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/rfc9506.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9506.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc9506.txt | 1972 |
1 files changed, 1972 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9506.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9506.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4a3c534 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9506.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1972 @@ + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Cociglio +Request for Comments: 9506 Telecom Italia - TIM +Category: Informational A. Ferrieux +ISSN: 2070-1721 Orange Labs + G. Fioccola + Huawei Technologies + I. Lubashev + Akamai Technologies + F. Bulgarella + M. Nilo + Telecom Italia - TIM + I. Hamchaoui + Orange Labs + R. Sisto + Politecnico di Torino + October 2023 + + + Explicit Host-to-Network Flow Measurements Techniques + +Abstract + + This document describes protocol-independent methods called Explicit + Host-to-Network Flow Measurement Techniques that can be applicable to + transport-layer protocols between the client and server. These + methods employ just a few marking bits inside the header of each + packet for performance measurements and require the client and server + to collaborate. Both endpoints cooperate by marking packets and, + possibly, mirroring the markings on the round-trip connection. The + techniques are especially valuable when applied to protocols that + encrypt transport headers since they enable loss and delay + measurements by passive, on-path network devices. This document + describes several methods that can be used separately or jointly + depending of the availability of marking bits, desired measurements, + and properties of the protocol to which the methods are applied. + +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 candidates for any level of Internet + Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9506. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2023 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 + (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the + Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described + in the Revised BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction + 2. Latency Bits + 2.1. Spin Bit + 2.2. Delay Bit + 2.2.1. Generation Phase + 2.2.2. Reflection Phase + 2.2.3. T_Max Selection + 2.2.4. Delay Measurement Using the Delay Bit + 2.2.4.1. RTT Measurement + 2.2.4.2. Half-RTT Measurement + 2.2.4.3. Intra-domain RTT Measurement + 2.2.5. Observer's Algorithm + 2.2.6. Two Bits Delay Measurement: Spin Bit + Delay Bit + 3. Loss Bits + 3.1. T Bit -- Round-Trip Loss Bit + 3.1.1. Round-Trip Loss + 3.1.2. Setting the Round-Trip Loss Bit on Outgoing Packets + 3.1.3. Observer's Logic for Round-Trip Loss Signal + 3.1.4. Loss Coverage and Signal Timing + 3.2. Q Bit -- sQuare Bit + 3.2.1. Q Block Length Selection + 3.2.2. Upstream Loss + 3.2.3. Identifying Q Block Boundaries + 3.2.3.1. Improved Resilience to Burst Losses + 3.3. L Bit -- Loss Event Bit + 3.3.1. End-To-End Loss + 3.3.1.1. Loss Profile Characterization + 3.3.2. L+Q Bits -- Loss Measurement Using L and Q Bits + 3.3.2.1. Correlating End-to-End and Upstream Loss + 3.3.2.2. Downstream Loss + 3.3.2.3. Observer Loss + 3.4. R Bit -- Reflection Square Bit + 3.4.1. Enhancement of Reflection Block Length Computation + 3.4.2. Improved Resilience to Packet Reordering + 3.4.2.1. Improved Resilience to Burst Losses + 3.4.3. R+Q Bits -- Loss Measurement Using R and Q Bits + 3.4.3.1. Three-Quarters Connection Loss + 3.4.3.2. End-To-End Loss in the Opposite Direction + 3.4.3.3. Half Round-Trip Loss + 3.4.3.4. Downstream Loss + 3.5. E Bit -- ECN-Echo Event Bit + 3.5.1. Setting the ECN-Echo Event Bit on Outgoing Packets + 3.5.2. Using E Bit for Passive ECN-Reported Congestion + Measurement + 3.5.3. Multiple E Bits + 4. Summary of Delay and Loss Marking Methods + 4.1. Implementation Considerations + 5. Examples of Application + 6. Protocol Ossification Considerations + 7. Security Considerations + 7.1. Optimistic ACK Attack + 7.2. Delay Bit with RTT Obfuscation + 8. Privacy Considerations + 9. IANA Considerations + 10. References + 10.1. Normative References + 10.2. Informative References + Acknowledgments + Contributors + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + Packet loss and delay are hard and pervasive problems of day-to-day + network operation. Proactively detecting, measuring, and locating + them is crucial to maintaining high QoS and timely resolution of end- + to-end throughput issues. + + Detecting and measuring packet loss and delay allows network + operators to independently confirm trouble reports and, ideally, be + proactively notified of developing problems on the network. Locating + the cause of packet loss or excessive delay is the first step to + resolving problems and restoring QoS. + + Network operators wishing to perform quantitative measurement of + packet loss and delay have been heavily relying on information + present in the clear in transport-layer headers (e.g., TCP sequence + and acknowledgment numbers). By passively observing a network path + at multiple points within one's network, operators have been able to + either quickly locate the source the problem within their network or + reliably attribute it to an upstream or downstream network. + + With encrypted protocols, the transport-layer headers are encrypted + and passive packet loss and delay observations are not possible, as + also noted in [TRANSPORT-ENCRYPT]. Nevertheless, accurate + measurement of packet loss and delay experienced by encrypted + transport-layer protocols is highly desired, especially by network + operators who own or control the infrastructure between the client + and server. + + The measurement of loss and delay experienced by connections using an + encrypted protocol cannot be based on a measurement of loss and delay + experienced by connections between the same or similar endpoints that + use an unencrypted protocol because different protocols may utilize + the network differently and be routed differently by the network. + Therefore, it is necessary to directly measure the packet loss and + delay experienced by users of encrypted protocols. + + The Alternate-Marking method [AltMark] defines a consolidated method + to perform packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on live + traffic. However, as mentioned in [IPv6AltMark], [AltMark] mainly + applies to a network-layer-controlled domain managed with a Network + Management System (NMS), where the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) + or the Provider Edge (PE) routers are the starting or the ending + nodes. [AltMark] provides measurement within a controlled domain in + which the packets are marked. Therefore, applying [AltMark] to end- + to-end transport-layer connections is not easy because packet + identification and marking by network nodes is prevented when + encrypted transport-layer headers (e.g., QUIC, TCP with TLS) are + being used. + + This document defines Explicit Host-to-Network Flow Measurement + Techniques that are specifically designed for encrypted transport + protocols. According to the definitions of [IPPM-METHODS], these + measurement methods can be classified as Hybrid. They are to be + embedded into a transport-layer protocol and are explicitly intended + for exposing delay and loss rate information to on-path measurement + devices. Unlike [AltMark], most of these methods require + collaborative endpoint nodes. Since these measurement techniques + make performance information directly visible to the path, they do + not rely on an external NMS. + + The Explicit Host-to-Network Flow Measurement Techniques described in + this document are applicable to any transport-layer protocol + connecting a client and a server. In this document, the client and + the server are also referred to as the endpoints of the transport- + layer protocol. + + The different methods described in this document can be used alone or + in combination. Each technique uses few bits and exposes a specific + measurement. It is assumed that the endpoints are collaborative in + the sense of the measurements, indeed both the client and server need + to cooperate. + + Following the recommendation in [RFC8558] of making path signals + explicit, this document proposes adding some dedicated measurement + bits to the clear portion of the transport protocol headers. These + bits can be added to an unencrypted portion of a transport-layer + header, e.g., UDP surplus space (see [UDP-OPTIONS] and [UDP-SURPLUS]) + or reserved bits in a QUIC v1 header, as already done with the + latency Spin bit (see Section 17.4 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]). Note that + this document does not recommend the use of any specific bits, as + these would need to be chosen by the specific protocol + implementations (see Section 5). + + The Spin bit, Delay bit, and loss bits explained in this document are + inspired by [AltMark], [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY], [QUIC-SPIN], + [TSVWG-SPIN], and [IPPM-SPIN]. + + Additional details about the performance measurements for QUIC are + described in the paper [ANRW19-PM-QUIC]. + +2. Latency Bits + + This section introduces bits that can be used for round-trip latency + measurements. Whenever this section of the specification refers to + packets, it is referring only to packets with protocol headers that + include the latency bits. + + In [QUIC-TRANSPORT], Section 17.4 introduces an explicit, per-flow + transport-layer signal for hybrid measurement of RTT. This signal + consists of a Spin bit that toggles once per RTT. Section 4 of + [QUIC-SPIN] discusses an additional two-bit Valid Edge Counter (VEC) + to compensate for loss and reordering of the Spin bit and to increase + fidelity of the signal in less than ideal network conditions. + + This document introduces a standalone single-bit delay signal that + can be used by passive observers to measure the RTT of a network + flow, avoiding the Spin bit ambiguities that arise as soon as network + conditions deteriorate. + +2.1. Spin Bit + + This section is a small recap of the Spin bit working mechanism. For + a comprehensive explanation of the algorithm, see Section 3.8.2 of + [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY]. + + The Spin bit is a signal generated by Alternate-Marking [AltMark], + where the size of the alternation changes with the flight size each + RTT. + + The latency Spin bit is a single-bit signal that toggles once per + RTT, enabling latency monitoring of a connection-oriented + communication from intermediate observation points. + + A "Spin bit period" is a set of packets with the same Spin bit value + sent during one RTT time interval. A "Spin bit period value" is the + value of the Spin bit shared by all packets in a Spin bit period. + + The client and server maintain an internal per-connection spin value + (i.e., 0 or 1) used to set the Spin bit on outgoing packets. Both + endpoints initialize the spin value to 0 when a new connection + starts. Then: + + * when the client receives a packet with the packet number larger + than any number seen so far, it sets the connection spin value to + the opposite value contained in the received packet; and + + * when the server receives a packet with the packet number larger + than any number seen so far, it sets the connection spin value to + the same value contained in the received packet. + + The computed spin value is used by the endpoints for setting the Spin + bit on outgoing packets. This mechanism allows the endpoints to + generate a square wave such that, by measuring the distance in time + between pairs of consecutive edges observed in the same direction, a + passive on-path observer can compute the round-trip network delay of + that network flow. + + Spin bit enables round-trip latency measurement by observing a single + direction of the traffic flow. + + Note that packet reordering can cause spurious edges that require + heuristics to correct. The Spin bit performance deteriorates as soon + as network impairments arise as explained in Section 2.2. + +2.2. Delay Bit + + The Delay bit has been designed to overcome accuracy limitations + experienced by the Spin bit under difficult network conditions: + + * packet reordering leads to generation of spurious edges and errors + in delay estimation; + + * loss of edges causes wrong estimation of Spin bit periods and + therefore wrong RTT measurements; and + + * application-limited senders cause the Spin bit to measure the + application delays instead of network delays. + + Unlike the Spin bit, which is set in every packet transmitted on the + network, the Delay bit is set only once per round trip. + + When the Delay bit is used, a single packet with a marked bit (the + Delay bit) bounces between a client and a server during the entire + connection lifetime. This single packet is called the "delay + sample". + + An observer placed at an intermediate point, observing a single + direction of traffic and tracking the delay sample and the relative + timestamp, can measure the round-trip delay of the connection. + + The delay sample lifetime comprises two phases: initialization and + reflection. The initialization is the generation of the delay + sample, while the reflection realizes the bounce behavior of this + single packet between the two endpoints. + + The next figure describes the elementary Delay bit mechanism. + + +--------+ - - - - - +--------+ + | | -----------> | | + | Client | | Server | + | | <----------- | | + +--------+ - - - - - +--------+ + + (a) No traffic at beginning. + + +--------+ 0 0 1 - - +--------+ + | | -----------> | | + | Client | | Server | + | | <----------- | | + +--------+ - - - - - +--------+ + + (b) The Client starts sending data and sets + the first packet as the delay sample. + + +--------+ 0 0 0 0 0 +--------+ + | | -----------> | | + | Client | | Server | + | | <----------- | | + +--------+ - - - 1 0 +--------+ + + (c) The Server starts sending data + and reflects the delay sample. + + +--------+ 0 1 0 0 0 +--------+ + | | -----------> | | + | Client | | Server | + | | <----------- | | + +--------+ 0 0 0 0 0 +--------+ + + (d) The Client reflects the delay sample. + + +--------+ 0 0 0 0 0 +--------+ + | | -----------> | | + | Client | | Server | + | | <----------- | | + +--------+ 0 0 0 1 0 +--------+ + + (e) The Server reflects the delay sample + and so on. + + Figure 1: Delay Bit Mechanism + +2.2.1. Generation Phase + + Only the client is actively involved in the Generation Phase. It + maintains an internal per-flow timestamp variable (ds_time) updated + every time a delay sample is transmitted. + + When connection starts, the client generates a new delay sample + initializing the Delay bit of the first outgoing packet to 1. Then + it updates the ds_time variable with the timestamp of its + transmission. + + The server initializes the Delay bit to 0 at the beginning of the + connection, and its only task during the connection is described in + Section 2.2.2. + + In absence of network impairments, the delay sample should bounce + between the client and server continuously for the entire duration of + the connection. However, that is highly unlikely for two reasons: + + 1. The packet carrying the Delay bit might be lost. + + 2. An endpoint could stop or delay sending packets because the + application is limiting the amount of traffic transmitted. + + To deal with these problems, the client generates a new delay sample + if more than a predetermined time (T_Max) has elapsed since the last + delay sample transmission (including reflections). Note that T_Max + should be greater than the max measurable RTT on the network. See + Section 2.2.3 for details. + +2.2.2. Reflection Phase + + Reflection is the process that enables the bouncing of the delay + sample between a client and a server. The behavior of the two + endpoints is almost the same. + + * Server-side reflection: When a delay sample arrives, the server + marks the first packet in the opposite direction as the delay + sample. + + * Client-side reflection: When a delay sample arrives, the client + marks the first packet in the opposite direction as the delay + sample. It also updates the ds_time variable when the outgoing + delay sample is actually forwarded. + + In both cases, if the outgoing delay sample is being transmitted with + a delay greater than a predetermined threshold after the reception of + the incoming delay sample (1 ms by default), the delay sample is not + reflected, and the outgoing Delay bit is kept at 0. + + By doing so, the algorithm can reject measurements that would + overestimate the delay due to lack of traffic at the endpoints. + Hence, the maximum estimation error would amount to twice the + threshold (e.g., 2 ms) per measurement. + +2.2.3. T_Max Selection + + The internal ds_time variable allows a client to identify delay + sample losses. Considering that a lost delay sample is regenerated + at the end of an explicit time (T_Max) since the last generation, + this same value can be used by an observer to reject a measure and + start a new one. + + In other words, if the difference in time between two delay samples + is greater or equal than T_Max, then these cannot be used to produce + a delay measure. Therefore, the value of T_Max must also be known to + the on-path network probes. + + There are two alternatives to selecting the T_Max value so that both + the client and observers know it. The first one requires that T_Max + is known a priori (T_Max_p) and therefore set within the protocol + specifications that implements the marking mechanism (e.g., 1 second, + which usually is greater than the max expected RTT). The second + alternative requires a dynamic mechanism able to adapt the duration + of the T_Max to the delay of the connection (T_Max_c). + + For instance, the client and observers could use the connection RTT + as a basis for calculating an effective T_Max. They should use a + predetermined initial value so that T_Max = T_Max_p (e.g., 1 second) + and then, when a valid RTT is measured, change T_Max accordingly so + that T_Max = T_Max_c. In any case, the selected T_Max should be + large enough to absorb any possible variations in the connection + delay. This also helps to prevent the mechanism from failing when + the observer cannot recognize sudden changes in RTT exceeding T_Max. + + T_Max_c could be computed as two times the measured RTT plus a fixed + amount of time (100 ms) to prevent low T_Max values in the case of + very small RTTs. The resulting formula is: T_Max_c = 2RTT + 100 ms. + If T_Max_c is greater than T_Max_p, then T_Max_c is forced to the + T_Max_p value. Note that the value of 100 ms is provided as an + example, and it may be chosen differently depending on the specific + scenarios. For instance, an implementer may consider using existing + protocol-specific values if appropriate. + + Note that the observer's T_Max should always be less than or equal to + the client's T_Max to avoid considering as a valid measurement what + is actually the client's T_Max. To obtain this result, the client + waits for two consecutive incoming samples and computes the two + related RTTs. Then it takes the largest of them as the basis of the + T_Max_c formula. At this point, observers have already measured a + valid RTT and then computed their T_Max_c. + +2.2.4. Delay Measurement Using the Delay Bit + + When the Delay bit is used, a passive observer can use delay samples + directly and avoid inherent ambiguities in the calculation of the RTT + as can be seen in Spin bit analysis. + +2.2.4.1. RTT Measurement + + The delay sample generation process ensures that only one packet + marked with the Delay bit set to 1 runs back and forth between two + endpoints per round-trip time. To determine the RTT measurement of a + flow, an on-path passive observer computes the time difference + between two delay samples observed in a single direction. + + To ensure a valid measurement, the observer must verify that the + distance in time between the two samples taken into account is less + than T_Max. + + =======================|======================> + = ********** -----Obs----> ********** = + = * Client * * Server * = + = ********** <------------ ********** = + <============================================== + + (a) client-server RTT + + ==============================================> + = ********** ------------> ********** = + = * Client * * Server * = + = ********** <----Obs----- ********** = + <======================|======================= + + (b) server-client RTT + + Figure 2: Round-Trip Time (Both Directions) + +2.2.4.2. Half-RTT Measurement + + An observer that is able to observe both forward and return traffic + directions can use the delay samples to measure "upstream" and + "downstream" RTT components, also known as the half-RTT measurements. + It does this by measuring the time between a delay sample observed in + one direction and the delay sample previously observed in the + opposite direction. + + As with RTT measurement, the observer must verify that the distance + in time between the two samples taken into account is less than + T_Max. + + Note that upstream and downstream sections of paths between the + endpoints and the observer (i.e., observer-to-client vs. client-to- + observer and observer-to-server vs. server-to-observer) may have + different delay characteristics due to the difference in network + congestion and other factors. + + =======================> + = ********** ------|-----> ********** + = * Client * Obs * Server * + = ********** <-----|------ ********** + <======================= + + (a) client-observer half-RTT + + =======================> + ********** ------|-----> ********** = + * Client * Obs * Server * = + ********** <-----|------ ********** = + <======================= + + (b) observer-server half-RTT + + Figure 3: Half Round-Trip Time (Both Directions) + +2.2.4.3. Intra-domain RTT Measurement + + Intra-domain RTT is the portion of the entire RTT used by a flow to + traverse the network of a provider. To measure intra-domain RTT, two + observers capable of observing traffic in both directions must be + employed simultaneously at the ingress and egress of the network to + be measured. Intra-domain RTT is the difference between the two + computed upstream (or downstream) RTT components. + + =========================================> + = =====================> + = = ********** ---|--> ---|--> ********** + = = * Client * Obs Obs * Server * + = = ********** <--|--- <--|--- ********** + = <===================== + <========================================= + + (a) client-observer RTT components (half-RTTs) + + ==================> + ********** ---|--> ---|--> ********** + * Client * Obs Obs * Server * + ********** <--|--- <--|--- ********** + <================== + + (b) the intra-domain RTT resulting from the + subtraction of the above RTT components + + Figure 4: Intra-domain Round-Trip Time (Client-Observer: Upstream) + +2.2.5. Observer's Algorithm + + An on-path observer maintains an internal per-flow variable to keep + track of the time at which the last delay sample has been observed. + The flow characterization should be part of the protocol. + + If the observer is unidirectional or in case of asymmetric routing, + then upon detecting a delay sample: + + * if a delay sample was also detected previously in the same + direction and the distance in time between them is less than T_Max + - K, then the two delay samples can be used to calculate RTT + measurement. K is a protection threshold to absorb differences in + T_Max computation and delay variations between two consecutive + delay samples (e.g., K = 10% T_Max). + + If the observer can observe both forward and return traffic flows, + and it is able to determine which direction contains the client and + the server (e.g., by observing the connection handshake), then upon + detecting a delay sample: + + * if a delay sample was also detected in the opposite direction and + the distance in time between them is less than T_Max - K, then the + two delay samples can be used to measure the observer-client half- + RTT or the observer-server half-RTT, according to the direction of + the last delay sample observed. + + Note that the accuracy can be influenced by what the observer is + capable of observing. Additionally, the type of measurement differs, + as described in the previous sections. + +2.2.6. Two Bits Delay Measurement: Spin Bit + Delay Bit + + The Spin and Delay bit algorithms work independently. If both + marking methods are used in the same connection, observers can choose + the best measurement between the two available: + + * when a precise measurement can be produced using the Delay bit, + observers choose it; and + + * when a Delay bit measurement is not available, observers choose + the approximate Spin bit one. + +3. Loss Bits + + This section introduces bits that can be used for loss measurements. + Whenever this section of the specification refers to packets, it is + referring only to packets with protocol headers that include the loss + bits -- the only packets whose loss can be measured. + + T: The "round-Trip loss" bit is used in combination with the Spin + bit to measure round-trip loss. See Section 3.1. + + Q: The "sQuare" bit is used to measure upstream loss. See + Section 3.2. + + L: The "Loss Event" bit is used to measure end-to-end loss. See + Section 3.3. + + R: The "Reflection square" bit is used in combination with the Q + bit to measure end-to-end loss. See Section 3.4. + + Loss measurements enabled by T, Q, and L bits can be implemented by + those loss bits alone (T bit requires a working Spin bit). Two-bit + combinations Q+L and Q+R enable additional measurement opportunities + discussed below. + + Each endpoint maintains appropriate counters independently and + separately for each identifiable flow (or each sub-flow for multipath + connections). + + Since loss is reported independently for each flow, all bits (except + for the L bit) require a certain minimum number of packets to be + exchanged per flow before any signal can be measured. Therefore, + loss measurements work best for flows that transfer more than a + minimal amount of data. + +3.1. T Bit -- Round-Trip Loss Bit + + The round-Trip loss bit is used to mark a variable number of packets + exchanged twice between the endpoints realizing a two round-trip + reflection. A passive on-path observer, observing either direction, + can count and compare the number of marked packets seen during the + two reflections, estimating the loss rate experienced by the + connection. The overall exchange comprises: + + * the client selects and consequently sets the T bit to 1 in order + to identify a first train of packets; + + * upon receiving each packet included in the first train, the server + sets the T bit to 1 and reflects to the client a respective second + train of packets of the same size as the first train received; + + * upon receiving each packet included in the second train, the + client sets the T bit to 1 and reflects to the server a respective + third train of packets of the same size as the second train + received; and + + * upon receiving each packet included in the third train, the server + sets the T bit to 1 and finally reflects to the client a + respective fourth train of packets of the same size as the third + train received. + + Packets belonging to the first round trip (first and second train) + represent the Generation Phase, while those belonging to the second + round trip (third and fourth train) represent the Reflection Phase. + + A passive on-path observer can count and compare the number of marked + packets seen during the two round trips (i.e., the first and third or + the second and the fourth trains of packets, depending on which + direction is observed) and estimate the loss rate experienced by the + connection. This process is repeated continuously to obtain more + measurements as long as the endpoints exchange traffic. These + measurements can be called round-trip losses. + + Since the packet rates in two directions may be different, the number + of marked packets in the train is determined by the direction with + the lowest packet rate. See Section 3.1.2 for details on packet + generation. + +3.1.1. Round-Trip Loss + + Since the measurements are performed on a portion of the traffic + exchanged between the client and the server, the observer calculates + the end-to-end Round-Trip Packet Loss (RTPL) that, statistically, + will correspond to the loss rate experienced by the connection along + the entire network path. + + =======================|======================> + = ********** -----Obs----> ********** = + = * Client * * Server * = + = ********** <------------ ********** = + <============================================== + + (a) client-server RTPL + + ==============================================> + = ********** ------------> ********** = + = * Client * * Server * = + = ********** <----Obs----- ********** = + <======================|======================= + + (b) server-client RTPL + + Figure 5: Round-Trip Packet Loss (Both Directions) + + This methodology also allows the half-RTPL measurement and the Intra- + domain RTPL measurement in a way similar to RTT measurement. + + =======================> + = ********** ------|-----> ********** + = * Client * Obs * Server * + = ********** <-----|------ ********** + <======================= + + (a) client-observer half-RTPL + + =======================> + ********** ------|-----> ********** = + * Client * Obs * Server * = + ********** <-----|------ ********** = + <======================= + + (b) observer-server half-RTPL + + Figure 6: Half Round-Trip Packet Loss (Both Directions) + + =========================================> + =====================> = + ********** ---|--> ---|--> ********** = = + * Client * Obs Obs * Server * = = + ********** <--|--- <--|--- ********** = = + <===================== = + <========================================= + + (a) observer-server RTPL components (half-RTPLs) + + ==================> + ********** ---|--> ---|--> ********** + * Client * Obs Obs * Server * + ********** <--|--- <--|--- ********** + <================== + + (b) the intra-domain RTPL resulting from the + subtraction of the above RTPL components + + Figure 7: Intra-domain Round-Trip Packet Loss (Observer-Server) + +3.1.2. Setting the Round-Trip Loss Bit on Outgoing Packets + + The round-Trip loss signal requires a working Spin bit signal to + separate trains of marked packets (packets with T bit set to 1). A + "pause" of at least one empty Spin bit period between each phase of + the algorithm serves as such a separator for the on-path observer. + The connection between T bit and Spin bit helps the observer + correlate packet trains. + + The client maintains a "generation token" count that is set to zero + at the beginning of the session and is incremented every time a + packet is received (marked or unmarked). The client also maintains a + "reflection counter" that starts at zero at the beginning of the + session. + + The client is in charge of launching trains of marked packets and + does so according to the algorithm: + + 1. Generation Phase. The client starts generating marked packets + for two consecutive Spin bit periods. When the client transmits + a packet and a "generation token" is available, the client marks + the packet and retires a "generation token". If no token is + available, the outgoing packet is transmitted unmarked. At the + end of the first Spin bit period spent in generation, the + reflection counter is unlocked to start counting incoming marked + packets that will be reflected later. + + 2. Pause Phase. When the generation is completed, the client pauses + till it has observed one entire Spin bit period with no marked + packets. That Spin bit period is used by the observer as a + separator between generated and reflected packets. During this + marking pause, all the outgoing packets are transmitted with T + bit set to 0. The reflection counter is still incremented every + time a marked packet arrives. + + 3. Reflection Phase. The client starts transmitting marked packets, + decrementing the reflection counter for each transmitted marked + packet until the reflection counter has reached zero. The + "generation token" method from the Generation Phase is used + during this phase as well. At the end of the first Spin bit + period spent in reflection, the reflection counter is locked to + avoid incoming reflected packets incrementing it. + + 4. Pause Phase 2. The Pause Phase is repeated after the Reflection + Phase and serves as a separator between the reflected packet + train and a new packet train. + + The generation token counter should be capped to limit the effects of + a subsequent sudden reduction in the other endpoint's packet rate + that could prevent that endpoint from reflecting collected packets. + A cap value of 1 is recommended. + + A server maintains a "marking counter" that starts at zero and is + incremented every time a marked packet arrives. When the server + transmits a packet and the "marking counter" is positive, the server + marks the packet and decrements the "marking counter". If the + "marking counter" is zero, the outgoing packet is transmitted + unmarked. + + Note that a choice of 2 RTT (two Spin bit periods) for the Generation + Phase is a trade-off between the percentage of marked packets (i.e., + the percentage of traffic monitored) and the measurement delay. + Using this value, the algorithm produces a measurement approximately + every 6 RTT (2 generations, ~2 reflections, 2 pauses), marking ~1/3 + of packets exchanged in the slower direction (see Section 3.1.4). + Choosing a Generation Phase of 1 RTT, we would produce measurements + every 4 RTT, monitoring ~1/4 of packets in the slower direction. + + It is worth mentioning that problems can happen in some cases, + especially if the rate suddenly changes, but the mechanism described + here worked well with normal traffic conditions in the + implementation. + +3.1.3. Observer's Logic for Round-Trip Loss Signal + + The on-path observer counts marked packets and separates different + trains by detecting Spin bit periods (at least one) with no marked + packets. The Round-Trip Packet Loss (RTPL) is the difference between + the size of the Generation train and the Reflection train. + + In the following example, packets are represented by two bits (first + one is the Spin bit, second one is the round-Trip loss bit): + + Generation Pause Reflection Pause + ____________________ ______________ ____________________ ________ + | | | | | + 01 01 00 01 11 10 11 00 00 10 10 10 01 00 01 01 10 11 10 00 00 10 + + Figure 8: Round-Trip Loss Signal Example + + Note that 5 marked packets have been generated, of which 4 have been + reflected. + +3.1.4. Loss Coverage and Signal Timing + + A cycle of the round-Trip loss signaling algorithm contains 2 RTTs of + Generation phase, 2 RTTs of Reflection Phase, and 2 Pause Phases at + least 1 RTT in duration each. Hence, the loss signal is delayed by + about 6 RTTs since the loss events. + + The observer can only detect the loss of marked packets that occurs + after its initial observation of the Generation Phase and before its + subsequent observation of the Reflection Phase. Hence, if the loss + occurs on the path that sends packets at a lower rate (typically ACKs + in such asymmetric scenarios), 2/6 (1/3) of the packets will be + sampled for loss detection. + + If the loss occurs on the path that sends packets at a higher rate, + lowPacketRate/(3*highPacketRate) of the packets will be sampled for + loss detection. For protocols that use ACKs, the portion of packets + sampled for loss in the higher rate direction during unidirectional + data transfer is 1/(3*packetsPerAck), where the value of + packetsPerAck can vary by protocol, by implementation, and by network + conditions. + +3.2. Q Bit -- sQuare Bit + + The sQuare bit (Q bit) takes its name from the square wave generated + by its signal. This method is based on the Alternate-Marking method + [AltMark], and the Q bit represents the "packet color" that can be + switched between 0 and 1 in order to mark consecutive blocks of + packets with different colors. This method does not require + cooperation from both endpoints. + + [AltMark] introduces two variations of the Alternate-Marking method + depending on whether the color is switched according to a fixed timer + or after a fixed number of packets. Cooperating and synchronized + observers on either end of a network segment can use the fixed-timer + method to measure packet loss on the segment by comparing packet + counters for the same packet blocks. The time length of the blocks + can be chosen depending on the desired measurement frequency, but it + must be long enough to guarantee the proper operation with respect to + clock errors and network delay issues. + + The Q bit method described in this document chooses the color- + switching method based on a fixed number of packets for each block. + This approach has the advantage that it does not require cooperating + or synchronized observers or network elements. Each probe can + measure packet loss autonomously without relying on an external NMS. + For the purpose of the packet loss measurement, all blocks have the + same number of packets, and it is necessary to detect only the loss + event and not to identify the exact block with losses. + + Following the method based on fixed number of packets, the square + wave signal is generated by the switching of the Q bit: every + outgoing packet contains the Q bit value, which is initialized to 0 + and inverted after sending N packets (a sQuare Block or simply Q + Block). Hence, Q Period is 2*N. + + Observation points can estimate upstream losses by watching a single + direction of the traffic flow and counting the number of packets in + each observed Q Block, as described in Section 3.2.2. + +3.2.1. Q Block Length Selection + + The length of the block must be known to the on-path network probes. + There are two alternatives to selecting the Q Block length. The + first one requires that the length is known a priori and therefore + set within the protocol specifications that implement the marking + mechanism. The second requires the sender to select it. + + In this latter scenario, the sender is expected to choose N (Q Block + length) based on the expected amount of loss and reordering on the + path. The choice of N strikes a compromise -- the observation could + become too unreliable in case of packet reordering and/or severe loss + if N is too small, while short flows may not yield a useful upstream + loss measurement if N is too large (see Section 3.2.2). + + The value of N should be at least 64 and be a power of 2. This + requirement allows an observer to infer the Q Block length by + observing one period of the square signal. It also allows the + observer to identify flows that set the loss bits to arbitrary values + (see Section 6). + + If the sender does not have sufficient information to make an + informed decision about Q Block length, the sender should use N=64, + since this value has been extensively tried in large-scale field + tests and yielded good results. Alternatively, the sender may also + choose a random power-of-2 N for each flow, increasing the chances of + using a Q Block length that gives the best signal for some flows. + + The sender must keep the value of N constant for a given flow. + +3.2.2. Upstream Loss + + Blocks of N (Q Block length) consecutive packets are sent with the + same value of the Q bit, followed by another block of N packets with + an inverted value of the Q bit. Hence, knowing the value of N, an + on-path observer can estimate the amount of upstream loss after + observing at least N packets. The upstream loss rate (uloss) is one + minus the average number of packets in a block of packets with the + same Q value (p) divided by N (uloss=1-avg(p)/N). + + The observer needs to be able to tolerate packet reordering that can + blur the edges of the square signal, as explained in Section 3.2.3. + + =====================> + ********** -----Obs----> ********** + * Client * * Server * + ********** <------------ ********** + + (a) in client-server channel (uloss_up) + + ********** ------------> ********** + * Client * * Server * + ********** <----Obs----- ********** + <===================== + + (b) in server-client channel (uloss_down) + + Figure 9: Upstream Loss + +3.2.3. Identifying Q Block Boundaries + + Packet reordering can produce spurious edges in the square signal. + To address this, the observer should look for packets with the + current Q bit value up to X packets past the first packet with a + reverse Q bit value. The value of X, a "Marking Block Threshold", + should be less than N/2. + + The choice of X represents a trade-off between resiliency to + reordering and resiliency to loss. A very large Marking Block + Threshold will be able to reconstruct Q Blocks despite a significant + amount of reordering, but it may erroneously coalesce packets from + multiple Q Blocks into fewer Q Blocks if loss exceeds 50% for some Q + Blocks. + +3.2.3.1. Improved Resilience to Burst Losses + + Burst losses can affect the accuracy of Q measurements. Generally, + burst losses can be absorbed and correctly measured if smaller than + the established Q Block length. If the entire Q Block length of + packets is lost in a burst, however, the observer may be left + completely unaware of the loss. + + To improve burst loss resilience, an observer may consider a received + Q Block larger than the selected Q Block length as an indication of a + burst loss event. The observer would then compute the loss as three + times the Q Block length minus the measured block length. By doing + so, the observer can detect burst losses of less than two blocks + (e.g., less than 128 packets for a Q Block length of 64 packets). A + burst loss of two or more consecutive periods would still remain + unnoticed by the observer (or underestimated if a period longer than + Q Block length were formed). + +3.3. L Bit -- Loss Event Bit + + The Loss Event bit uses an Unreported Loss counter maintained by the + protocol that implements the marking mechanism. To use the Loss + Event bit, the protocol must allow the sender to identify lost + packets. This is true of protocols such as QUIC, partially true for + TCP and Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) (losses of pure + ACKs are not detected), and is not true of protocols such as UDP and + IPv4/IPv6. + + The Unreported Loss counter is initialized to 0, and the L bit of + every outgoing packet indicates whether the Unreported Loss counter + is positive (L=1 if the counter is positive, and L=0 otherwise). + + The value of the Unreported Loss counter is decremented every time a + packet with L=1 is sent. + + The value of the Unreported Loss counter is incremented for every + packet that the protocol declares lost, using whatever loss detection + machinery the protocol employs. If the protocol is able to rescind + the loss determination later, a positive Unreported Loss counter may + be decremented due to the rescission. In general, it should not + become negative due to the rescission, but it can happen in few + cases. + + This loss signaling is similar to loss signaling in [ConEx], except + that the Loss Event bit is reporting the exact number of lost + packets, whereas the signal mechanism in [ConEx] is reporting an + approximate number of lost bytes. + + For protocols, such as TCP [TCP], that allow network devices to + change data segmentation, it is possible that only a part of the + packet is lost. In these cases, the sender must increment the + Unreported Loss counter by the fraction of the packet data lost (so + the Unreported Loss counter may become negative when a packet with + L=1 is sent after a partial packet has been lost). + + Observation points can estimate the end-to-end loss, as determined by + the upstream endpoint, by counting packets in this direction with the + L bit equal to 1, as described in Section 3.3.1. + +3.3.1. End-To-End Loss + + The Loss Event bit allows an observer to estimate the end-to-end loss + rate by counting packets with L bit values of 0 and 1 for a given + flow. The end-to-end loss ratio is the fraction of packets with L=1. + + The assumption here is that upstream loss affects packets with L=0 + and L=1 equally. If some loss is caused by tail-drop in a network + device, this may be a simplification. If the sender's congestion + controller reduces the packet send rate after loss, there may be a + sufficient delay before sending packets with L=1 that they have a + greater chance of arriving at the observer. + +3.3.1.1. Loss Profile Characterization + + The Loss Event bit allows an observer to characterize the loss + profile, since the distribution of observed packets with the L bit + set to 1 roughly corresponds to the distribution of packets lost + between 1 RTT and 1 retransmission timeout (RTO) before (see + Section 3.3.2.1). Hence, observing random single instances of the L + bit set to 1 indicates random single packet loss, while observing + blocks of packets with the L bit set to 1 indicates loss affecting + entire blocks of packets. + +3.3.2. L+Q Bits -- Loss Measurement Using L and Q Bits + + Combining L and Q bits allows a passive observer watching a single + direction of traffic to accurately measure: + + upstream loss: sender-to-observer loss (see Section 3.2.2) + + downstream loss: observer-to-receiver loss (see Section 3.3.2.2) + + end-to-end loss: sender-to-receiver loss on the observed path (see + Section 3.3.1) with loss profile characterization (see + Section 3.3.1.1) + +3.3.2.1. Correlating End-to-End and Upstream Loss + + Upstream loss is calculated by observing packets that did not suffer + the upstream loss (Section 3.2.2). End-to-end loss, however, is + calculated by observing subsequent packets after the sender's + protocol detected the loss. Hence, end-to-end loss is generally + observed with a delay of between 1 RTT (loss declared due to multiple + duplicate acknowledgments) and 1 RTO (loss declared due to a timeout) + relative to the upstream loss. + + The flow RTT can sometimes be estimated by timing the protocol + handshake messages. This RTT estimate can be greatly improved by + observing a dedicated protocol mechanism for conveying RTT + information, such as the Spin bit (see Section 2.1) or Delay bit (see + Section 2.2). + + Whenever the observer needs to perform a computation that uses both + upstream and end-to-end loss rate measurements, it should consider + the upstream loss rate leading the end-to-end loss rate by + approximately 1 RTT. If the observer is unable to estimate RTT of + the flow, it should accumulate loss measurements over time periods of + at least 4 times the typical RTT for the observed flows. + + If the calculated upstream loss rate exceeds the end-to-end loss rate + calculated in Section 3.3.1, then either the Q Period is too short + for the amount of packet reordering or there is observer loss, + described in Section 3.3.2.3. If this happens, the observer should + adjust the calculated upstream loss rate to match end-to-end loss + rate, unless the following applies. + + In case of a protocol, such as TCP or SCTP, that does not track + losses of pure ACK packets, observing a direction of traffic + dominated by pure ACK packets could result in measured upstream loss + that is higher than measured end-to-end loss if said pure ACK packets + are lost upstream. Hence, if the measurement is applied to such + protocols, and the observer can confirm that pure ACK packets + dominate the observed traffic direction, the observer should adjust + the calculated end-to-end loss rate to match upstream loss rate. + +3.3.2.2. Downstream Loss + + Because downstream loss affects only those packets that did not + suffer upstream loss, the end-to-end loss rate (eloss) relates to the + upstream loss rate (uloss) and downstream loss rate (dloss) as + (1-uloss)(1-dloss)=1-eloss. Hence, dloss=(eloss-uloss)/(1-uloss). + +3.3.2.3. Observer Loss + + A typical deployment of a passive observation system includes a + network tap device that mirrors network packets of interest to a + device that performs analysis and measurement on the mirrored + packets. The observer loss is the loss that occurs on the mirror + path. + + Observer loss affects the upstream loss rate measurement since it + causes the observer to account for fewer packets in a block of + identical Q bit values (see Section 3.2.2). The end-to-end loss rate + measurement, however, is unaffected by the observer loss since it is + a measurement of the fraction of packets with the L bit value of 1, + and the observer loss would affect all packets equally (see + Section 3.3.1). + + The need to adjust the upstream loss rate down to match the end-to- + end loss rate as described in Section 3.3.2.1 is an indication of the + observer loss, whose magnitude is between the amount of such + adjustment and the entirety of the upstream loss measured in + Section 3.2.2. Alternatively, a high apparent upstream loss rate + could be an indication of significant packet reordering, possibly due + to packets belonging to a single flow being multiplexed over several + upstream paths with different latency characteristics. + +3.4. R Bit -- Reflection Square Bit + + R bit requires a deployment alongside Q bit. Unlike the square + signal for which packets are transmitted in blocks of fixed size, the + number of packets in Reflection square blocks (also an Alternate- + Marking signal) varies according to these rules: + + * when the transmission of a new block starts, its size is set equal + to the size of the last Q Block whose reception has been + completed; and + + * if the reception of at least one further Q Block is completed + before transmission of the block is terminated, the size of the + block is updated to be the average size of the further received Q + Blocks. + + The Reflection square value is initialized to 0 and is applied to the + R bit of every outgoing packet. The Reflection square value is + toggled for the first time when the completion of a Q Block is + detected in the incoming square signal (produced by the other + endpoint using the Q bit). The number of packets detected within + this first Q Block (p), is used to generate a reflection square + signal that toggles every M=p packets (at first). This new signal + produces blocks of M packets (marked using the R bit) and each of + them is called "Reflection Block" (Reflection Block). + + The M value is then updated every time a completed Q Block in the + incoming square signal is received, following this formula: + M=round(avg(p)). + + The parameter avg(p), the average number of packets in a marking + period, is computed based on all the Q Blocks received since the + beginning of the current Reflection Block. + + The transmission of a Reflection Block is considered complete (and + the signal toggled) when the number of packets transmitted in that + block is at least the latest computed M value. + + To ensure a proper computation of the M value, endpoints implementing + the R bit must identify the boundaries of incoming Q Blocks. The + same approach described in Section 3.2.3 should be used. + + By looking at the R bit, unidirectional observation points have an + indication of loss experienced by the entire unobserved channel plus + the loss on the path from the sender to them. + + Since the Q Block is sent in one direction, and the corresponding + reflected R Block is sent in the opposite direction, the reflected R + signal is transmitted with the packet rate of the slowest direction. + Namely, if the observed direction is the slowest, there can be + multiple Q Blocks transmitted in the unobserved direction before a + complete Reflection Block is transmitted in the observed direction. + If the unobserved direction is the slowest, the observed direction + can be sending R Blocks of the same size repeatedly before it can + update the signal to account for a newly completed Q Block. + +3.4.1. Enhancement of Reflection Block Length Computation + + The use of the rounding function used in the M computation introduces + errors that can be minimized by storing the rounding applied each + time M is computed and using it during the computation of the M value + in the following Reflection Block. + + This can be achieved by introducing the new r_avg parameter in the + computation of M. The new formula is Mr=avg(p)+r_avg; M=round(Mr); + r_avg=Mr-M where the initial value of r_avg is equal to 0. + +3.4.2. Improved Resilience to Packet Reordering + + When a protocol implementing the marking mechanism is able to detect + when packets are received out of order, it can improve resilience to + packet reordering beyond what is possible by using methods described + in Section 3.2.3. + + This can be achieved by updating the size of the current Reflection + Block while it is being transmitted. The Reflection Block size is + then updated every time an incoming reordered packet of the previous + Q Block is detected. This can be done if and only if the + transmission of the current Reflection Block is in progress and no + packets of the following Q Block have been received. + +3.4.2.1. Improved Resilience to Burst Losses + + Burst losses can affect the accuracy of R measurements similar to how + they affect accuracy of Q measurements. Therefore, recommendations + in Section 3.2.3.1 apply equally to improving burst loss resilience + for R measurements. + +3.4.3. R+Q Bits -- Loss Measurement Using R and Q Bits + + Since both sQuare and Reflection square bits are toggled at most + every N packets (except for the first transition of the R bit as + explained before), an on-path observer can count the number of + packets of each marking block and, knowing the value of N, can + estimate the amount of loss experienced by the connection. An + observer can calculate different measurements depending on whether it + is able to observe a single direction of the traffic or both + directions. + + Single directional observer: + upstream loss in the observed direction: the loss between the + sender and the observation point (see Section 3.2.2) + + "three-quarters" connection loss: the loss between the receiver + and the sender in the unobserved direction plus the loss + between the sender and the observation point in the observed + direction + + end-to-end loss in the unobserved direction: the loss between the + receiver and the sender in the opposite direction + + Two directions observer (same metrics seen previously applied to + both direction, plus): + client-observer half round-trip loss: the loss between the client + and the observation point in both directions + + observer-server half round-trip loss: the loss between the + observation point and the server in both directions + + downstream loss: the loss between the observation point and the + receiver (applicable to both directions) + +3.4.3.1. Three-Quarters Connection Loss + + Except for the very first block in which there is nothing to reflect + (a complete Q Block has not been yet received), packets are + continuously R-bit marked into alternate blocks of size lower or + equal than N. By knowing the value of N, an on-path observer can + estimate the amount of loss that has occurred in the whole opposite + channel plus the loss from the sender up to it in the observation + channel. As for the previous metric, the three-quarters connection + loss rate (tqloss) is one minus the average number of packets in a + block of packets with the same R value (t) divided by N + (tqloss=1-avg(t)/N). + + =======================> + = ********** -----Obs----> ********** + = * Client * * Server * + = ********** <------------ ********** + <============================================ + + (a) in client-server channel (tqloss_up) + + ============================================> + ********** ------------> ********** = + * Client * * Server * = + ********** <----Obs----- ********** = + <======================= + + (b) in server-client channel (tqloss_down) + + Figure 10: Three-Quarters Connection Loss + + The following metrics derive from this last metric and the upstream + loss produced by the Q bit. + +3.4.3.2. End-To-End Loss in the Opposite Direction + + End-to-end loss in the unobserved direction (eloss_unobserved) + relates to the "three-quarters" connection loss (tqloss) and upstream + loss in the observed direction (uloss) as + (1-eloss_unobserved)(1-uloss)=1-tqloss. Hence, + eloss_unobserved=(tqloss-uloss)/(1-uloss). + + ********** -----Obs----> ********** + * Client * * Server * + ********** <------------ ********** + <========================================== + + (a) in client-server channel (eloss_down) + + ==========================================> + ********** ------------> ********** + * Client * * Server * + ********** <----Obs----- ********** + + (b) in server-client channel (eloss_up) + + Figure 11: End-To-End Loss in the Opposite Direction + +3.4.3.3. Half Round-Trip Loss + + If the observer is able to observe both directions of traffic, it is + able to calculate two "half round-trip" loss measurements -- loss + from the observer to the receiver (in a given direction) and then + back to the observer in the opposite direction. For both directions, + "half round-trip" loss (hrtloss) relates to "three-quarters" + connection loss (tqloss_opposite) measured in the opposite direction + and the upstream loss (uloss) measured in the given direction as + (1-uloss)(1-hrtloss)=1-tqloss_opposite. Hence, + hrtloss=(tqloss_opposite-uloss)/(1-uloss). + + =======================> + = ********** ------|-----> ********** + = * Client * Obs * Server * + = ********** <-----|------ ********** + <======================= + + (a) client-observer half round-trip loss (hrtloss_co) + + =======================> + ********** ------|-----> ********** = + * Client * Obs * Server * = + ********** <-----|------ ********** = + <======================= + + (b) observer-server half round-trip loss (hrtloss_os) + + Figure 12: Half Round-Trip Loss (Both Directions) + +3.4.3.4. Downstream Loss + + If the observer is able to observe both directions of traffic, it is + able to calculate two downstream loss measurements using either end- + to-end loss and upstream loss, similar to the calculation in + Section 3.3.2.2, or "half round-trip" loss and upstream loss in the + opposite direction. + + For the latter, dloss=(hrtloss-uloss_opposite)/(1-uloss_opposite). + + =====================> + ********** ------|-----> ********** + * Client * Obs * Server * + ********** <-----|------ ********** + + (a) in client-server channel (dloss_up) + + ********** ------|-----> ********** + * Client * Obs * Server * + ********** <-----|------ ********** + <===================== + + (b) in server-client channel (dloss_down) + + Figure 13: Downstream Loss + +3.5. E Bit -- ECN-Echo Event Bit + + While the primary focus of this document is on exposing packet loss + and delay, modern networks can report congestion before they are + forced to drop packets, as described in [ECN]. When transport + protocols keep ECN-Echo feedback under encryption, this signal cannot + be observed by the network operators. When tasked with diagnosing + network performance problems, knowledge of a congestion downstream of + an observation point can be instrumental. + + If downstream congestion information is desired, this information can + be signaled with an additional bit. + + E: The "ECN-Echo Event" bit is set to 0 or 1 according to the + Unreported ECN-Echo counter, as explained below in Section 3.5.1. + +3.5.1. Setting the ECN-Echo Event Bit on Outgoing Packets + + The Unreported ECN-Echo counter operates identically to Unreported + Loss counter (Section 3.3), except it counts packets delivered by the + network with Congestion Experienced (CE) markings, according to the + ECN-Echo feedback from the receiver. + + This ECN-Echo signaling is similar to ECN signaling in [ConEx]. The + ECN-Echo mechanism in QUIC provides the number of packets received + with CE marks. For protocols like TCP, the method described in + [ConEx-TCP] can be employed. As stated in [ConEx-TCP], such feedback + can be further improved using a method described in [ACCURATE-ECN]. + +3.5.2. Using E Bit for Passive ECN-Reported Congestion Measurement + + A network observer can count packets with the CE codepoint and + determine the upstream CE-marking rate directly. + + Observation points can also estimate ECN-reported end-to-end + congestion by counting packets in this direction with an E bit equal + to 1. + + The upstream CE-marking rate and end-to-end ECN-reported congestion + can provide information about the downstream CE-marking rate. The + presence of E bits along with L bits, however, can somewhat confound + precise estimates of upstream and downstream CE markings if the flow + contains packets that are not ECN capable. + +3.5.3. Multiple E Bits + + Some protocols, such as QUIC, support separate ECN-Echo counters. + For example, Section 13.4.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT] describes separate + counters for ECT(0), ECT(1), and ECN-CE. To better support such + protocols, multiple E bits can be used, one per a corresponding ECN- + Echo counter. + +4. Summary of Delay and Loss Marking Methods + + This section summarizes the marking methods described in this + document, which proposes a toolkit of techniques that can be used + separately, partly, or all together depending on the need. + + For the delay measurement, it is possible to use the Spin bit and/or + the Delay bit. A unidirectional or bidirectional observer can be + used. + + +===============+======+=====================+=============+========+ + | Method | # of | Available Delay | Impairments | # of | + | | bits | Metrics | Resiliency | meas. | + | | +==========+==========+ | | + | | | UniDir | BiDir | | | + | | | Observer | Observer | | | + +===============+======+==========+==========+=============+========+ + | S: Spin Bit | 1 | RTT | x2, Half | low | very | + | | | | RTT | | high | + +---------------+------+----------+----------+-------------+--------+ + | D: Delay | 1 | RTT | x2, Half | high | medium | + | Bit | | | RTT | | | + +---------------+------+----------+----------+-------------+--------+ + | SD: Spin | 2 | RTT | x2, Half | high | very | + | Bit & Delay | | | RTT | | high | + | Bit * | | | | | | + +---------------+------+----------+----------+-------------+--------+ + + Table 1: Delay Comparison + + x2 Same metric for both directions + + * Both bits work independently; an observer could use less + accurate Spin bit measurements when Delay bit ones are + unavailable. + + For the Loss measurement, each row in Table 2 represents a loss- + marking method. For each method, the table specifies the number of + bits required in the header, the available metrics using a + unidirectional or bidirectional observer, applicable protocols, + measurement fidelity, and delay. + + +============+====+==========================+====+=================+ + | Method |Bits| Available Loss Metrics |Prto| Measurement | + | | | | | Aspects | + | | +============+=============+ +==========+======+ + | | | UniDir | BiDir | | Fidelity |Delay | + | | | Observer | Observer | | | | + +============+====+============+=============+====+==========+======+ + | T: Round- | $1 | RT | x2, Half RT | * |Rate by |~6 RTT| + | Trip Loss | | | | |sampling | | + | Bit | | | | |1/3 to | | + | | | | | |1/(3*ppa) | | + | | | | | |of pkts | | + | | | | | |over 2 | | + | | | | | |RTT | | + +------------+----+------------+-------------+----+----------+------+ + | Q: sQuare | 1 | Upstream | x2 | * |Rate over |N pkts| + | Bit | | | | |N pkts |(e.g.,| + | | | | | |(e.g., |64) | + | | | | | |64) | | + +------------+----+------------+-------------+----+----------+------+ + | L: Loss | 1 | E2E | x2 | # |Loss |Min: | + | Event Bit | | | | |shape |RTT, | + | | | | | |(and |Max: | + | | | | | |rate) |RTO | + +------------+----+------------+-------------+----+----------+------+ + | QL: sQuare | 2 | Upstream | x2 | # |see Q |see Q | + | + Loss Ev. | +------------+-------------+----+----------+------+ + | Bits | | Downstream | x2 | # |see Q|L |see L | + | | +------------+-------------+----+----------+------+ + | | | E2E | x2 | # |see L |see L | + +------------+----+------------+-------------+----+----------+------+ + | QR: sQuare | 2 | Upstream | x2 | * |Rate over |see Q | + | + Ref. Sq. | +------------+-------------+----+N*ppa +------+ + | Bits | | 3/4 RT | x2 | * |pkts (see |N*ppa | + | | +------------+-------------+----+Q bit for |pkts | + | | | !E2E | E2E, | * |N) |(see Q| + | | | | Downstream, | | |bit | + | | | | Half RT | | |for N)| + +------------+----+------------+-------------+----+----------+------+ + + Table 2: Loss Comparison + + * All protocols + + # Protocols employing loss detection (with or without pure ACK + loss detection) + + $ Require a working Spin bit + + ! Metric relative to the opposite channel + + x2 Same metric for both directions + + ppa Packets-Per-Ack + + Q|L See Q if Upstream loss is significant; L otherwise + + E2E End to end + +4.1. Implementation Considerations + + By combining the information of the two tables above, it can be + deduced that the solutions with 3 bits (i.e., QL or QR + S or D) or 4 + bits (i.e., QL or QR + SD) allow having more complete and resilient + measurements. + + The methodologies described in the previous sections are transport + agnostic and can be applied in various situations. The choice of the + methods also depends on the specific protocol. For example, QL is a + good combination; however, if a protocol does not support, or cannot + set, the L bit, QR is the only viable solution. + +5. Examples of Application + + This document describes several measurement methods, but it is not + expected that all methods will be implemented together. For example, + only some of the methods described in this document (i.e., sQuare bit + and Spin bit) are utilized in [CORE-COAP-PM]. Also, the binding of a + delay signal to QUIC is partially described in Section 17.4 of + [QUIC-TRANSPORT], which adds only the Spin bit to the first byte of + the short packet header, leaving two reserved bits for future use + (see Section 17.2.2 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]). + + All signals discussed in this document have been implemented in + successful experiments for both QUIC and TCP. The application + scenarios considered allow the monitoring of the interconnections + inside a data center (Intra-DC), between data centers (Inter-DC), as + well as end-to-end large-scale data transfers. For the application + of the methods described in this document, it is assumed that the + monitored flows follow stable paths and traverse the same measurement + points. + + The specific implementation details and the choice of the bits used + for the experiments with QUIC and TCP are out of scope for this + document. A specification defining the specific protocol application + is expected to discuss the implementation details depending on which + bits will be implemented in the protocol, e.g., [CORE-COAP-PM]. If + bits used for specific measurements can also be used for other + purposes by a protocol, the specification is expected to address ways + for on-path observers to disambiguate the signals or to discuss + limitations on the conditions under which the observers can expect a + valid signal. + +6. Protocol Ossification Considerations + + Accurate loss and delay information is not required for the operation + of any protocol, though its presence for a sufficient number of flows + is important for the operation of networks. + + The delay and loss bits are amenable to "greasing" described in + [RFC8701] if the protocol designers are not ready to dedicate (and + ossify) bits used for loss reporting to this function. The greasing + could be accomplished similarly to the latency Spin bit greasing in + Section 17.4 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. For example, the protocol + designers could decide that a fraction of flows should not encode + loss and delay information, and instead, the bits would be set to + arbitrary values. Setting any of the bits described in this document + to arbitrary values would make the corresponding delay and loss + information resemble noise rather than the expected signal for the + flow, and the observers would need to be ready to ignore such flows. + +7. Security Considerations + + The methods described in this document are transport agnostic and + potentially applicable to any transport-layer protocol, and + especially valuable for encrypted protocols. These methods can be + applied to both limited domains and the Internet, depending on the + specific protocol application. + + Passive loss and delay observations have been a part of the network + operations for a long time, so exposing loss and delay information to + the network does not add new security concerns for protocols that are + currently observable. + + In the absence of packet loss, Q and R bits signals do not provide + any information that cannot be observed by simply counting packets + transiting a network path. In the presence of packet loss, Q and R + bits will disclose the loss, but this is information about the + environment and not the endpoint state. The L bit signal discloses + internal state of the protocol's loss-detection machinery, but this + state can often be gleaned by timing packets and observing the + congestion controller response. + + The measurements described in this document do not imply that new + packets injected into the network can cause potential harm to the + network itself and to data traffic. The measurements could be harmed + by an attacker altering the marking of the packets or injecting + artificial traffic. Authentication techniques may be used where + appropriate to guard against these traffic attacks. + + Hence, loss bits do not provide a viable new mechanism to attack data + integrity and secrecy. + + The measurement fields introduced in this document are intended to be + included in the packets. However, it is worth mentioning that it may + be possible to use this information as a covert channel. + + This document does not define a specific application, and the + described techniques can generally apply to different communication + protocols operating in different security environments. A + specification defining a specific protocol application is expected to + address the respective security considerations and must consider + specifics of the protocol and its expected operating environment. + For example, security considerations for QUIC, discussed in + Section 21 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT] and Section 9 of [QUIC-TLS], consider + a possibility of active and passive attackers in the network as well + as attacks on specific QUIC mechanisms. + +7.1. Optimistic ACK Attack + + A defense against an optimistic ACK attack, described in Section 21.4 + of [QUIC-TRANSPORT], involves a sender randomly skipping packet + numbers to detect a receiver acknowledging packet numbers that have + never been received. The Q bit signal may inform the attacker which + packet numbers were skipped on purpose and which had been actually + lost (and are, therefore, safe for the attacker to acknowledge). To + use the Q bit for this purpose, the attacker must first receive at + least an entire Q Block of packets, which renders the attack + ineffective against a delay-sensitive congestion controller. + + A protocol that is more susceptible to an optimistic ACK attack with + the loss signal provided by the Q bit and that uses a loss-based + congestion controller should shorten the current Q Block by the + number of skipped packets numbers. For example, skipping a single + packet number will invert the square signal one outgoing packet + sooner. + + Similar considerations apply to the R bit, although a shortened + Reflection Block along with a matching skip in packet numbers does + not necessarily imply a lost packet, since it could be due to a lost + packet on the reverse path along with a deliberately skipped packet + by the sender. + +7.2. Delay Bit with RTT Obfuscation + + Theoretically, delay measurements can be used to roughly evaluate the + distance of the client from the server (using the RTT) or from any + intermediate observer (using the client-observer half-RTT). As + described in [RTT-PRIVACY], connection RTT measurements for + geolocating endpoints are usually inferior to even the most basic IP + geolocation databases. It is the variability within RTT measurements + (the jitter) that is most informative, as it can provide insight into + the operating environment of the endpoints as well as the state of + the networks (queuing delays) used by the connection. + + Nevertheless, to further mask the actual RTT of the connection, the + Delay bit algorithm can be slightly modified by, for example, + delaying the client-side reflection of the delay sample by a fixed, + randomly chosen time value. This would lead an intermediate observer + to measure a delay greater than the real one. + + This Additional Delay should be randomly selected by the client and + kept constant for a certain amount of time across multiple + connections. This ensures that the client-server jitter remains the + same as if no Additional Delay had been inserted. For example, a new + Additional Delay value could be generated whenever the client's IP + address changes. + + Despite the Additional Delay, this Hidden Delay technique still + allows an accurate measurement of the RTT components (observer- + server) and all the intra-domain measurements used to distribute the + delay in the network. Furthermore, unlike the Delay bit, the Hidden + Delay bit does not require the use of the client reflection threshold + (1 ms by default). Removing this threshold may lead to increasing + the number of valid measurements produced by the algorithm. + + Note that the Hidden Delay bit does not affect an observer's ability + to measure accurate RTT using other means, such as timing packets + exchanged during the connection establishment. + +8. Privacy Considerations + + To minimize unintentional exposure of information, loss bits provide + an explicit loss signal -- a preferred way to share information per + [RFC8558]. + + New protocols commonly have specific privacy goals, and loss + reporting must ensure that loss information does not compromise those + privacy goals. For example, [QUIC-TRANSPORT] allows changing + Connection IDs in the middle of a connection to reduce the likelihood + of a passive observer linking old and new sub-flows to the same + device (see Section 5.1 of [QUIC-TRANSPORT]). A QUIC implementation + would need to reset all counters when it changes the destination (IP + address or UDP port) or the Connection ID used for outgoing packets. + It would also need to avoid incrementing the Unreported Loss counter + for loss of packets sent to a different destination or with a + different Connection ID. + + It is also worth highlighting that, if these techniques are not + widely deployed, an endpoint that uses them may be fingerprinted + based on their usage. However, since there is no release of user + data, the techniques seem unlikely to substantially increase the + existing privacy risks. + + Furthermore, if there is experimental traffic with these bits set on + the network, a network operator could potentially prioritize this + marked traffic by placing it in a priority queue. This may result in + the delivery of better service, which could potentially mislead an + experiment intended to benchmark the network. + +9. IANA Considerations + + This document has no IANA actions. + +10. References + +10.1. Normative References + + [ECN] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition + of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", + RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. + + [IPPM-METHODS] + Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with + Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, + May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>. + + [QUIC-TRANSPORT] + Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based + Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>. + + [RFC8558] Hardie, T., Ed., "Transport Protocol Path Signals", + RFC 8558, DOI 10.17487/RFC8558, April 2019, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8558>. + + [TCP] Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", + STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293>. + +10.2. Informative References + + [ACCURATE-ECN] + Briscoe, B., Kühlewind, M., and R. Scheffenegger, "More + Accurate Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Feedback + in TCP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- + tcpm-accurate-ecn-26, 24 July 2023, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm- + accurate-ecn-26>. + + [AltMark] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T., + and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>. + + [ANRW19-PM-QUIC] + Bulgarella, F., Cociglio, M., Fioccola, G., Marchetto, G., + and R. Sisto, "Performance measurements of QUIC + communications", Proceedings of the Applied Networking + Research Workshop (ANRW '19), Association for Computing + Machinery, DOI 10.1145/3340301.3341127, July 2019, + <https://doi.org/10.1145/3340301.3341127>. + + [ConEx] Mathis, M. and B. Briscoe, "Congestion Exposure (ConEx) + Concepts, Abstract Mechanism, and Requirements", RFC 7713, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7713, December 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7713>. + + [ConEx-TCP] + Kuehlewind, M., Ed. and R. Scheffenegger, "TCP + Modifications for Congestion Exposure (ConEx)", RFC 7786, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7786, May 2016, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7786>. + + [CORE-COAP-PM] + Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Nilo, M., Milan, F., and F. + Bulgarella, "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) + Performance Measurement Option", Work in Progress, + Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-coap-pm-01, 19 October + 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- + core-coap-pm-01>. + + [IPPM-SPIN] + Trammell, B., Ed., "An Explicit Transport-Layer Signal for + Hybrid RTT Measurement", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, + draft-trammell-ippm-spin-00, 9 January 2019, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-trammell- + ippm-spin-00>. + + [IPv6AltMark] + Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R. + Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate-Marking Method", + RFC 9343, DOI 10.17487/RFC9343, December 2022, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9343>. + + [QUIC-MANAGEABILITY] + Kühlewind, M. and B. Trammell, "Manageability of the QUIC + Transport Protocol", RFC 9312, DOI 10.17487/RFC9312, + September 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9312>. + + [QUIC-SPIN] + Trammell, B., Ed., De Vaere, P., Even, R., Fioccola, G., + Fossati, T., Ihlar, M., Morton, A., and S. Emile, "Adding + Explicit Passive Measurability of Two-Way Latency to the + QUIC Transport Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet- + Draft, draft-trammell-quic-spin-03, 14 May 2018, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-trammell- + quic-spin-03>. + + [QUIC-TLS] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure + QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>. + + [RFC8701] Benjamin, D., "Applying Generate Random Extensions And + Sustain Extensibility (GREASE) to TLS Extensibility", + RFC 8701, DOI 10.17487/RFC8701, January 2020, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8701>. + + [RTT-PRIVACY] + Trammell, B. and M. Kühlewind, "Revisiting the Privacy + Implications of Two-Way Internet Latency Data", Passive + and Active Measurement, pp. 73-84, Springer International + Publishing, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-76481-8_6, + ISBN 9783319764801, March 2018, + <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76481-8_6>. + + [TRANSPORT-ENCRYPT] + Fairhurst, G. and C. Perkins, "Considerations around + Transport Header Confidentiality, Network Operations, and + the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols", RFC 9065, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9065, July 2021, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9065>. + + [TSVWG-SPIN] + Trammell, B., Ed., "A Transport-Independent Explicit + Signal for Hybrid RTT Measurement", Work in Progress, + Internet-Draft, draft-trammell-tsvwg-spin-00, 2 July 2018, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-trammell- + tsvwg-spin-00>. + + [UDP-OPTIONS] + Touch, J., "Transport Options for UDP", Work in Progress, + Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-23, 15 + September 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ + draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-23>. + + [UDP-SURPLUS] + Herbert, T., "UDP Surplus Header", Work in Progress, + Internet-Draft, draft-herbert-udp-space-hdr-01, 8 July + 2019, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- + herbert-udp-space-hdr-01>. + +Acknowledgments + + The authors would like to thank the QUIC WG for their contributions, + Christian Huitema for implementing Q and L bits in his picoquic + stack, and Ike Kunze for providing constructive reviews and helpful + suggestions. + +Contributors + + The following people provided valuable contributions to this + document: + + Marcus Ihlar + Ericsson + Email: marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com + + + Jari Arkko + Ericsson + Email: jari.arkko@ericsson.com + + + Emile Stephan + Orange + Email: emile.stephan@orange.com + + + Dmitri Tikhonov + LiteSpeed Technologies + Email: dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com + + +Authors' Addresses + + Mauro Cociglio + Telecom Italia - TIM + Via Reiss Romoli, 274 + 10148 Torino + Italy + Email: mauro.cociglio@outlook.com + + + Alexandre Ferrieux + Orange Labs + Email: alexandre.ferrieux@orange.com + + + Giuseppe Fioccola + Huawei Technologies + Riesstrasse, 25 + 80992 Munich + Germany + Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com + + + Igor Lubashev + Akamai Technologies + Email: ilubashe@akamai.com + + + Fabio Bulgarella + Telecom Italia - TIM + Via Reiss Romoli, 274 + 10148 Torino + Italy + Email: fabio.bulgarella@guest.telecomitalia.it + + + Massimo Nilo + Telecom Italia - TIM + Via Reiss Romoli, 274 + 10148 Torino + Italy + Email: massimo.nilo@telecomitalia.it + + + Isabelle Hamchaoui + Orange Labs + Email: isabelle.hamchaoui@orange.com + + + Riccardo Sisto + Politecnico di Torino + Email: riccardo.sisto@polito.it |