From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc3357.txt | 843 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 843 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc3357.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3357.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3357.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3357.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c1d2f2b --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3357.txt @@ -0,0 +1,843 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group R. Koodli +Request for Comments: 3357 Nokia Research Center +Category: Informational R. Ravikanth + Axiowave + August 2002 + + + One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics + +Status of this Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + Using the base loss metric defined in RFC 2680, this document defines + two derived metrics "loss distance" and "loss period", and the + associated statistics that together capture loss patterns experienced + by packet streams on the Internet. The Internet exhibits certain + specific types of behavior (e.g., bursty packet loss) that can affect + the performance seen by the users as well as the operators. The loss + pattern or loss distribution is a key parameter that determines the + performance observed by the users for certain real-time applications + such as packet voice and video. For the same loss rate, two + different loss distributions could potentially produce widely + different perceptions of performance. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction 3 + 2. Terminology 3 + 3. The Approach 3 + 4. Basic Definitions 4 + 5. Definitions for Samples of One-way Loss Distance, and One-way + Loss Period 5 + 5.1. Metric Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 5.1.1. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream . . . . . . . 5 + 5.1.2. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream . . . . . . . . 5 + 5.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 5.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 5.3.1. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream . . . . . . . 5 + 5.3.2. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream . . . . . . . . 5 + 5.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5.4.1. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream . . . . . . . 6 + 5.4.2. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream . . . . . . . . 6 + 5.4.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5.5. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 5.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.7. Sampling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.8. Errors and Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 6. Statistics 9 + 6.1. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Noticeable-Rate . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 6.2. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 6.3. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6.4. Type-P-One-Way-Inter-Loss-Period-Lengths . . . . . . . . 10 + 6.5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 7. Security Considerations 11 + 7.1. Denial of Service Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.2. Privacy / Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7.3. Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 8. IANA Considerations 12 + 9. Acknowledgements 12 + 10. Normative References 12 + 11. Informative References 13 + Authors' Addresses 14 + Full Copyright Statement 15 + + + + + + + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + +1. Introduction + + In certain real-time applications (such as packet voice and video), + the loss pattern or loss distribution is a key parameter that + determines the performance observed by the users. For the same loss + rate, two different loss distributions could potentially produce + widely different perceptions of performance. The impact of loss + pattern is also extremely important for non-real-time applications + that use an adaptive protocol such as TCP. Refer to [4], [5], [6], + [11] for evidence as to the importance and existence of loss + burstiness and its effect on packet voice and video applications. + + Previously, the focus of the IPPM had been on specifying base metrics + such as delay, loss and connectivity under the framework described in + RFC 2330. However, specific Internet behaviors can also be captured + under the umbrella of the IPPM framework, specifying new concepts + while reusing existing guidelines as much as possible. In this + document, we propose two derived metrics, called "loss distance" and + "loss period", with associated statistics, to capture packet loss + patterns. The loss period metric captures the frequency and length + (burstiness) of loss once it starts, and the loss distance metric + captures the spacing between the loss periods. It is important to + note that these metrics are derived based on the base metric Type-P- + One-Way-packet-Loss. + +2. Terminology + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", "OPTIONAL", and + "silently ignore" in this document are to be interpreted as described + in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [2]. + +3. The Approach + + This document closely follows the guidelines specified in [3]. + Specifically, the concepts of singleton, sample, statistic, + measurement principles, Type-P packets, as well as standard-formed + packets all apply. However, since the document proposes to capture + specific Internet behaviors, modifications to the sampling process + MAY be needed. Indeed, this is mentioned in [1], where it is noted + that alternate sampling procedures may be useful depending on + specific circumstances. This document proposes that the specific + behaviors be captured as "derived" metrics from the base metrics the + behaviors are related to. The reasons for adopting this position are + the following: + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + + - it provides consistent usage of singleton metric definition for + different behaviors (e.g., a single definition of packet loss is + needed for capturing burst of losses, 'm out of n' losses etc.) + + - it allows re-use of the methodologies specified for the singleton + metric with modifications whenever necessary + + - it clearly separates few base metrics from many Internet behaviors + + Following the guidelines in [3], this translates to deriving sample + metrics from the respective singletons. The process of deriving + sample metrics from the singletons is specified in [3], [1], and + others. + + In the following sections, we apply this approach to a particular + Internet behavior, namely the packet loss process. + +4. Basic Definitions + + Sequence number: Consecutive packets in a time series sample are + given sequence numbers that are consecutive + integers. This document does not specify exactly + how to associate sequence numbers with packets. The + sequence numbers could be contained within test + packets themselves, or they could be derived through + post-processing of the sample. + + Bursty loss: The loss involving consecutive packets of a stream. + + Loss Distance: The difference in sequence numbers of two successively + lost packets which may or may not be separated by + successfully received packets. + + Example: In a packet stream, the packet with sequence number 20 is + considered lost, followed by the packet with sequence number + 50. The loss distance is 30. + + Loss period: Let P_i be the i'th packet. Define f(P_i) = 1 if P_i is + lost, 0 otherwise. Then, a loss period begins if + f(P_i) = 1 and f(P_(i-1)) = 0 + + Example: Consider the following sequence of lost (denoted by x) and + received (denoted by r) packets. + + r r r x r r x x x r x r r x x x + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + + Then, with `i' assigned as follows, + 1 1 1 1 1 1 + i: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 + + f(P_i) is, + + f(P_i): 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 + + and there are four loss periods in the above sequence beginning at + P_3, P_6, P_10, and P_13. + +5. Definitions for Samples of One-way Loss Distance, and One-way Loss + Period + +5.1. Metric Names + +5.1.1. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream + +5.1.2. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream + +5.2. Metric Parameters + + Src, the IP address of a host + + Dst, the IP address of a host + + T0, a time + + Tf, a time + + lambda, a rate of any sampling method chosen in reciprocal of + seconds + +5.3. Metric Units + +5.3.1. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream + + A sequence of pairs of the form , where loss is + derived from the sequence of in [1], and loss distance + is either zero or a positive integer. + +5.3.2. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream + + A sequence of pairs of the form , where loss is + derived from the sequence of in [1], and loss period is + an integer. + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + +5.4. Definitions + +5.4.1. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream + + When a packet is considered lost (using the definition in [1]), we + look at its sequence number and compare it with that of the + previously lost packet. The difference is the loss distance between + the lost packet and the previously lost packet. The sample would + consist of pairs. This definition assumes that + sequence numbers of successive test packets increase monotonically by + one. The loss distance associated with the very first packet loss is + considered to be zero. + + The sequence number of a test packet can be derived from the + timeseries sample collected by performing the loss measurement + according to the methodology in [1]. For example, if a loss sample + consists of , , , , , the sequence + numbers of the five test packets sent at T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4 can + be 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, or 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 + respectively, etc. + +5.4.2. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream + + We start a counter 'n' at an initial value of zero. This counter is + incremented by one each time a lost packet satisfies the definition + outlined in 4. The metric is defined as where + "loss" is derived from the sequence of in Type-P-One- + Way-Loss-Stream [1], and loss period is set to zero when "loss" is + zero in Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Stream, and loss period is set to 'n' + (above) when "loss" is one in Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Stream. + + Essentially, when a packet is lost, the current value of "n" + indicates the loss period to which this packet belongs. For a packet + that is received successfully, the loss period is defined to be zero. + +5.4.3. Examples + + Let the following set of pairs represent a Type-P-One-Way-Loss- + Stream. + + {,,,,,,,, + ,} + + where T1, T2,..,T10 are in increasing order. + + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + + Packets sent at T2, T5, T7, T9, T10 are lost. The two derived + metrics can be obtained from this sample as follows. + + (i) Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream: + + Since packet 2 is the first lost packet, the associated loss distance + is zero. For the next lost packet (packet 5), loss distance is 5-2 + or 3. Similarly, for the remaining lost packets (packets 7, 9, and + 10) their loss distances are 2, 2, and 1 respectively. Therefore, + the Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream is: + + {<0,0>,<0,1>,<0,0>,<0,0>,<3,1>,<0,0>,<2,1>,<0,0>,<2,1>,<1,1>} + + (ii) The Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream: + + The packet 2 sets the counter 'n' to 1, which is incremented by one + for packets 5, 7 and 9 according to the definition in 4. However, + for packet 10, the counter remains at 4, again satisfying the + definition in 4. Thus, the Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream is: + + {<0,0>,<1,1>,<0,0>,<0,0>,<2,1>,<0,0>,<3,1>,<0,0>,<4,1>,<4,1>} + +5.5. Methodologies + + The same methodology outlined in [1] can be used to conduct the + sample experiments. A synopsis is listed below. + + Generally, for a given Type-P, one possible methodology would proceed + as follows: + + - Assume that Src and Dst have clocks that are synchronized with + each other. The degree of synchronization is a parameter of the + methodology, and depends on the threshold used to determine loss + (see below). + + - At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test + packet of Type-P with these addresses. + + - At the Dst host, arrange to receive the packet. + + - At the Src host, place a timestamp in the prepared Type-P packet, + and send it towards Dst. + + - If the packet arrives within a reasonable period of time, the + one-way packet-loss is taken to be zero. + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + + - If the packet fails to arrive within a reasonable period of time, + the one-way packet-loss is taken to be one. Note that the + threshold of "reasonable" here is a parameter of the methodology. + +5.6. Discussion + + The Loss-Distance-Stream metric allows one to study the separation + between packet losses. This could be useful in determining a "spread + factor" associated with the packet loss rate. In conjunction, the + Loss-Period-Stream metric allows the study of loss burstiness for + each occurrence of loss. A single loss period of length 'n' can + account for a significant portion of the overall loss rate. Note + that it is possible to measure distance between loss bursts separated + by one or more successfully received packets. (Refer to Sections 6.4 + and 6.5). + +5.7. Sampling Considerations + + The proposed metrics can be used independent of the particular + sampling method used. We note that Poisson sampling may not yield + appropriate values for these metrics for certain real-time + applications such as voice over IP, as well as to TCP-based + applications. For real-time applications, it may be more appropriate + to use the ON-OFF [10] model, in which an ON period starts with a + certain probability 'p', during which a certain number of packets are + transmitted with mean 'lambda-on' according to geometric distribution + and an OFF period starts with probability '1-p' and lasts for a + period of time based on exponential distribution with rate 'lambda- + off'. + + For TCP-based applications, one may use the model proposed in [8]. + See [9] for an application of the model. + +5.8. Errors and Uncertainties + + The measurement aspects, including the packet size, loss threshold, + type of the test machine chosen etc, invariably influence the packet + loss metric itself and hence the derived metrics described in this + document. Thus, when making an assessment of the results pertaining + to the metrics outlined in this document, attention must be paid to + these matters. See [1] for a detailed consideration of errors and + uncertainties regarding the measurement of base packet loss metric. + + + + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + +6. Statistics + +6.1. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Noticeable-Rate + + Define loss of a packet to be "noticeable" [7] if the distance + between the lost packet and the previously lost packet is no greater + than delta, a positive integer, where delta is the "loss constraint". + + Example: Let delta = 99. Let us assume that packet 50 is lost + followed by a bursty loss of length 3 starting from packet 125. All + the three losses starting from packet 125 are noticeable. + + Given a Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream, this statistic can be + computed simply as the number of losses that violate some constraint + delta, divided by the number of losses. (Alternatively, it can also + be defined as the number of "noticeable losses" to the number of + successfully received packets). This statistic is useful when the + actual distance between successive losses is important. For example, + many multimedia codecs can sustain losses by "concealing" the effect + of loss by making use of past history information. Their ability to + do so degrades with poor history resulting from losses separated by + close distances. By choosing delta based on this sensitivity, one + can measure how "noticeable" a loss might be for quality purposes. + The noticeable loss requires a certain "spread factor" for losses in + the timeseries. In the above example where loss constraint is equal + to 99, a loss rate of one percent with a spread of 100 between losses + (e.g., 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 out of 500 packets) may be more + desirable for some applications compared to the same loss rate with a + spread that violates the loss constraint (e.g., 100, 175, 275, 290, + 400: losses occurring at 175 and 290 violate delta = 99). + +6.2. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Total + + This represents the total number of loss periods, and can be derived + from the loss period metric Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream as + follows: + + Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Total = maximum value of the first entry + of the set of pairs, , representing the loss + metric Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream. + + Note that this statistic does not describe the duration of each loss + period itself. If this statistic is large, it does not mean that the + losses are more spread out than they are otherwise; one or more loss + periods may include bursty losses. This statistic is generally + useful in gathering first order approximation of loss spread. + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + +6.3. Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Lengths + + This statistic is a sequence of pairs , with the + "loss period" entry ranging from 1 - Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period- + Total. Thus the total number of pairs in this statistic equals + Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Total. In each pair, the "length" is + obtained by counting the number of pairs, , in the + metric Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream which have their first entry + equal to "loss period." + + Since this statistic represents the number of packets lost in each + loss period, it is an indicator of burstiness of each loss period. + In conjunction with loss-period-total statistic, this statistic is + generally useful in observing which loss periods are potentially more + influential than others from a quality perspective. + +6.4. Type-P-One-Way-Inter-Loss-Period-Lengths + + This statistic measures distance between successive loss periods. It + takes the form of a set of pairs , with the "loss period" entry ranging from 1 - Type-P-One- + Way-Loss-Period-Total, and "inter-loss-period-length" is the loss + distance between the last packet considered lost in "loss period" + 'i-1', and the first packet considered lost in "loss period" 'i', + where 'i' ranges from 2 to Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Total. The + "inter-loss-period-length" associated with the first "loss period" is + defined to be zero. + + This statistic allows one to consider, for example, two loss periods + each of length greater than one (implying loss burst), but separated + by a distance of 2 to belong to the same loss burst if such a + consideration is deemed useful. When the Inter-Loss-Period-Length + between two bursty loss periods is smaller, it could affect the loss + concealing ability of multimedia codecs since there is relatively + smaller history. When it is larger, an application may be able to + rebuild its history which could dampen the effect of an impending + loss (period). + +6.5. Examples + + We continue with the same example as in Section 5.4.3. The three + statistics defined above will have the following values. + + - Let delta = 2. In Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Distance-Stream + + {<0,0>,<0,1>,<0,0>,<0,0>,<3,1>,<0,0>,<2,1>,<0,0>,<2,1>,<1,1>}, + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + + there are 3 loss distances that violate the delta of 2. Thus, + Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Noticeable-Rate = 3/5 ((number of noticeable + losses)/(number of total losses)) + + - In Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream + + {<0,0>,<1,1>,<0,0>,<0,0>,<2,1>,<0,0>,<3,1>,<0,0>,<4,1>,<4,1>}, + + the largest of the first entry in the sequence of pairs is 4. Thus, + + Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Total = 4 + + - In Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream + + {<0,0>,<1,1>,<0,0>,<0,0>,<2,1>,<0,0>,<3,1>,<0,0>,<4,1>,<4,1>}, + + the lengths of individual loss periods are 1, 1, 1 and 2 + respectively. Thus, + + Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Lengths = + + {<1,1>,<2,1>,<3,1>,<4,2>} + + - In Type-P-One-Way-Loss-Period-Stream + + {<0,0>,<1,1>,<0,0>,<0,0>,<2,1>,<0,0>,<3,1>,<0,0>,<4,1>,<4,1>}, + + the loss periods 1 and 2 are separated by 3 (5-2), loss periods 2 + and 3 are separated by 2 (7-5), and 3 and 4 are separated by 2 + (9-7). Thus, Type-P-One-Way-Inter-Loss-Period-Lengths = + + {<1,0>,<2,3>,<3,2>,<4,2>} + +7. Security Considerations + + Conducting Internet measurements raises both security and privacy + concerns. This document does not specify a particular implementation + of metrics, so it does not directly affect the security of the + Internet nor of applications which run on the Internet. However, + implementations of these metrics must be mindful of security and + privacy concerns. + + The derived sample metrics in this document are based on the loss + metric defined in RFC 2680 [1], and thus they inherit the security + considerations of that document. The reader should consult [1] for a + more detailed treatment of security considerations. Nevertheless, + there are a few things to highlight. + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + +7.1. Denial of Service Attacks + + The lambda specified in the Type-P-Loss-Distance-Stream and Type-P- + Loss-Period-Stream controls the rate at which test packets are sent, + and therefore if it is set inappropriately large, it could perturb + the network under test, cause congestion, or at worst be a denial- + of-service attack to the network under test. Legitimate measurements + must have their parameters selected carefully in order to avoid + interfering with normal traffic in the network. + +7.2. Privacy / Confidentiality + + Privacy of user data is not a concern, since the underlying metric is + intended to be implemented using test packets that contain no user + information. Even if packets contained user information, the derived + metrics do not release data sent by the user. + +7.3. Integrity + + Results could be perturbed by attempting to corrupt or disrupt the + underlying stream, for example adding extra packets that look just + like test packets. To ensure that test packets are valid and have + not been altered during transit, packet authentication and integrity + checks, such as a signed cryptographic hash, MAY be used. + +8. IANA Considerations + + Since this document does not define a specific protocol, nor does it + define any well-known values, there are no IANA considerations for + this document. + +9. Acknowledgements + + Matt Zekauskas provided insightful feedback and the text for the + Security Considerations section. Merike Kao helped revising the + Security Considerations and the Abstract to conform with RFC + guidelines. We thank both of them. Thanks to Guy Almes for + encouraging the work, and Vern Paxson for the comments during the + IETF meetings. Thanks to Steve Glass for making the presentation at + the Oslo meeting. + +10. Normative References + + [1] Almes, G., Kalindindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet + Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999. + + [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement + Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + + [3] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J. and M. Mathis, "Framework for + IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May 1998. + +11. Informative References + + [4] J.-C. Bolot and A. vega Garcia, "The case for FEC-based error + control for Packet Audio in the Internet", ACM Multimedia + Systems, 1997. + + [5] M. S. Borella, D. Swider, S. Uludag, and G. B. Brewster, + "Internet Packet Loss: Measurement and Implications for End- + to-End QoS," Proceedings, International Conference on Parallel + Processing, August 1998. + + [6] M. Handley, "An examination of MBONE performance", Technical + Report, USC/ISI, ISI/RR-97-450, July 1997 + + [7] R. Koodli, "Scheduling Support for Multi-tier Quality of Service + in Continuous Media Applications", PhD dissertation, Electrical + and Computer Engineering Department, University of + Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, September 1997. + + [8] J. Padhye, V. Firoiu, J. Kurose and D. Towsley, "Modeling TCP + throughput: a simple model and its empirical validation", in + Proceedings of SIGCOMM'98, 1998. + + [9] J. Padhye, J. Kurose, D. Towsley and R. Koodli, "A TCP-friendly + rate adjustment protocol for continuous media flows over best- + effort networks", short paper presentation in ACM SIGMETRICS'99. + Available as Umass Computer Science tech report from + ftp://gaia.cs.umass.edu/pub/Padhye98-tcp-friendly-TR.ps.gz + + [10] K. Sriram and W. Whitt, "Characterizing superposition arrival + processes in packet multiplexers for voice and data", IEEE + Journal on Selected Areas of Communication, pages 833-846, + September 1986, + + [11] M. Yajnik, J. Kurose and D. Towsley, "Packet loss correlation in + the MBONE multicast network", Proceedings of IEEE Global + Internet, London, UK, November 1996. + + + + + + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Rajeev Koodli + Communications Systems Lab + Nokia Research Center + 313 Fairchild Drive + Mountain View, CA 94043 + USA + + Phone: +1-650 625-2359 + Fax: +1 650 625-2502 + EMail: rajeev.koodli@nokia.com + + + Rayadurgam Ravikanth + Axiowave Networks Inc. + 200 Nickerson Road + Marlborough, MA 01752 + USA + + EMail: rravikanth@axiowave.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 3357 One-way Loss Pattern Sample Metrics August 2002 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. + + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published + and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. + + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Koodli & Ravikanth Informational [Page 15] + -- cgit v1.2.3