One document matched: draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-08.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-07.txt
Network Working Group A.Morton
Internet Draft L.Ciavattone
Document: <draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-08.txt> G.Ramachandran
Category: Standards Track AT&T Labs
S.Shalunov
Internet2
J.Perser
Consultant
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been disclosed, and any of which he or
she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This memo defines metrics to evaluate if a network has maintained
packet order on a packet-by-packet basis. It provides motivations
for the new metrics and discusses the measurement issues. The memo
first defines a reordered singleton, and then uses it as the basis
for sample metrics to quantify the extent of reordering in several
useful dimensions for network characterization or receiver design.
Additional metrics quantify the frequency of reordering and the
distance between separate occurrences. We then define a metric with
purely receiver analysis orientation. Several examples of evaluation
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 1
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
using the various sample metrics are included. An Appendix gives
extended definitions for evaluating order with packet fragmentation.
Contents
Status of this Memo................................................1
Copyright Notice...................................................1
Abstract...........................................................1
1. Conventions used in this document...............................3
2. Introduction....................................................3
2.1 Motivation.....................................................4
2.2 Goals and Objectives...........................................5
3. A Reordered Packet Singleton Metric.............................6
3.1 Metric Name:...................................................6
3.2 Metric Parameters:.............................................6
3.3 Definition:....................................................7
3.4 Sequence Discontinuity Definition..............................7
3.5 Evaluation of Reordering in Dimensions of Time or Bytes........8
3.6 Discussion.....................................................8
4. Sample Metrics..................................................9
4.1 Reordered Packet Ratio.........................................9
4.1.1 Metric Name:.................................................9
4.1.2 Metric Parameters:...........................................9
4.1.3 Definition:..................................................9
4.1.4 Discussion...................................................9
4.2 Reordering Extent.............................................10
4.2.1 Metric Name:................................................10
4.2.2 Parameter Notation:.........................................10
4.2.3 Definition:.................................................10
4.2.4 Discussion:.................................................11
4.3 Reordering Late Time Offset...................................11
4.3.1 Metric Name:................................................11
4.3.2 Metric Parameters:..........................................11
4.3.3 Definition:.................................................11
4.3.4 Discussion..................................................12
4.4 Reordering Byte Offset........................................12
4.4.1 Metric Name:................................................12
4.4.2 Metric Parameters:..........................................12
4.4.3 Definition:.................................................12
4.4.4 Discussion..................................................13
4.5 Gaps between multiple Reordering Discontinuities..............13
4.5.1 Metric Name:................................................13
4.5.2 Parameters:.................................................13
4.5.3 Definition of Reordering Discontinuity:.....................13
4.5.4 Definition of Reordering Gap:...............................14
4.5.5 Discussion..................................................14
4.6 Reordering-free Runs..........................................14
4.6.1 Metric Name:................................................15
4.6.2 Parameters:.................................................15
4.6.3 Definition:.................................................15
4.6.4 Discussion:.................................................16
5. Metrics Focused on Receiver Assessment: A TCP-Relevant Metric..16
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 2
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
5.1 Metric Name:..................................................16
5.2 Parameter Notation:...........................................17
5.3 Definitions...................................................17
5.4 Discussion:...................................................17
6. Measurement and Implementation Issues..........................18
7. Examples of Arrival Order Evaluation...........................20
7.1 Example with a single packet reordered........................21
7.2 Example with two packets reordered............................22
7.3 Example with three packets reordered..........................23
7.4 Example with Multiple Packet Reordering Discontinuities.......25
8. Security Considerations........................................25
8.1 Denial of Service Attacks.....................................25
8.2 User data confidentiality.....................................25
8.3 Interference with the metric..................................26
9. IANA Considerations............................................26
10. Normative References..........................................26
11. Informative References........................................26
12. Acknowledgments...............................................27
13. Appendix A Example Implementations in C (Informative).........28
14. Appendix B Fragment Order Evaluation (Informative)............30
14.1 Metric Name:.................................................30
14.2 Additional Metric Parameters:................................30
14.3 Definition:..................................................31
14.4 Discussion: Notes on Sample Metrics when evaluating Fragments32
15. Author's Addresses............................................32
Full Copyright Statement..........................................33
Intellectual Property.............................................33
Acknowledgement...................................................34
1. Conventions used in this document
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].
Although RFC 2119 was written with protocols in mind, the key words
are used in this document for similar reasons. They are used to
ensure the results of measurements from two different
implementations are comparable, and to note instances when an
implementation could perturb the network.
2. Introduction
Ordered arrival is a property found in packets that successfully
transit their path, where the packet sequence number increases with
each new arrival and there are no backward steps. Internet Protocol
[RFC791] has no mechanisms to assure either packet delivery or
sequencing, and other protocols should be prepared to deal with both
loss and reordering. This memo defines reordering metrics.
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 3
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
A unique sequence number, such as an incrementing message number
carried in each packet, establishes the Source Sequence.
The detection of reordering at the Destination is based on packet
arrival order in comparison with a non-reversing reference value.
This metric is consistent with RFC 2330 [RFC2330], and classifies
arriving packets with sequence numbers smaller than their
predecessors as out-of-order, or reordered. For example, if
sequentially numbered packets arrive 1,2,4,5,3, then packet 3 is
reordered. This is equivalent to Paxon's reordering definition in
[Pax98], where "late" packets were declared reordered. The
alternative is to emphasize "premature" packets instead (4 and 5 in
the example), but only the arrival of packet 3 distinguishes this
circumstance from packet loss. Focusing attention on late packets
allows us to maintain orthogonality with the packet loss metric. The
metric's construction is very similar to the sequence space
validation for received segments in RFC 793 [RFC793]. Earlier work
to define ordered delivery includes [Cia00], [Ben99], [Lou01],
[Bel02], [Jai02] and [Cia03].
2.1 Motivation
A reordering metric is relevant for most applications, especially
when assessing network support for Real-Time media streams. The
extent of reordering may be sufficient to cause a received packet to
be discarded by functions above the IP layer.
Packet order may change during transfer, and several specific path
characteristics can make reordering more likely.
Examples are:
* When two paths, one with slightly longer transfer time, support a
single packet stream or flow, then packets traversing the longer
path may arrive out-of-order. Multiple paths may be used to
achieve load balancing, or may arise from route instability.
* To increase capacity, a network device designed with multiple
processors serving a single port may reorder as a byproduct.
* A layer 2 retransmission protocol that compensates for an error-
prone link may cause packet reordering.
* If for any reason, the packets in a buffer are not serviced in the
order of their arrival, their order will change.
* If packets in a flow are assigned to multiple buffers (following
evaluation of traffic characteristics, for example), and the
buffers have different occupations and/or service rates, then
order will likely change.
When one or more of the above path characteristics are present
continuously, then reordering may be present on a steady-state
basis. The steady-state reordering condition typically causes an
appreciable fraction of packets to be reordered. This form of
reordering is most easily detected by minimizing the spacing between
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 4
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
test packets. Transient reordering may occur in response to network
instability; temporary routing loops can cause periods of extreme
reordering. This condition is characterized by long in-order streams
with occasional instances of reordering, sometimes with extreme
correlation. However, we do not expect packet delivery in a
completely random order, where for example, the last packet or the
first packet in a sample is equally likely to arrive first at the
destination. Thus we expect at least a minimal degree of order in
the packet arrivals, as exhibited in real networks.
The ability to restore order at the destination will likely have
finite limits. Practical hosts have receiver buffers with finite
size in terms of packets, bytes, or time (such as de-jitter
buffers). Once the initial determination of reordering is made, it
is useful to quantify the extent of reordering, or lateness, in all
meaningful dimensions.
2.2 Goals and Objectives
The definitions below intend to satisfy the goals of:
1. Determining whether or not packet reordering has occurred.
2. Quantifying the degree of reordering (achieving this second
goal requires assumptions of upper layer functions and
capabilities to restore order, and therefore several
solutions).
Reordering Metrics MUST:
+ have one or more applications, such as receiver design or network
characterization, and a compelling relevance in the working
group's view.
+ be computable "on the fly"
+ work even if the stream has duplicate or lost packets
It is desirable for Reordering Metrics to have one or more of the
following attributes:
+ concatenating results for segments measured separately
+ simplicity for easy consumption and understanding
+ relevance to TCP performance
+ relevance to Real-time application performance
The current set of metrics meet all the requirements above, and
provides all but the concatenation attribute (except in the case
where segments exhibit no reordering, and one may estimate that the
segment concatenation would also exhibit this desirable outcome).
However, satisfying these goals limits the set of metrics to those
that provide some clear insight into network characterization or
receiver design, and they are not likely to be exhaustive in their
coverage of the applications with respect to packet reordering
effects. Likewise, additional measurements may be possible.
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 5
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
3. A Reordered Packet Singleton Metric
The IPPM framework RFC 2330 [RFC2330] describes the notions of
singletons, samples, and statistics. For easy reference:
By a 'singleton' metric, we refer to metrics that are,
in a sense, atomic. For example, a single instance of "bulk
throughput capacity" from one host to another might be defined
as a singleton metric, even though the instance involves
measuring the timing of a number of Internet packets.
The evaluation of packet order requires several supporting concepts.
The first is a sequence number applied to packets at the source to
uniquely identify the order of packet transmission. The unique
sequence number may be a simple message number.
The second supporting concept is a stored value which is the "next
expected" packet number. Under normal conditions, the value of Next
Expected (NextExp) is the sequence number of the previous packet
plus 1 (for message numbering).
Each packet within a packet stream can be evaluated with this order
singleton metric.
3.1 Metric Name:
Type-P-Reordered
3.2 Metric Parameters:
+ Src, the IP address of a host
+ Dst, the IP address of a host
+ SrcTime, the time of packet emission from the Source (or wire
time)
+ s, the unique packet sequence number applied at the Source, in
units of messages.
+ SrcByte, the packet sequence number applied at the Source, in
units of payload bytes.
+ NextExp, the Next Expected Sequence number at the Destination, in
units of messages, time, or bytes.
+ PayloadSize, the number of bytes contained in the information
field and referred to when the SrcByte sequence is based on byte
transfer.
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 6
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
3.3 Definition:
If a packet is found to be reordered by comparison with the Next
Expected value, its Type-P-Reordered = TRUE; otherwise Type-P-
Reordered = FALSE, as defined below:
The value of Type-P-Reordered is defined as TRUE if s < NextExp (the
packet is reordered). In this case, NextExp value does not change.
The value of Type-P-Reordered is defined as FALSE if s >= NextExp
(the packet is in-order). In this case, NextExp is set to s+1.
Since the Next Expected value cannot decrease, it provides a non-
reversing order criterion to identify reordered packets.
This definition can also be specified in pseudo-code.
On successful arrival of a packet with sequence number s:
if s >= NextExp then /* s is in-order */
NextExp = s + 1;
Type-P-Reordered = False;
else /* when s < NextExp */
Type-P-Reordered = True
3.4 Sequence Discontinuity Definition
Packets with s > NextExp are a special case of in-order delivery.
This condition indicates a sequence discontinuity, either because of
packet loss or reordering. Reordered packets must arrive for the
sequence discontinuity to be defined as a reordering discontinuity
(see section 4).
We define two different states for in-order packets.
When s = NextExp, the original sequence has been maintained, and
there is no discontinuity present.
When s > NextExp, some packets in the original sequence have not yet
arrived, and there is a sequence discontinuity associated with
packet s. The size of the discontinuity is s - NextExp, equal to
the number of packets presently missing, either reordered or lost.
In pseudo-code:
On successful arrival of a packet with sequence number s:
if s >= NextExp, then /* s is in-order */
if s > NextExp then
SequenceDiscontinuty = True;
SeqDiscontinutySize = s - NextExp;
else
SequenceDiscontinuty = False;
NextExp = s + 1;
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 7
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
Type-P-Reordered = False;
else /* when s < NextExp */
Type-P-Reordered = True;
SequenceDiscontinuty = False;
3.5 Evaluation of Reordering in Dimensions of Time or Bytes
It is possible to use alternate dimensions of time or payload bytes
to test for reordering in the definition of section 3.3, as long as
the SrcTimes and SrcBytes are unique and reliable. Sequence
Discontinuities are easily defined and detected with message
numbering, however, this is not so in the dimensions of time or
bytes. This is a detractor for the alternate dimensions because the
Sequence Discontinuity definition plays a key role in the sample
metrics that follow.
It is possible to detect Sequence Discontinuities with payload byte
numbering, but only when payload size is constant, and then the byte
numbering adds needless complexity over message numbering.
It may be possible to detect Sequence Discontinuities with Periodic
Streams and Source Time numbering, but there are practical pitfalls
with sending exactly on-schedule and with clock reliability.
The dimensions of time and bytes remain an important basis for
characterizing the extent of reordering, as described later.
3.6 Discussion
Any arriving packet bearing a sequence number from the sequence that
establishes the Next Expected value can be evaluated to determine
whether it is in-order or reordered, based on a previous packet's
arrival. In the case where Next Expected is Undefined (because the
arriving packet is the first successful transfer), the packet is
designated in-order.
This metric assumes re-assembly of packet fragments before
evaluation. In principle, it is possible to use the Type-P-Reordered
metric to evaluate reordering among packet fragments, but each
fragment must contain source sequence information.
See the Appendix on fragment order evaluation for more detail.
If duplicate packets (multiple non-corrupt copies) arrive at the
destination, they MUST be noted and only the first to arrive is
considered for further analysis (copies would be declared reordered
according to the definition above). This requirement has the same
storage implications as earlier IPPM metrics, and follows the
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 8
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
precedent of RFC 2679. We provide a suggestion to minimize storage
size needed in the section on Measurement and Implementation Issues.
4. Sample Metrics
In this section, we define metrics applicable to a sample of packets
from a single Source sequence number system. When reordering occurs,
it is highly desirable to assert the degree to which a packet is
out-of-order, or reordered with respect other packets. This section
defines several metrics that quantify the extent of reordering in
various units of measure. Each metric highlights a relevant use.
The metrics in the sub-sections below have a network
characterization orientation, but also have relevance to receiver
design where reordering compensation is of interest. We begin with a
simple ratio metric indicating the reordered portion of the sample.
4.1 Reordered Packet Ratio
4.1.1 Metric Name:
Type-P-Reordered-Ratio-Stream
4.1.2 Metric Parameters:
The parameter set includes Type-P-Reordered singleton parameters,
the parameters unique to Poisson Streams (as in RFC 2330 [RFC2330],
Periodic Streams (as in RFC 3432 [RFC3432]), or TCP-like Streams (as
in RFC 3148 [RFC3148]), plus the following:
+ T0, a start time
+ Tf, an end time
+ dT, a waiting time for each packet to arrive
4.1.3 Definition:
For the packets arriving successfully between T0 and Tf+dT, the
ratio of reordered packets in the sample is
(Total of Reordered packets) / (Total packets received)
This fraction may be expressed as a percentage (multiply by 100%).
Note that in the case of duplicate packets, only the first copy is
used.
4.1.4 Discussion
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 9
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
When the Type-P-Reordered-Ratio-Stream is zero, no further
reordering metrics need be examined for that sample. Therefore, the
value of this metric is its simple ability to summarize the results
for a reordering-free sample.
4.2 Reordering Extent
This section defines the extent to which packets are reordered, and
associates a specific sequence discontinuity with each reordered
packet. This section inherits the Parameters defined above.
4.2.1 Metric Name:
Type-P-packet-Reordering-Extent-Stream
4.2.2 Parameter Notation:
Given a stream of packets sent from a source to a destination, let K
be the total number of packets in that stream.
Assign each packet a sequence number, a consecutive integer from 1
to K in the order of packet transmission (at the source).
Let L be the total number of packets received out of the K packets
sent. Recall that identical copies (duplicates) have been removed,
so L<=K.
Let s[1], s[2], ..., s[L], represent the original sequence numbers
associated with the packets in order of arrival.
Consider a reordered packet (as identified in section 3) with
arrival index i and source sequence number s[i]. There exists a set
of indexes j (1<=j<i) such that s[j] > s[i].
4.2.3 Definition:
The reordering extent, e, of packet s[i] is defined to be
i-j for the smallest value of j when s[j] > s[i].
Informally, the reordering extent is the maximum distance, in
packets, from a reordered packet to the earliest packet received
that has a larger sequence number. If a packet is in-order, its
reordering extent is undefined. The first packet to arrive is in-
order by definition, and has undefined reordering extent.
Comment on the definition of extent: For some arrival orders, the
assignment of a simple position/distance as the reordering extent
tends to overestimate the receiver storage needed to restore order.
A more accurate and complex procedure to calculate packet storage
would be to subtract any earlier reordered packets that the receiver
could pass on to the upper layers. With the bias understood, this
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 10
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
definition is deemed sufficient, especially for those who demand "on
the fly" calculations.
4.2.4 Discussion:
The packet with index j (s[j], identified in the Definition above)
is the reordering discontinuity associated with packet with index i
(s[i]). This definition is formalized below.
Note that the K packets in the stream could be some subset of a
larger stream, but L is still the total number of packets received
out of the K packets sent in that subset.
A receiver must possess storage to restore order to packets that are
reordered. For cases with single reordered packets, the extent e
gives the number of packets that must be held in the receiver's
buffer while waiting for the reordered packet to complete the
sequence. For more complex scenarios, the extent may be an
overestimate of required storage (see the Examples section).
Knowledge of the reordering extent e is particularly useful for
determining the portion of reordered packets that can or cannot be
restored to order in a typical receiver buffer based on their
arrival order alone (and without the aid of retransmission).
A sample's reordering extents may be expressed as a histogram, to
easily summarize the frequency of various extents.
4.3 Reordering Late Time Offset
Reordered packets can be assigned offset values indicating their
lateness in terms of buffer time that a receiver must possess to
accommodate them. Offset metrics are calculated only on reordered
packets, as identified by the reordered packet singleton metric in
Section 3.
4.3.1 Metric Name:
Type-P-packet-Late-Time-Stream
4.3.2 Metric Parameters:
In addition to the parameters defined for Type-P-Reordered-Ratio-
Stream, we specify:
+ DstTime, the time that each packet in the stream arrives at the
destination
4.3.3 Definition:
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 11
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
Lateness in time is calculated using destination times. When
received packet i is reordered, and has a reordering extent e, then:
LateTime(i) = DstTime(i)-DstTime(i-e)
Alternatively, using similar notation to that of section 4.2, an
equivalent definition is:
LateTime(i) = DstTime(i)-DstTime(j), for min{j|1<=j<i} that
satisfies s[j]>s[i].
4.3.4 Discussion
The offset metrics can help predict whether reordered packets will
be useful in a general receiver buffer system with finite limits.
The limit may be the time of storage prior to a cyclic play-out
instant (as with de-jitter buffers).
Note that the One-way IPDV [RFC3393] gives the delay variation for a
packet w.r.t. the preceding packet in the source sequence. Lateness
and IPDV give an indication of whether a buffer at the destination
has sufficient storage to accommodate the network's behavior and
restore order. When an earlier packet in the Source sequence is
lost, IPDV will necessarily be undefined for adjacent packets, and
Late Time may provide the only way to evaluate the usefulness of a
packet.
In the case of de-jitter buffers, there are circumstances where the
receiver employs loss concealment at the intended play-out time of a
late packet. However, if this packet arrives out of order, the Late
Time determines whether the packet is still useful. IPDV no longer
applies, because the receiver establishes a new play-out schedule
with additional buffer delay to accommodate similar events in the
future (this requires very minimal processing).
4.4 Reordering Byte Offset
Reordered packets can be assigned offset values indicating the
storage in bytes that a receiver must possess to accommodate them.
The various offset metrics are calculated only on reordered packets,
as identified by the reordered packet singleton metric in Section 3.
4.4.1 Metric Name:
Type-P-packet-Byte-Offset-Stream
4.4.2 Metric Parameters:
We use the same parameters defined earlier.
4.4.3 Definition:
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 12
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
Byte stream offset is the sum of the payload sizes of intervening
in-order packets between the reordered packet and the discontinuity
(including the packet at the discontinuity).
For reordered packet i with a reordering extent e:
ByteOffset(i) = Sum[in-order packets back to reordering discon.]
= Sum[PayloadSize(packet at i-1 if in-order),
PayloadSize(packet at i-2 if in-order), ...
PayloadSize(packet at i-e if in-order)]
4.4.4 Discussion
We note that estimates of buffer size due to reordering depend on
greatly on the test stream, in terms of the spacing between test
packets and their size, especially when packet size is variable.
The byte offset metric can help predict whether reordered packets
will be useful in a general receiver buffer system with finite
limits. The limit is expressed as the number of bytes the buffer
can store.
When packets in the stream have variable sizes, it may be most
useful to characterize offset in terms of the payload size(s) of
stored packets, using the Type-P-packet-Byte-Offset-Stream metric.
4.5 Gaps between multiple Reordering Discontinuities
4.5.1 Metric Name:
Type-P-packet-Reordering-Gap-Stream
4.5.2 Parameters:
We use the same parameters defined earlier.
4.5.3 Definition of Reordering Discontinuity:
All reordered packets are associated with a packet at a reordering
discontinuity, defined as the in-order packet s[j] that arrived at
the minimum value of j (1<=j<i) for which s[j]> s[i].
Note that s[j] will have been found to cause a sequence
discontinuity, where s > NextExp when evaluated with the reordered
singleton metric as described in section 3.4.
Recall that i - e = min(j). Subsequent reordered packets may be
associated with the same s[j], or with a different discontinuity.
This definition is used in the definition of the Reordering Gap,
below.
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 13
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
4.5.4 Definition of Reordering Gap:
A reordering gap is the distance between successive reordering
discontinuities. Type-P-packet-Reordering-Gap-Stream assigns a value
to (all) packets in a stream.
If:
The packet s[j'] is found to be a reordering discontinuity, based
on the arrival of reordered packet s[i'] with extent e', and
an earlier reordering discontinuity s[j], based on the arrival of
reordered packet s[i] with extent e was already detected, and
i' > i, and
there are no reordering discontinuities between j and j',
then the Reordering Gap for packet s[j'] is the difference between
the arrival positions the reordering discontinuities, as shown
below:
Gap(j') = (j') - (j)
Otherwise:
The Type-P-packet-Reordering-Gap-Stream for the packet is 0.
Gaps may also be expressed in time:
GapTime(j') = DstTime(j') - DstTime(j)
4.5.5 Discussion
When separate reordering discontinuities can be distinguished, then
a count may also be reported (along with the discontinuity
description, such as the number of reordered packets associated with
that discontinuity and their extents and offsets). The Gaps between
a sample's reordering discontinuities may be expressed as a
histogram, to easily summarize the frequency of various gaps.
Reporting the mode, average, range, etc. may also summarize the
distributions.
The Gap metric may help to correlate the frequency of reordering
discontinuities with their cause. Gap lengths are also informative
to receiver designers, revealing the period of reordering
discontinuities. The combination of reordering gaps and extent
reveals whether receivers will be required to handle cases of
overlapping reordered packets.
4.6 Reordering-free Runs
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 14
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
This section defines a metric based on a count of consecutive
packets between reordered packets.
4.6.1 Metric Name:
Type-P-packet-Reordering-Free-Run-Stream
4.6.2 Parameters:
We use the same parameters defined earlier, plus the following:
r, the run counter
n, the number of runs
a, the accumulator of in-order packets
p, the number of packets
q, the squared sum of the run counters
4.6.3 Definition:
As packets in a sample arrive at the Destination, the count of
packets to the next reordered packet is a Reordering-Free run. Note
that the minimum run-length is one according to this definition. A
pseudo code example follows:
r = 0; /* r is the run counter */
n = 0; /* n is the number of runs */
a = 0; /* a is the accumulator of in order packets */
p = 0; /* p is the number of packets */
q = 0; /* q is the squared sum of the run counters */
while(packets arrive with sequence number s)
{
p++;
if (s >= NextExp) /* s is in-order */
then r++;
a++;
else /* s is reordered */
q+= r*r;
r = 1;
n++;
}
Each in-order arrival increments the run counter and the accumulator
of in order packets, each reordered packet resets the run counter
after adding it to the accumulator.
Each arrival of a reordered packet yields a new count in the Run
vector. Long runs accompany periods where order was maintained,
while short runs indicate frequent, or multi-packet reordering.
The percent of packets in-order is 100*a/p
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 15
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
The average Reordering-Free run length is a/n
The q counter gives an indication of variation of the Reordering-
Free runs from the average by comparing q/a to a/n ((q/a)/(a/n))
4.6.4 Discussion:
Type-P-packet-Reordering-Free-Run-Stream parameters give a brief
summary of the stream's reordering characteristics including the
average reordering-free run length, and the variation of run
lengths, therefore a key application of this metric is network
evaluation.
For example for 36 packets with 3 runs of 11 in-order packets we
have:
p = 36
n = 3
a = 33
q = 3 * (11*11) = 363
ave reordering-free run = 11
q/a = 11
(q/a)/ave = 1.0
For 36 packets with 3 runs, 2 of length 1 and one of length 31
p = 36
n = 3
a = 33
q = 1 + 1 + 961 = 963
ave reordering-free run = 11
q/a = 29.18
(q/a)/ave = 2.65
5. Metrics Focused on Receiver Assessment: A TCP-Relevant Metric
This section describes a metric that conveys information associated
with the affect of reordering on TCP. However, in order to infer
anything about TCP performance, the test stream MUST bear a close
resemblance to the TCP sender of interest. RFC 3148 [RFC3148] lists
the specific aspects of congestion control algorithms that must be
specified. Further, RFC 3148 recommends that Bulk Transfer Capacity
metrics SHOULD have instruments to distinguish three cases of packet
reordering (in section 3.3). The sample metrics defined above
satisfy the requirements to classify packets that are slightly or
grossly out-of-order. The metric in this section adds the capability
to distinguish the case where the Fast Retransmit algorithm is
invoked due to reordering. Additional TCP Kernel Instruments are
summarized in [Mat03].
5.1 Metric Name:
Type-P-packet-n-Reordering-Stream
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 16
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
5.2 Parameter Notation:
Let n be a positive integer (a parameter). Let k be a positive
integer equal to the number of packets sent (sample size). Let l be
a non-negative integer representing the number of packets that were
received out of the k packets sent. (Note that there is no
relationship between k and l: on one hand, losses can make l less
than k; on the other hand, duplicates can make l greater than k.)
Assign each sent packet a sequence number, 1 to k, in order of
packet emission.
Let s[1], s[2], ..., s[l] be the original sequence numbers of the
received packets, in the order of arrival.
5.3 Definitions
Definition 1: Received packet number i (n < i <= l), with source
sequence number s[i], is n-reordered if and only if for all j such
that i-n <= j < i, s[j] > s[i].
Claim: If by this definition, a packet's reordering is n and 0 < n'
< n, then the packet is also reordered to the n' extent.
Note: This definition is illustrated by C code in Appendix A. It
determines the n-reordering for a value of n=3 (when actually
writing applications that would report the metric, one would
probably report it for several values of n, such as 1, 2, 3, 4 --
and maybe a few more consecutive values).
This definition does not assign an n to all reordered packets as
defined by the singleton metric, in particular when blocks of
successive packets are reordered. (In the arrival sequence
s={1,2,3,7,8,9,4,5,6}, packets 4, 5, and 6 are reordered, but only
packet 4 is n-reordered, with n=3.)
Definition 2: The degree of n-reordering of the sample is m/l, where
m is the number of n-reordered packets in the sample.
Definition 3: The degree of "monotonic reordering" of the sample is
its degree of 1-reordering.
Definition 4: A sample is said to have no reordering if its degree
of n-reordering is 0.
5.4 Discussion:
The degree of n-reordering may be expressed as a percentage, in
which case the number from Definition 2 is multiplied by 100%.
Knowledge of n-reordering is particularly useful for determining the
portion of reordered packets that can or cannot be restored to order
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 17
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
in a typical TCP receiver buffer based on their arrival order alone
(and without the aid of retransmission).
Important special cases are n=1 and n=3:
- For n=1, absence of 1-reordering means the sequence numbers that
the receiver sees are monotonically increasing with respect to the
previous arriving packet.
- For n=3, a NewReno TCP sender would retransmit 1 packet in
response to an instance of 3-reordering and therefore consider this
packet lost for the purposes of congestion control (the sender will
half its congestion window). Detecting instances of 3-reordering is
useful for determining the portion of reordered packets that are in
fact as good as lost.
A sample's n-reordering may be expressed as a histogram, to
summarize the frequency for each value of n.
We note that the definition of n-reordering cannot predict the exact
number of packets unnecessarily retransmitted by a TCP sender under
some circumstances, such as cases with closely-spaced reordered
singletons. The definition is less complicated than a TCP
implementation where both time and position influence the sender's
behavior.
A packet's n-reordering designation is sometimes equal to its
reordering extent, e. n-reordering is different in the following
ways:
1. n is a count of early packets with consecutive arrival positions
at the receiver.
2. Reordered packets (Type-P-Reordered=TRUE) may not be n-reordered,
but will have an extent, e (see the examples).
6. Measurement and Implementation Issues
The results of tests will be dependent on the time interval between
measurement packets (both at the Source, and during transport where
spacing may change). Clearly, packets launched infrequently (e.g.,
1 per 10 seconds) are unlikely to be reordered.
Test stream designers may prefer to use a periodic sending interval
so that a known temporal bias is maintained, also bringing
simplified results analysis (as described in [RFC3432]). In this
case, it is RECOMMENDED that the periodic sending interval should be
chosen to reproduce the closest Source packet spacing expected (down
to the link speed serialization time limit). Use of the closest
possible spacing should reveal the greatest extent of steady-state
reordering on the path. Of course, packet spacing is likely to vary
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 18
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
as the stream traverses the test path. In any case, the exact method
of packet generation MUST be reported with measurement results,
including all stream parameters.
When intending to compare or concatenate independent measurements of
reordering, it is RECOMMENDED to use the same test stream parameters
in each measurement system.
Packet lengths might also be varied to attempt to detect instances
of parallel processing (they may cause steady state reordering). For
example, a line-speed burst of the longest (MTU-length) packets
followed by a burst of the shortest possible packets may be an
effective detecting pattern. Other size patterns are possible.
The non-reversing order criterion and all metrics described above
remain valid and useful when a stream of packets experiences packet
loss, or both loss and reordering. In other words, losses alone do
not cause subsequent packets to be declared reordered.
Assuming that the necessary sequence information (sequence number
and/or source time stamp) is included in the packet payload
(possibly in application headers such as RTP), packet sequence may
be evaluated in a passive measurement arrangement. Also, it is
possible to evaluate order at a single point along a path, since the
usual need for synchronized Src and Dst Clocks may be relaxed to
some extent.
It is possible to apply these metrics to evaluate reordering in a
TCP sender's stream. In this case, the Source sequence numbers would
be based on byte stream, or segment numbering. Since the stream may
include retransmissions due to loss or reordering, care must be
taken to avoid declaring retransmitted packets reordered. The
additional sequence reference of either s or SrcTime help to avoid
this ambiguity.
Since this metric definition may use sequence numbers with finite
range, it is possible that the sequence numbers could reach end-of-
range and roll over to zero during a measurement. By definition,
the Next Expected value cannot decrease, and all packets received
after a roll-over would be declared reordered. Sequence number
roll-over can be avoided by using combinations of counter size and
test duration where roll-over is impossible (and sequence is reset
to zero at the start). Also, message-based numbering results in
slower sequence consumption. There may still be cases where
methodological mitigation of this problem is desirable (e.g., long-
term testing). The elements of mitigation are:
1. There must be a test to detect if a roll-over has occurred. It
would be nearly impossible for the sequence numbers of successive
packets to jump by more than half the total range, so these large
discontinuities are designated as roll-over.
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 19
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
2. All sequence numbers used in computations are represented in a
sufficiently large precision. The numbers have a correction applied
(equivalent to adding a significant digit) whenever roll-over is
detected.
3. Reordered packets coincident with sequence numbers reaching end-
of-range must also be detected for proper application of correction
factor.
Ideally, the test instrument would have the ability to use all
earlier packets at any point in the test stream. In practice, there
will be limited ability to determine reordering extent, due to the
storage requirements for previous packets. Saving only packets that
indicate discontinuities (and their arrival positions) will reduce
storage volume.
Another solution is to use a sliding history window of packets,
where the window size would be determined by an upper bound on the
useful reordering extent. This bound could be several packets or
several seconds-worth of packets, depending on the intended
analysis. When discarding all stream information beyond the window,
the reordering extent or degree of n-reordering may need to be
expressed as greater than the window length if the reordering
discontinuity information has been discarded, and Gap calculations
would not be possible.
The requirement to ignore duplicate packets also mandates storage.
Here, tracking the sequence numbers of missing packets may minimize
storage size. Missing packets may eventually be declared lost, or
reordered if they arrive. The missing packet list and the largest
sequence number received thus far (NextExp - 1) are sufficient
information to determine if a packet is a duplicate (assuming a
manageable storage size for packets that are missing due to loss).
Some in-order packet arrivals may not be useful to TCP receivers,
due to the receiver window. Sequence Discontinuities and their size
are defined in section 3.4, and this information may be useful to
determine whether a packet is useful or not.
Last, we note that determining reordering extents and gaps is tricky
when there are overlapped or nested events. Test instrument
complexity and reordering complexity are directly correlated.
7. Examples of Arrival Order Evaluation
This section provides some examples to illustrate how the non-
reversing order criterion works, how n-reordering works in
comparison, and the value of viewing reordering in all the
dimensions of time, bytes, and position.
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 20
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
Throughout this section, we will refer to packets by their source
sequence number, except where noted. So "Packet 4" refers to the
packet with source sequence number 4, and the reader should refer to
the tables in each example to determine packet 4's arrival index
number, if needed.
7.1 Example with a single packet reordered
Table 1 gives a simple case of reordering, where one packet is
reordered, Packet 4. Packets are listed according to their arrival,
and message numbering is used.
Table 1 Example with Packet 4 Reordered,
Sending order(SrcNum@Src): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
s Src Dst Dst Byte Late
@Dst NextExp Time Time Delay IPDV Order Offset Time
1 1 0 68 68 1
2 2 20 88 68 0 2
3 3 40 108 68 0 3
5 4 80 148 68 -82 4
6 6 100 168 68 0 5
7 7 120 188 68 0 6
8 8 140 208 68 0 7
4 9 60 210 150 82 8 400 62
9 9 160 228 68 0 9
10 10 180 248 68 0 10
Each column gives the following information:
s Packet sequence number at the Source.
NextExp The value of NextExp when the packet arrived(before
update).
SrcTime Packet time stamp at the Source, ms.
DstTime Packet time stamp at the Destination, ms.
Delay 1-way delay of the packet, ms.
IPDV IP Packet Delay Variation, ms
IPDV = Delay(SrcNum)-Delay(SrcNum-1)
DstOrder Order in which the packet arrived at the Destination.
Byte Offset The Byte Offset of a reordered packet, in bytes.
LateTime The lateness of a reordered packet, in ms.
We can see that when Packet 4 arrives, NextExp=9, and it is declared
reordered. We compute the extent of reordering as follows:
Using the notation <s[1], ..., s[i], ..., s[L]>, the received
packets are represented as:
\/
s = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 4, 9, 10
i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
/\
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 21
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
Applying the definition of Type-P-packet-Reordering-Extent-Stream:
when j=7, 8 > 4, so the reordering extent is 1 or more.
when j=6, 7 > 4, so the reordering extent is 2 or more.
when j=5, 6 > 4, so the reordering extent is 3 or more.
when j=4, 5 > 4, so the reordering extent is 4 or more.
when j=3, but 3 < 4, and 4 is the maximum extent, e=4 (assuming
there are no earlier sequence discontinuities, as in this example).
Further, we can compute the Late Time (210-148=62ms using DstTime)
compared to Packet 5's arrival. If the receiver has a de-jitter
buffer that holds more than 4 packets, or at least 62 ms storage,
Packet 4 may be useful. Note that 1-way delay and IPDV indicate
unusual behavior for Packet 4. Also, if Packet 4 had arrived at
least 62ms earlier, it would have been in-order in this example.
If all packets contained 100 byte payloads, then Byte Offset is
equal to 400 bytes.
Following the definitions of section 5.1, Packet 4 is designated 4-
reordered.
7.2 Example with two packets reordered
Table 2 Example with Packets 5 and 6 Reordered,
Sending order(s @Src): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
s Src Dst Dst Byte Late
@Dst NextExp Time Time Delay IPDV Order Offset Time
1 1 0 68 68 1
2 2 20 88 68 0 2
3 3 40 108 68 0 3
4 4 60 128 68 0 4
7 5 120 188 68 -22 5
5 8 80 189 109 41 6 100 1
6 8 100 190 90 -19 7 100 2
8 8 140 208 68 0 8
9 9 160 228 68 0 9
10 10 180 248 68 0 10
Table 2 shows a case where Packets 5 and 6 arrive just behind Packet
7, so both 5 and 6 are reordered. The Late times (189-188=1, 190-
188=2) are small.
Using the notation <s[1], ..., s[i], ..., s[l]>, the received
packets are represented as:
\/ \/
s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10
i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
/\ /\
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 22
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
Considering Packet 5 first:
when j=5, 7 > 5, so the reordering extent is 1 or more.
when j=4, we have 4 < 5, so 1 is its maximum extent, and e=1.
Considering Packet 6 next:
when j=6, 5 < 6, the extent is not yet defined.
when j=5, 7 > 6, so the reordering extent is i-j=2 or more.
when j=4, 4 < 6, and we find 2 is its maximum extent, and e=2.
We can also associate each of these reordered packets with a
reordering discontinuity. We find the minimum j=5 (for both packets)
according to Section 4.2.3. So Packet 6 is associated with the same
reordering discontinuity as Packet 5, the Reordering Discontinuity
at Packet 7.
This is a case where reordering extent e would over-estimate the
packet storage required to restore order. Only one packet storage is
required (to hold Packet 7), but e=2 for Packet 6.
Following the definitions of section 5, Packet 5 is designated 1-
reordered, but Packet 6 is not designated n-reordered.
A hypothetical sender/receiver pair may retransmit Packet 5
unnecessarily, since it is 1-reordered (in agreement with the
singleton metric). Though Packet 6 may not be unnecessarily
retransmitted, the receiver cannot advance Packet 7 to the higher
layers until after Packet 6 arrives. Therefore, the singleton metric
correctly determined that Packet 6 is reordered.
7.3 Example with three packets reordered
Table 3 Example with Packets 4, 5, and 6 reordered
Sending order(s @Src): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
s Src Dst Dst Byte Late
@Dst NextExp Time Time Delay IPDV Order Offset Time
1 1 0 68 68 1
2 2 20 88 68 0 2
3 3 40 108 68 0 3
7 4 120 188 68 -88 4
8 8 140 208 68 0 5
9 9 160 228 68 0 6
10 10 180 248 68 0 7
4 11 60 250 190 122 8 400 62
5 11 80 252 172 -18 9 400 64
6 11 100 256 156 -16 10 400 68
11 11 200 268 68 0 11
The case in Table 3 is where three packets in sequence have long
transit times (Packets with s = 4,5,and 6). Delay, Late time, and
Byte Offset capture this very well, and indicate variation in
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 23
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
reordering extent, while IPDV indicates that the spacing between
packets 4,5,and 6 has changed.
The histogram of Reordering extents (e) would be:
Bin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Frequency 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
Using the notation <s[1], ..., s[i], ..., s[l]>, the received
packets are represented as:
s = 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,10, 4, 5, 6, 11
i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11
We first calculate the n-reordering. Considering Packet 4 first:
when n=1, 7<=j<8, and 10> 4, so the packet is 1-reordered.
when n=2, 6<=j<8, and 9 > 4, so the packet is 2-reordered.
when n=3, 5<=j<8, and 8 > 4, so the packet is 3-reordered.
when n=4, 4<=j<8, and 7 > 4, so the packet is 4-reordered.
when n=5, 3<=j<8, but 3 < 4, and 4 is the maximum n-reordering.
Considering packet 5[9] next:
when n=1, 8<=j<9, but 4 < 5, so the packet at i=9 is not designated
as n-reordered. We find the same to for Packet 6.
We now consider whether reordered Packets 5 and 6 are associated
with the same reordering discontinuity as Packet 4. Using the test
of Section 4.2.3, we find that the minimum j=4 for all three
packets. They are all associated with the reordering discontinuity
at Packet 7.
This example shows again that the n-reordering definition identifies
a single Packet (4) with a sufficient degree of reordering to result
in one unnecessary packet retransmission by the New Reno TCP sender.
Also, the reordered arrival of Packets 5 and 6 will allow the
receiver process to pass Packets 7 through 10 up the protocol stack
(the singleton Type-P-Reordered = TRUE for Packets 5 and 6, and they
are all associated with a single reordering discontinuity).
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 24
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
7.4 Example with Multiple Packet Reordering Discontinuities
Table 4 Example with Multiple Packet Reordering Discontinuities
Sending order(s @Src): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
Discontinuity Discontinuity
|---------Gap---------|
s = 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 11, 14, 15, 16
i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
r = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
number of runs,n = 1 2 3
end r counts = 5 1 6
Packet 4 has extent e=2, Packet 5 has extent e=3, and Packet 11 has
e=2. There are two different reordering discontinuities, one at
Packet 6 (where j=4) and one at Packet 12 (where j'=11).
According to the definition of Reordering Gap
Gap(j') = (j') - (j)
Gap(11) = (11) - (4) = 7
We also have three reordering-free runs of lengths 5, 1, and 6.
The differences between these two multiple-event metrics are evident
here. Gaps are the distance between sequence discontinuities that
are subsequently defined as reordering discontinuities, while
reordering-free runs capture the distance between reordered packets.
8. Security Considerations
8.1 Denial of Service Attacks
This metric requires a stream of packets sent from one host (source)
to another host (destination) through intervening networks. This
method could be abused for denial of service attacks directed at
destination and/or the intervening network(s).
Administrators of source, destination, and the intervening
network(s) should establish bilateral or multi-lateral agreements
regarding the timing, size, and frequency of collection of sample
metrics. Use of this method in excess of the terms agreed between
the participants may be cause for immediate rejection or discard of
packets or other escalation procedures defined between the affected
parties.
8.2 User data confidentiality
Active use of this method generates packets for a sample, rather
than taking samples based on user data, and does not threaten user
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 25
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
data confidentiality. Passive measurement must restrict attention to
the headers of interest. Since user payloads may be temporarily
stored for length analysis, suitable precautions MUST be taken to
keep this information safe and confidential.
8.3 Interference with the metric
It may be possible to identify that a certain packet or stream of
packets is part of a sample. With that knowledge at the destination
and/or the intervening networks, it is possible to change the
processing of the packets (e.g. increasing or decreasing delay) that
may distort the measured performance. It may also be possible to
generate additional packets that appear to be part of the sample
metric. These additional packets are likely to perturb the results
of the sample measurement.
To discourage the kind of interference mentioned above, packet
interference checks, such as cryptographic hash, may be used.
9. IANA Considerations
Since this metric does not define a protocol or well-known values,
there are no IANA considerations in this memo.
10. Normative References
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc791.txt
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
[RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and Mathis, M.,
"Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
1998.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2330.txt
[RFC3148] Mathis, M. and Allman, M., "A Framework for Defining
Empirical Bulk Transfer Capacity Metrics", RFC 3148, July
2001.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3148.txt
[RFC3432] Raisanen, V., Grotefeld, G., and Morton, A., "Network
performance measurement with periodic streams", RFC 3432,
November 2002.
11. Informative References
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 26
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
[Bel02] J.Bellardo and S.Savage, "Measuring Packet Reordering,"
Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement
Workshop 2002, November 6-8, Marseille, France.
[Ben99] J.C.R.Bennett, C.Partridge, and N.Shectman, "Packet
Reordering is Not Pathological Network Behavior,"
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol.7, no.6, pp.789-
798, December 1999.
[Cia00] L.Ciavattone and A.Morton, "Out-of-Sequence Packet
Parameter Definition (for Y.1540)", Contribution number
T1A1.3/2000-047, October 30, 2000.
ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1a1/2000-A13/0a130470.doc
[Cia03] L.Ciavattone, A.Morton, and G.Ramachandran, "Standardized
Active Measurements on a Tier 1 IP Backbone," IEEE
Communications Mag., pp 90-97, June 2003.
[Jai02] S.Jaiswal et al., "Measurement and Classification of Out-
of-Sequence Packets in a Tier-1 IP Backbone," Proceedings
of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop 2002,
November 6-8, Marseille, France.
[Lou01] D.Loguinov and H.Radha, "Measurement Study of Low-bitrate
Internet Video Streaming", Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM
Internet Measurement Workshop 2001 November 1-2, 2001,
San Francisco, USA.
[Mat03] M. Mathis, J Heffner and R Reddy, "Web100: Extended TCP
Instrumentation for Research, Education and Diagnosis",
ACM Computer Communications Review, Vol 33, Num 3, July
2003. http://www.web100.org/docs/mathis03web100.pdf
[Pax98] V.Paxson, "Measurements and Analysis of End-to-End
Internet Dynamics," Ph.D. dissertation, U.C. Berkeley,
1997, ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/papers/vp-thesis/dis.ps.gz.
[RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981.
Obtain via: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc793.txt
[RFC3393] Demichelis, C., and Chimento, P., "IP Packet Delay
Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC
3393, November 2002.
12. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge many helpful discussions with
Matt Zekauskas, Jon Bennett (who authored the sections on
Reordering-Free Runs), and Matt Mathis. We thank David Newman, Henk
Uijterwall, and Mark Allman for their reviews and suggestions, and
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 27
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
Michal Przybylski for sharing implementation experiences with us on
the ippm-list. We gratefully acknowledge the foundation laid by the
authors of the IP performance Framework [RFC2330].
13. Appendix A Example Implementations in C (Informative)
Two example c-code implementations of reordering definitions follow:
Example 1 n-reordering ============================================
#include <stdio.h>
#define MAXN 100
#define min(a, b) ((a) < (b)? (a): (b))
#define loop(x) ((x) >= 0? x: x + MAXN)
/*
* Read new sequence number and return it. Return a sentinel value
* of EOF (at least once) when there are no more sequence numbers.
* In this example, the sequence numbers come from stdin;
* in an actual test, they would come from the network.
*
*/
int
read_sequence_number()
{
int res, rc;
rc = scanf("%d\n", &res);
if (rc == 1) return res;
else return EOF;
}
int
main()
{
int m[MAXN]; /* We have m[j-1] == number of
* j-reordered packets. */
int ring[MAXN]; /* Last sequence numbers seen. */
int r = 0; /* Ring pointer for next write. */
int l = 0; /* Number of sequence numbers read. */
int s; /* Last sequence number read. */
int j;
for (j = 0; j < MAXN; j++) m[j] = 0;
for (;(s = read_sequence_number())!= EOF;l++,r=(r+1)%MAXN) {
for (j=0; j<min(l, MAXN)&&s<ring[loop(r-j-1)];j++) m[j]++;
ring[r] = s;
}
for (j = 0; j < MAXN && m[j]; j++)
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 28
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
printf("%d-reordering = %f%%\n", j+1, 100.0*m[j]/(l-j-1));
if (j == 0) printf("no reordering\n");
else if (j < MAXN) printf("no %d-reordering\n", j+1);
else printf("only up to %d-reordering is handled\n", MAXN);
exit(0);
}
Example 2 singleton and n-reordering comparison =================
#include <stdio.h>
#define MAXN 100
#define min(a, b) ((a) < (b)? (a): (b))
#define loop(x) ((x) >= 0? x: x + MAXN)
/* Global counters */
int receive_packets=0; /* number of recieved */
int reorder_packets=0; /* number of reordered packets */
/* function to test if current packet has been reordered
* returns 0 = not reordered
* 1 = reordered
*/
int testorder1(int seqnum) // Al
{
static int NextExp = 1;
int iReturn = 0;
if (seqnum >= NextExp) {
NextExp = seqnum+1;
} else {
iReturn = 1;
}
return iReturn;
}
int testorder2(int seqnum) // Stanislav
{
static int ring[MAXN]; /* Last sequence numbers seen. */
static int r = 0; /* Ring pointer for next write */
int l = 0; /* Number of sequence numbers read. */
int j;
int iReturn = 0;
l++;
r = (r+1) % MAXN;
for (j=0; j<min(l, MAXN) && seqnum<ring[loop(r-j-1)]; j++)
iReturn = 1;
ring[r] = seqnum;
return iReturn;
}
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 29
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i, packet;
for (i=1; i< argc; i++) {
receive_packets++;
packet = atoi(argv[i]);
reorder_packets += testorder2(packet);
}
printf("Received packets = %d, Reordered packets = %d\n",
receive_packets, reorder_packets);
exit(0);
}
Reference
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E), as amended by ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001
(E). Also published as:
The C Standard: Incorporating Technical Corrigendum 1, British
Standards Institute, ISBN: 0-470-84573-2, Hardcover, 558 pages,
September 2003.
14. Appendix B Fragment Order Evaluation (Informative)
Section 3 stated that fragment re-assembly is assumed prior to order
evaluation, but that similar procedures could be applied prior to
re-assembly. This appendix gives definitions and procedures to
identify reordering in a packet stream that includes fragmentation.
14.1 Metric Name:
The Metric retains the same name, Type-P-Reordered, but additional
parameters are required.
This Appendix assumes that the device that divides a packet into
fragments send them according to ascending fragment offset. Early
Linux OS sent fragments in reverse order, so this possibility is
worth checking.
14.2 Additional Metric Parameters:
+ MoreFrag, the state of the More Fragments Flag in the IP header
+ FragOffset, the offset from the beginning of a fragmented packet,
in 8 octet units (also from the IP header).
+ FragSeq#, the sequence number from the IP header of a fragmented
packet currently under evaluation for reordering. When set to
zero, fragment evaluation is not in progress.
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 30
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
+ NextExpFrag, the Next Expected Fragment Offset at the
Destination, in 8 octet units. Set to zero when fragment
evaluation is not in progress.
The packet sequence number, s, is assumed to be the same as the IP
header sequence number. Also, the value of NextExp does not change
with the in-order arrival of fragments. NextExp is only updated when
a last fragment or a complete packet arrives.
Note that packets with missing fragments MUST be declared lost, and
the Reordering status of any fragments that do arrive MUST be
excluded from sample metrics.
14.3 Definition:
The value of Type-P-Reordered is typically false (the packet is in-
order) when
* the sequence number s >= NextExp,
* AND the fragment offset FragOffset >= NextExpFrag
However, it more efficient to define reordered conditions exactly,
and designate Type-P-Reordered as False otherwise.
The value of Type-P-Reordered is defined as True (the packet is
reordered) under the conditions below. In these cases, the NextExp
value does not change.
Case 1: if s < NextExp
Case 2: if s < FragSeq#
Case 3: if s>= NextExp AND s = FragSeq# AND FragOffset < NextExpFrag
This definition can also be illustrated in pseudo-code. A draft
version of the code follows, and some simplification may be
possible. A challenging aspect surrounds the housekeeping for the
new parameters.
NextExp=0;
NextExpFrag=0;
FragSeq#=0;
while(packets arrive with s, MoreFrag, FragOffset)
{
if (s>=NextExp AND MoreFrag==0 AND s>=FragSeq#){
/* a normal packet or last frag of an in-order packet arrived
*/
NextExp = s+1;
FragSeq# = 0;
NextExpFrag = 0;
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 31
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
Reordering = False;
}
if (s>=NextExp AND MoreFrag==1 AND s>FragSeq#>=0){
/* a fragment of a new packet arrived, possibly with a
higher sequence number than the current fragmented packet */
FragSeq# = s;
NextExpFrag = FragOffset+1;
Reordering = False;
}
if (s>=NextExp AND MoreFrag==1 AND s==FragSeq#){
/* a fragment of the "current packet s" arrived */
if (FragOffset >= NextExpFrag){
NextExpFrag = FragOffset+1;
Reordering = False;
}
else{
Reordering = True; /* fragment reordered */
}
}
if (s>=NextExp AND MoreFrag==1 AND s < FragSeq#){
/* case where a late fragment arrived,
for illustration only, redundant with else below*/
Reordering = True;
}
else { /* when s < NextExp, or MoreFrag==0 AND s < FragSeq# */
Reordering = True;
}
}
A working version of the code would include a check to ensure that
all fragments of a packet arrive before using the Reordered status
further, such as in sample metrics.
14.4 Discussion: Notes on Sample Metrics when evaluating Fragments
All fragments with the same Source Sequence Number are assigned the
same Source Time.
Evaluation with byte stream numbering may be simplified if the
fragment offset is simply added to the SourceByte of the first
packet (with fragment offset = 0), keeping the 8 octet units of the
offset in mind.
15. Author's Addresses
Al Morton
AT&T Labs
Room D3 - 3C06
200 Laurel Ave. South
Middletown, NJ 07748 USA
Phone +1 732 420 1571
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 32
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
EMail: <acmorton@att.com>
Len Ciavattone
AT&T Labs
Room C4 - 2B29
200 Laurel Ave. South
Middletown, NJ 07748 USA
Phone +1 732 420 1239
EMail: <lencia@att.com>
Gomathi Ramachandran
AT&T Labs
Room C4 - 3D22
200 Laurel Ave. South
Middletown, NJ 07748 USA
Phone +1 732 420 2353
EMail: <gomathi@att.com>
Stanislav Shalunov
Internet2
200 Business Park Drive, Suite 307
Armonk, NY 10504
Phone: + 1 914 765 1182
EMail: <shalunov@internet2.edu>
Jerry Perser
Consultant
Calabasas, CA 91302 USA
Phone: + 1
EMail: <jerry@perser.org>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 33
Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM December 2004
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Morton, et al. Standards Track exp. May 2005 Page 34
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 07:35:35 |