One document matched: draft-deng-lmap-collaboration-00.txt
LMAP Working Group L. Deng
INTERNET-DRAFT China Mobile
Intended Status: Informational R. Huang
Expires: December 29, 2014 Huawei
S. Duan
CATR
May 29, 2014
Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP
draft-deng-lmap-collaboration-00
Abstract
This document discusses the motivation and use-cases for
collaborative LMAP practices, where multiple autonomous measurement
systems collaborate together to help with UoE enhancement by ICPs,
network performance monitory to guide ISP/Regulator coordination
between autonomous network domains and/or regulatory policies and
cross-boundary troubleshooting for complaints from end consumers.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Motivation for Collaborative LMAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1 UoE-oriented network regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1 the current situation of its own region network . . . . 5
4.1.2 the peering performance between ISPs in its own region . 5
4.2 Collaborative measurement for multi-domain ISP network . . . 6
4.3 UoE-oriented performance enhancement by ICP . . . . . . . . 6
4.4 Trouble-shooting initiated by end consumers . . . . . . . . 7
5 Derived Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1 Initiator-controller exchange for task instruction . . . . . 8
5.2 Reporter-collector exchange for data aggregation . . . . . . 8
5.3 initiator-reporter exchange for output instruction . . . . . 8
6 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
1 Introduction
With the rapid development of Internet technology and the increasing
complexity of broadband network architecture, it is quite difficult
to do large scale network measurements due to the lack of the unified
measurement system and cooperative protocols. Therefore, the Large-
Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) working group is
formed to standardize a large scale measurement system for
performance measurements of all kinds of broadband access methods.
There are 3 types of entities proposed in the LMAP architecture: [I-
D.ietf-lmap-framework]
o Measurement Agents (MAs), implemented in network to perform
measurement tasks;
o Controller, responsible for creating and assigning the measurement
tasks; and
o Collector, in charge of collecting and storing measurement
results.
LMAP's current focus is to specify an information model, the
associated data models, the control protocol for the secure
communication between Controller and MA, and the report protocol for
the secure communication between MA and Collector.
Current LMAP protocols are based on the following assumptions.
o All the involved entities are under the control of a single
organization, which also means an MA can only be controlled by one
controller at any time.
o There is no communication between controllers, between collectors,
or between a controller and a collector.
However, cross-organization collaborations are increasingly common.
For example, accurate troubleshooting for mobile services usually
involves two or more organizations, and end to end performance
measurement may conduct across multiple ISPs. How to do large scale
performance measurements in these scenarios is still unsolved.
This document discusses the motivation and use-cases for
collaborative LMAP practices, where multiple autonomous measurement
systems collaborate together to help with UoE enhancement by ICPs,
network performance monitory to guide ISP/Regulator planning for
network infrastructure and/or regulatory policies and cross-boundary
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
troubleshooting for SLA complaints from end consumers.
2 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Initiator, the instructor for collaborative LMAP tasks, potentially
on behalf of a regulator, a third party ICPs or an end consumer.
Reporter, the reporting party that aggregates partial measurements
reports from collaborative LMAP task participants and produces the
ultimate report to the task initiator.
3 Motivation for Collaborative LMAP
End-to-end performance measurement and trouble shooting is important
to solve end user's UoE issues, to manage and optimize the network of
Internet Service Providers, to improve service logic and application
design for Internet Content Providers, and to examine the status of
and guide future administration of local network infrastructures for
regulators.
From ISP's perspective, given the importance of supporting LMAP for
its own network construction and operation as well as the potential
impact of introducing third-party LMAP MAs into key network entities,
a sensible ISP would prefer to build its own LMAP system based on its
local network devices.
It is hence expected that the majority of end-to-end performance
measurements will be conducted in a collaborative manner involving
multiple autonomous LMAP systems, for the following reasons:
On one hand, for the regulator, in order to stimulate local network
development, it is necessary to have a clear picture of local ISPs'
peering performance for interworking points as well as their own
network construction. Considering the prohibitive cost of a unified
third-party deployment for LMAP MAs at various interworking points
for a large geographic area, it is expected to be more practical to
make use of ISPs' autonomous LMAP systems for collaboration.
On the other hand, for the ICP or user, it does not help much for
service optimization or trouble shooting if the end-to-end
performance measurement is conducted via simple client-server model
while treating the network as a black box. In the meantime, for the
purpose of providing more value-added service to the ICPs as well as
subscribers, there is motive for an ISP to open its LMAP system to
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
some extent and collaborate with the ICP/user in understanding the
bottleneck and exploiting better network servicing for end-to-end
UoE.
4 Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP
The regulator, ISP/ICP and users would hope to conduct collaborative
measurements at the different levels in order to know if the current
network conditions meet the expectations from the regulator policy,
the ISP's resource provision agreement or the ICP's service provision
agreement.
4.1 UoE-oriented network regulation
A regulator is responsible for monitoring the current status and
planning for the future of network construction and operation of its
own region. In order to promoting the region network development, the
regulator needs to monitor the status of interconnection between
different ISPs as well as the overall network construction status in
this region.
4.1.1 the current situation of its own region network
Understanding the current situation of its own region network is
necessary for a regulator to form guiding policies for adjusting the
network architecture and planning for network development in the
future. In order to get a clear picture of a large geographic area,
it is prohibitive for the regulator to deploy a dedicated LMAP system
on its own, where it's necessary to deploy a large number of MAs. For
a small region, the deployment cost is acceptable, but for a large
region, the cost is very expensive and unacceptable. The regulator
usually achieve this goal by means of ISP's LMAP and the third-party
LMAPs.
Therefore, it is expected that multiple organizations would
simultaneously deploy their dedicated MAs for private LMAP system
within their network boundary in the same region and by combining
them together a measurement system can mainly cover the whole
region's network infrastructure. Through collaboration, MAs from
multiple organizations can perform comprehensive measurement for the
whole gregion network in great depth which can reflect the local
network operation state.
4.1.2 the peering performance between ISPs in its own region
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
Bad performance of peering links between different ISPs not only has
great impact to ICP services but also to a local access ISP relying
on other transit ISP for internet access. For example, a mobile
operators lacking internet access resource have to pay expensive
interconnection expense to other operators. The Regulator can
formulate instructive policies to promote information circulation
between ISP networks and solve the user QoE problem by understanding
the interconnection QoS. For the same reason, ISP/ICP can also
benefit from more clear understanding on the Interconnection quality.
Taking mobile network for example, the data flow for a service
request from a mobile terminal to a ICP firstly goes through the
local ISP access network and then into the internet via a third-party
ISP network. Similarly, before entering the ICP's own private data-
center, it may traverse another transit ISP network. As shown in
Figure 1, the measurement can be implemented between ISP#1 MA and
ISP#2 MA to understand the interconnection quality.
UE<=>access ISP<=>transit ISP #1<=>Internet<=>transit ISP #2<=>ICP
Figure 1 mobile network data access across domains
4.2 Collaborative measurement for multi-domain ISP network
For large ISP, it is common practice to divide its global network
into several autonomous domains (ASs), each operated and managed by a
region branch. It is therefore, very likely that separate LMAP
systems would be deployed into these autonomous domains, resulting in
a call for collaborative measurement scenarios even within the same
ISP's network.
Take the case in China for instance, there are multiple nationwide
ISP networks. Within these ISPs, relatively independent local
branches, separated by physical territorial scope such as the
province, operate their local network which has an AS or multiple
ASes. Each Provincial branch can deploy its own LMAP system to
monitor its local network states.
4.3 UoE-oriented performance enhancement by ICP
New applications or revision with newly-added functions/features are
being pushed to the end user every day, with an increasing
requirement for constant performance optimization based on realistic
network utilization resultant from application dynamics. It is
important to understand the practical performance and impact of
various network segments (e.g. access network, transit network and
Internet) on the end-to-end traffic path, for the design,
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
experimental and operational phases of a new feature/technology
introduction to an application. However, it is expensive and non-
economic for each ICP to build its own dedicated LMAP system into
various ISPs' networks.
At the same time, with the transition of ISPs' mindset from
subscriber-centered charging for network accessing to ICP-centered
charging, ISPs are motivated to offer assistance to ICPs' exploration
for better UoE through more efficient usage of network resource
provision under the guidance of real-time performance measurement and
optimization to accommodate application dynamics.
With ISPs' cooperation, various network segments are no longer hidden
behind the black box to end-to-end performance measurement. By
combining inputs from both its own end-based LMAP system with ISPs'
measurement data, it is possible for an ICP to identify the
bottleneck of service provision and develop corresponding enhancement
via better guided technology introduction to the application as well
as more targeted SLA negotiation with ISPs.
4.4 Trouble-shooting initiated by end consumers
With growing influence of broadband access nowadays, more and more
traditional ICPs are extending to the market of home gateway, as a
result from the popularity of intelligent TVs and intelligent STBs.
The services of end users in their home network are probably
controlled by ICPs who may collaborate with the broadband access
service providers to guarantee users the promised QoE. When
malfunctions influencing user QoE occur in this type of services, it
is necessary to have a mechanism with which the diagnostic
measurement could be launched from the user side and demarcate the
problem.
Generally the home gateway(such as home WLAN router) is the border of
ISP network and home network. The ISP network includes access
network, MAN and WAN. The home network includes home gateway, TV,
STB, etc.
For a broadband access user who buys a third-party home gateway
device, the typical service access path is shown in Figure 2. The
home network between home gateway and UE is private and may not
controlled by any ISP. However, the user may want to measure the link
quality of between the UE and home gateway, the UE and access ISP, or
the UE to the ICP, separately. Thus in this scenario, it is difficult
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
to deploy a single LMAP system which completely covers the whole path
for accurate end to end QoE measurements and assists fault
demarcation.
UE <=>home net<=>home GW<=>access ISP<=>transit ISP<=>Internet<=>ICP
Figure 2 cross-domain data traffic in home network
5 Derived Requirements
This section presents derived requirements for LMAP protocols to
enable the above collaborative use-cases.
In particular, two entities for the general coordination of cross-
organization interactions for collaborative LMAP tasks are
introduced: the initiator and the reporter, for cross-domain
measurement task assignment and result aggregation, respectively.
Three protocols for interactions for the newly-introduced entities
and existing LMAP entities are discussed.
5.1 Initiator-controller exchange for task instruction
The globally trusted and verifiable initiator instructs each
participating LMAP controllers with corresponding measurement sub-
tasks to be performed within the LMAP system, indicating the
corresponding reporter, to whom the results of the sub-tasks is to be
submitted. A globally unified identifier may be required for each
collaborative measurement task too.
5.2 Reporter-collector exchange for data aggregation
A collector from each participating LMAP system interacts with the
corresponding reporter to report local measurement results.
5.3 initiator-reporter exchange for output instruction
The initiator also notifies the reporter with instructions on how to
output the final measurement report (e.g. data aggregation methods to
be used) as well as the identities of the participating controllers.
6 Security Considerations
It is assumed that the security issues within a participating LMAP
system can be addressed by its local security mechanisms and out of
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
scope of this document.
Each participating LMAP system may have its own consideration and policy
regarding its local network and/or subscriber private information. In
performing collaborative task, it is still possible for a collector to
enforce local protection schemes, e.g. filtering algorithms, onto local
measurement data before submission to the reporter, hence providing
protection to sensitive information for both the subscriber and the
network operator.
It is important for a participating LMAP system to be able to
authenticate the initiator/reporter for a given collaborative
measurement task, provide differentiated service provision according to
its local policies (e.g. flexible authorization based on the initiator's
identity, the type of measurement task, measurement methodology,
frequency, etc.), and protect itself from service abuse of malicious
initiators or information leakage to malicious reporters.
It is expected that, an ISP LMAP system is not likely to initiate local
active measurement task, in response to a third-party instruction.
A task/data verification scheme is needed for the reporter to exclude
un-authorized or non-intended collectors from tampering the measurement
report or blocking the reporter from proper functioning with
corrupted/forged/replayed local reports.
7 IANA Considerations
There is no IANA action in this document.
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
8 References
8.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M.,
Burbridge, T., Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for
large-scale measurement platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-
lmap-framework-05 (work in progress), May 2014.
[I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model] Burbridge, T., Eardley, P.,
Bagnulo, M., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Information Model for
Large-Scale Measurement Platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-
lmap-information-model-00 (work in progress), February
2014.
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT <Use-cases for Collaborative LMAP> May 29, 2014
Authors' Addresses
Lingli Deng
China Mobile
Email: denglingli@chinamobile.com
Rachel Huang
Huawei
Email: rachel.huang@huawei.com
Shihui Duan
China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MIIT
Email: duanshihui@catr.cn
<Deng, et al.> Expires December 29, 2014 [Page 11]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 02:39:58 |