including dedicated test measurement servers.  Measurement probes are
+   distributed to a 'panel' of selected end users.  The panel covers all
+   the operators and packages in the market, spread over urban,
+   suburban, and rural areas, and often includes both fixed and mobile
+   Internet access.  Periodic tests running on the probes can, for
+   example, measure actual speed at peak and off-peak hours, but can
+   also measure other detailed quality metrics like delay and jitter.
+   Collected data goes afterwards through statistical analysis, deriving
+   estimates for the whole population.  Summary information, such as a
+   service quality index, is published regularly, perhaps alongside more
+   detailed information.
+
+   The regulator can also facilitate end users to monitor the
+   performance of their own broadband Internet access service.  They
+   might use this information to check that the performance meets that
+   specified in their contract or to understand whether their current
+   subscription is the most appropriate.
+
+4.2.  Measuring Broadband Deployment
+
+   Regulators may also want to monitor the improvement over time of
+   actual broadband Internet access performance in a specific country or
+   a region.  The motivation is often to evaluate the effect of the
+   stimulated growth over time, when government has set a strategic goal
+   for high-speed broadband deployment, whether in absolute terms or
+   benchmarked against other countries.  An example of such an
+   initiative is [DAE].  The actual measurements can be made in the same
+   way as described in Section 4.1.
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+4.3.  Monitoring Traffic Management Practices
+
+   A regulator may want to monitor traffic management practices or
+   compare the performance of Internet access service with specialized
+   services offered in parallel to, but separate from, Internet access
+   service  (for example, IPTV).  A regulator could monitor for
+   departures from application agnosticism such as blocking or
+   throttling of traffic from specific applications, or preferential
+   treatment of specific applications.  A measurement system could send,
+   or passively monitor, application-specific traffic and then measure
+   in detail the transfer of the different packets.  While it is
+   relatively easy to measure port blocking, how to detect other types
+   of differentiated treatment is a research topic in itself.  The
+   "Glasnost: Enabling End Users to Detect Traffic Differentiation"
+   paper [M-Labs_NSDI-2010] and follow-on tool "Glasnost" [Glasnost]
+   provide an example of work in this area.
+
+   A regulator could also monitor the performance of the broadband
+   service over time, to try and detect if the specialized service is
+   provided at the expense of the Internet access service.  Comparison
+   between ISPs or between different countries may also be relevant for
+   this kind of evaluation.
+
+   The motivation for a regulator monitoring such traffic management
+   practices is that regulatory approaches related to net neutrality and
+   the open Internet have been introduced in some jurisdictions.
+   Examples of such efforts are the Internet policy as outlined by the
+   Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications guidelines
+   for quality of service [BEREC-Guidelines] and the US FCC's
+   "Preserving the Open Internet" Report and Order [FCC-R&O].  Although
+   legal challenges can change the status of policy, the take-away for
+   LMAP purposes is that policy-makers are looking for measurement
+   solutions to assist them in discovering biased treatment of traffic
+   flows.  The exact definitions and requirements vary from one
+   jurisdiction to another.
+
+5.  Implementation Options
+
+   There are several ways of implementing a measurement system.  The
+   choice may be influenced by the details of the particular use case
+   and what the most important criteria are for the regulator, ISP, or
+   third party operating the measurement system.
+
+   One type of probe is a special hardware device that is connected
+   directly to the home gateway.  The devices are deployed to a
+   carefully selected panel of end users, and they perform measurements
+   according to a defined schedule.  The schedule can run throughout the
+   day, to allow continuous assessment of the network.  Careful design
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   ensures that measurements do not detrimentally impact the home user
+   experience or corrupt the results by testing when the user is also
+   using the broadband line.  The system is therefore tightly controlled
+   by the operator of the measurement system.  One advantage of this
+   approach is that it is possible to get reliable benchmarks for the
+   performance of a network with only a few devices.  One disadvantage
+   is that it would be expensive to deploy hardware devices on a mass
+   scale sufficient to understand the performance of the network at the
+   granularity of a single broadband user.
+
+   Another type of probe involves implementing the measurement
+   capability as a webpage or an "app" that end users are encouraged to
+   download onto their mobile phone or computing device.  Measurements
+   are triggered by the end user; for example, the user interface may
+   have a button to "test my broadband now."  One advantage of this
+   approach is that the performance is measured to the end user, rather
+   than to the home gateway, and so includes the home network.  Another
+   difference is that the system is much more loosely controlled, as the
+   panel of end users and the schedule of tests are determined by the
+   end users themselves rather than the measurement system.  While this
+   approach makes it easier to make measurements on a large scale, it is
+   harder to get comparable benchmarks, as the measurements are affected
+   by the home network; also, the population is self-selecting and so
+   potentially biased towards those who think they have a problem.  This
+   could be alleviated by encouraging widespread downloading of the app
+   and careful post-processing of the results to reduce biases.
+
+   There are several other possibilities.  For example, as a variant on
+   the first approach, the measurement capability could be implemented
+   as software embedded in the home gateway, which would make it more
+   viable to have the capability on every user line.  As a variant on
+   the second approach, the end user could initiate measurements in
+   response to a request from the measurement system.
+
+   The operator of the measurement system should be careful to ensure
+   that measurements do not detrimentally impact users.  Potential
+   issues include the following:
+
+   *  Measurement traffic generated on a particular user's line may
+      impact that end user's quality of experience.  The danger is
+      greater for measurements that generate a lot of traffic over a
+      lengthy period.
+
+   *  The measurement traffic may impact that particular user's bill or
+      traffic cap.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   *  The measurement traffic from several end users may, in
+      combination, congest a shared link.
+
+   *  The traffic associated with the control and reporting of
+      measurements may overload the network.  The danger is greater
+      where the traffic associated with many end users is synchronized.
+
+6.  Conclusions
+
+   Large-scale measurements of broadband performance are useful for both
+   network operators and regulators.  Network operators would like to
+   use measurements to help them better understand the quality
+   experienced by their customers, identify problems in the network, and
+   design network improvements.  Regulators would like to use
+   measurements to help promote competition between network operators,
+   stimulate the growth of broadband access, and monitor 'net
+   neutrality'.  There are other use cases that are not the focus of the
+   initial LMAP charter (although it is expected that the mechanisms
+   developed would be readily applied); for example, end users would
+   like to use measurements to help identify problems in their home
+   network and to monitor the performance of their broadband provider.
+
+   From consideration of the various use cases, several common themes
+   emerge, while there are also some detailed differences.  These
+   characteristics guide the development of LMAP's framework,
+   information model, and protocol.
+
+   A measurement capability is needed across a wide number of
+   heterogeneous environments.  Tests may be needed in the home network,
+   in the ISP's network, or beyond; they may be measuring a fixed or
+   wireless network; they may measure just the access network or across
+   several networks.
+
+   There is a role for both standardized and non-standardized
+   measurements.  For example, a regulator would like to publish
+   standardized performance metrics for all network operators, while an
+   ISP may need their own tests to understand some feature special to
+   their network.  Most use cases need active measurements, which create
+   and measure specific test traffic, but some need passive measurements
+   of the end user's traffic.
+
+   Regardless of the tests being operated, there needs to be a way to
+   demand or schedule the tests.  Most use cases need a regular schedule
+   of measurements, but sometimes ad hoc testing is needed -- for
+   example, for troubleshooting.  It needs to be ensured that
+   measurements do not affect the user experience and are not affected
+   by user traffic (unless desired).  In addition, there needs to be a
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   common way to collect the results.  Standardization of this control
+   and reporting functionality allows the operator of a measurement
+   system to buy the various components from different vendors.
+
+   After the measurement results are collected, they need to be
+   understood and analyzed.  Often, it is sufficient to measure only a
+   small subset of end users, but per-line fault diagnosis requires the
+   ability to test every individual line.  Analysis requires accurate
+   definition and understanding of where the test points are, as well as
+   contextual information about the topology, line, product, and the
+   subscriber's contract.  The actual analysis of results is beyond the
+   scope of LMAP, as is the key challenge of how to integrate the
+   measurement system into a network operator's existing tools for
+   diagnostics and network planning.
+
+   Finally, the test data, along with any associated network, product,
+   or subscriber contract data, is commercial or private information and
+   needs to be protected.
+
+7.  Security Considerations
+
+   Large-scale measurements raise several potential security, privacy
+   (data protection) [RFC6973], and business sensitivity issues:
+
+   1. A malicious party may try to gain control of probes to launch DoS
+      (Denial of Service) attacks at a target.  A DoS attack could be
+      targeted at a particular end user or set of end users, a certain
+      network, or a specific service provider.
+
+   2. A malicious party may try to gain control of probes to create a
+      platform for pervasive monitoring [RFC7258] or for more targeted
+      monitoring.  [RFC7258] summarizes the threats as follows: "An
+      attack may change the content of the communication, record the
+      content or external characteristics of the communication, or
+      through correlation with other communication events, reveal
+      information the parties did not intend to be revealed."  For
+      example, a malicious party could distribute to the probes a new
+      measurement test that recorded (and later reported) information of
+      maleficent interest.  Similar concerns also arise if the
+      measurement results are intercepted or corrupted.
+
+      *  From the end user's perspective, the concerns include a
+         malicious party monitoring the traffic they send and receive,
+         who they communicate with, the websites they visit, and such
+         information about their behavior as when they are at home and
+         the location of their devices.  Some of the concerns may be
+         greater when the probe is on the end user's device rather than
+         on their home gateway.
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+      *  From the network operator's perspective, the concerns include
+         the leakage of commercially sensitive information about the
+         design and operation of their network, their customers, and
+         suppliers.  Some threats are indirect; for example, the
+         attacker could reconnoiter potential weaknesses, such as open
+         ports and paths through the network, which enabled it to launch
+         an attack later.
+
+      *  From the regulator's perspective, the concerns include
+         distortion of the measurement tests or alteration of the
+         measurement results.  Also, a malicious network operator could
+         try to identify the broadband lines that the regulator was
+         measuring and prioritize that traffic ("game the system").
+
+   3. Another potential issue is a measurement system that does not
+      obtain the end user's informed consent, fails to specify a
+      specific purpose in the consent, or uses the collected information
+      for secondary uses beyond those specified.
+
+   4. Another potential issue is a measurement system that does not
+      indicate who is responsible for the collection and processing of
+      personal data and who is responsible for fulfilling the rights of
+      users.  The responsible party (often termed the "data controller")
+      should, as good practice, consider such issues as defining:
+
+      o  the purpose for which the data is collected and used,
+
+      o  how the data is stored, accessed, and processed,
+
+      o  how long the data is retained, and
+
+      o  how the end user can view, update, and even delete their
+         personal data.
+
+      If anonymized personal data is shared with a third party, the data
+      controller should consider the possibility that the third party
+      can de-anonymize it by combining it with other information.
+
+   These security and privacy issues will need to be considered
+   carefully by any measurement system.  In the context of LMAP,
+   [Framework] considers them further, along with some potential
+   mitigations.  Other LMAP documents will specify one or more protocols
+   that enable the measurement system to instruct a probe about what
+   measurements to make and that enable the probe to report the
+   measurement results.  Those documents will need to discuss solutions
+   to the security and privacy issues.  However, the protocol documents
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   will not consider the actual usage of the measurement information.
+   Many use cases can be envisaged, and earlier in this document we
+   described some likely ones for the network operator and regulator.
+
+8.  Informative References
+
+   [IETF85-Plenary]
+              Crawford, S., "Large-Scale Active Measurement of Broadband
+              Networks", 'example' from slide 18, November 2012,
+              <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/
+              slides-85-iesg-opsandtech-7.pdf>.
+
+   [Extend-TCP]
+              Honda, M., Nishida, Y., Raiciu, C., Greenhalgh, A.,
+              Handley, M., and H. Tokuda, "Is it Still Possible to
+              Extend TCP?", Proceedings of IETF 82, November 2011,
+              <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/IRTF-1.pdf>.
+
+   [Framework]
+              Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
+              Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale
+              Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", Work in
+              Progress, draft-ietf-lmap-framework-14, April 2015.
+
+   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
+              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
+              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
+              July 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.
+
+   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
+              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, May 2014,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
+
+   [FCC-R&O]  United States Federal Communications Commission,
+              "Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industries
+              Practices: Report and Order", FCC 10-201, December 2010,
+              <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
+              FCC-10-201A1.pdf>.
+
+   [BEREC-Guidelines]
+              Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications,
+              "BEREC Guidelines for quality of service in the scope of
+              net neutrality", <http://berec.europa.eu/eng/
+              document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/
+              1101-berec-guidelines-for-quality-of-service-_0.pdf>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                    [Page 15]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+   [M-Labs_NSDI-2010]
+              M-Lab, "Glasnost: Enabling End Users to Detect Traffic
+              Differentiation", <http://www.measurementlab.net/
+              download/AMIfv945ljiJXzG-fgUrZSTu2hs1xRl5Oh-
+              rpGQMWL305BNQh-BSq5oBoYU4a7zqXOvrztpJhK9gwk5unOe-
+              fOzj4X-vOQz_HRrnYU-aFd0rv332RDReRfOYkJuagysstN3GZ__lQHTS8_
+              UHJTWkrwyqIUjffVeDxQ/>.
+
+   [Glasnost] M-Lab tool "Glasnost", <http://mlab-live.appspot.com/
+              tools/glasnost>.
+
+   [MOS]      Wikipedia, "Mean Opinion Score", January 2015,
+              <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
+              title=Mean_opinion_score&oldid=644494161>.
+
+   [DAE]      Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010)245 final,
+              "Communication from the Commission to the European
+              Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
+              Committee and the Committee of the Regions",
+              <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
+              PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245&from=EN>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                    [Page 16]
+
+RFC 7536                     LMAP Use Cases                     May 2015
+
+
+Contributors
+
+   The information in this document is partially derived from text
+   written by the following contributors:
+
+      James Miller          jamesmilleresquire@gmail.com
+
+      Rachel Huang          rachel.huang@huawei.com
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Marc Linsner
+   Cisco Systems, Inc.
+   Marco Island, FL
+   United States
+
+   EMail: mlinsner@cisco.com
+
+
+   Philip Eardley
+   BT
+   B54 Room 77, Adastral Park, Martlesham
+   Ipswich, IP5 3RE
+   United Kingdom
+
+   EMail: philip.eardley@bt.com
+
+
+   Trevor Burbridge
+   BT
+   B54 Room 70, Adastral Park, Martlesham
+   Ipswich, IP5 3RE
+   United Kingdom
+
+   EMail: trevor.burbridge@bt.com
+
+
+   Frode Sorensen
+   Norwegian Communications Authority (Nkom)
+   Lillesand
+   Norway
+
+   EMail: frode.sorensen@nkom.no
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Linsner, et al.               Informational                    [Page 17]
+