From nobody Tue Apr 7 00:31:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1343C1B3289 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 00:31:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.86 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ho2mNXaNmO1H for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 00:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de (atlas3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6BD01B3284 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 00:31:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F284E71; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:31:03 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.220]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id ae9P4-qUtFen; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:30:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:31:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8501E2002B; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:31:02 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IpxquDW9pQoV; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:31:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (shubcas04.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD4E520013; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:31:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from SXCHMB01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de ([fe80::c1f:c30f:99ac:df0c]) by SHUBCAS04.jacobs.jacobs-university.de ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:31:00 +0200 From: "Bajpai, Vaibhav" To: "hops@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: measurement platforms and their capabilities (previously was HOPS bar bof notes) Thread-Index: AQHQcQTL+lOPDS35bEGZRBkXouPhMA== Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 07:30:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.50.203.30] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3F2C1A9E-A178-4289-9685-1EA58E17588F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "Bajpai, Vaibhav" , Aaron Falk Subject: [hops] measurement platforms and their capabilities (previously was HOPS bar bof notes) X-BeenThere: hops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Measuring deployability of new transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 07:31:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3F2C1A9E-A178-4289-9685-1EA58E17588F X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear hops, > On 23 Mar 2015, at 18:51, Aaron Falk wrote: [...] > Test infrastructure > =E2=80=A2 AI: group to share on the list what measurement = (platforms) exists and what capabilities they have Early discussions within LMAP [1] also often lead to folks asking for = feature sets and possibilities of each contemporary performance measurement = platform. So we started digging literature work in this space and found that = although there were surveys on topology-based measurement platforms (such CAIDA = Ark and DIMES); literature work on performance measurement platforms (such = RIPE Atlas, SamKnows and BISmark) was missing. Therefore, we started writing such a survey in 2013 to plug this gap. = This work got published this week. Thought would share this with you. Hope it helps. = ----------------8<-----------------8<-----------------8<-----------------8= < A Survey on Internet Performance Measurement Platforms and Related = Standardization Efforts Vaibhav Bajpai, J=C3=BCrgen Sch=C3=B6nw=C3=A4lder IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials April, 2015 A number of Internet measurement platforms have emerged in the last few = years. These platforms have deployed thousands of probes at strategic locations within access and backbone networks and behind residential gateways. In = this paper we provide a taxonomy of these measurement platforms on the basis = of their deployment use-case. We describe these platforms in detail by = exploring their coverage, scale, lifetime, deployed metrics and measurement tools, architecture and overall research impact. We conclude the survey by = describing current standardization efforts to make large-scale performance = measurement platforms interoperable. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2015.2418435 Author Copy: = http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/lsmp-comst-2015.pdf = ----------------8<-----------------8<-----------------8<-----------------8= < Thanks! [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lmap Best, Vaibhav =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D Vaibhav Bajpai Research I, Room 91 Computer Networks and Distributed Systems (CNDS) Lab School of Engineering and Sciences Jacobs University Bremen, Germany www.vaibhavbajpai.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D --Apple-Mail=_3F2C1A9E-A178-4289-9685-1EA58E17588F X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVI4ezAAoJEHR3XKwTWKOZ6WsH/RETHZtzmU8FsiKr0/sdCZ0H Airxno4MXDN5cnN3sGu4vhtfCInNET6wph1dI5Me2up6Hcu/R8AqQKjy4pYEZs+5 NBvhd63HEjYXnZkU0znBJN9uOHXfU/kp/pZCAWl/RqiOXMbclx2teRl/m7zF7sIJ M60ILNC1K8uE+o6ijQoi/6Vye5mjqpvnb8mT3GoGhCBbxOv2DgXqRRfH5i5/kGKP gbBnokYT/xS5cw50JKSDZkKBmQWjP1/YnQcD8xXv3ln/urZmESw+DM6hw2sN3Qzy P1Mp56MdKxfEsF2rNW1hCI+miTDmeqWVVDhH6K3AxzP3+A++kt+PDFQI1B+6R7A= =Gw5Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_3F2C1A9E-A178-4289-9685-1EA58E17588F-- From nobody Tue Apr 14 08:13:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hops@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD721B2BE9 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:13:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6YiHCz07pmxT for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE311ACE3C for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::b9] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:10ec:2a49:8000::b9]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E45011A00E5 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:12:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Brian Trammell X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_36CDAB1B-679B-4057-843C-24C4E2312438"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:12:37 +0200 Message-Id: <3B227409-7598-433D-9589-F484D2315C3D@trammell.ch> To: hops@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Subject: [hops] A HOPS Data Wishlist X-BeenThere: hops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Measuring deployability of new transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:13:58 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_36CDAB1B-679B-4057-843C-24C4E2312438 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings, all, At the BarBoF meeting at the IETF in Dallas, I volunteered (or was = volunteered, don't recall) to start a "wishlist" of data we would like = to see about middlebox impairments in the Internet, as part of an effort = to match this up with what we actually think we can get. I answered to = the list "see Table 8 in = http://rbeverly.net/research/papers/hiccups-sigcomm14.pdf"... but more = generally, here's what I think we need, both at the level of results we = can use as well as at the level of raw data. First, for a given protocol or protocol feature, I'd like to know: (1) what the likelihood is that it will work (i.e. that all the data the = option needs to function will not be changed by the path, such as = through option stripping), and (2) what the likelihood is that trying to use it will cause connectivity = failure (by dropping packets using the protocol or protocol feature, or = worse, as in the infamous case of the old routers that ECN would = reboot). (Once we have answers to those, I'm interested in (3) as well: whether = there is a measurable performance penalty in the Internet to the use of = an option or protocol as opposed to some other option or protocol, = through e.g. slow-pathing, different treatment at the queues, etc, etc, = etc. But I'm not sure it's even possible to isolate causality from = transient effects in this case, so let's answer the first two, first.) Of course, every path in the Internet is not created equally. We = recently just did an silly little measurement study for a paper under = submission which had a bunch of residential and mobile nets and one = enterprise network, to see if UDP encaps like SPUD are feasible. If you = look at everything other than the enterprise network, the answer is = "absolutely". But the enterprise network blocks most/all UDP as a matter = of policy. So questions 1 and 2 above probably need at the coarsest = grain some information about the type of access at each end of the path. At a higher level of resolution, what I'd really like to have is a giant = table of tuples like this: {time, path, feature, condition} where "path" is some identifier for a routable source/destination pair, = "feature" is the protocol or extension which we tried to use, and = "condition" is what happened ("ok", "stripped", "interfered", "dropped", = "reset" etc.). This does not capture everything that would be necessary = for building high-resolution models of middlebox behavior (specifically = stateful behaviors such as rate limiting, port knocking or = port-knocking-like things, etc) but it does allow us to determine = whether a path is "possibly clean" or "definitely less than 100% clean". A path identifier would ideally include a trace of every hop along the = path, but that is I know asking for too much. In the routable address = domain (i.e. the entire internet that isn't behind a NAT) just source = and destination endpoints or prefixes (along with "time" of sufficient = resolution) would be enough to tell a lot of things, especially if one = presumes that the core doesn't mess with much other than MTU. Cheers, Brian --Apple-Mail=_36CDAB1B-679B-4057-843C-24C4E2312438 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVLS5lAAoJENt3nsOmbNJc5wMH/Ap4Ot1O7gHnXFPeZ5u29j3q t9KVYd3MAUhK4a3IrX0wS1geiDY8FnMOx4H7E9QKstoStiUjlNp05yfIyUM19ExG J0cQ24lWUcFeMpZ/WM8Ga2XQaeJyK4fdvfp+jPYo0zQtbP6Pxhn64XURixDjsSqG XnF12SqEAIIithLeJKouK1ZT8ojXftfEbcjQnfEQf2fCgLqhoMzTWXAAiWhzH0Mz C0X03WOswMYhr1FS8iU7YQ/IZyrQM1d81DSyq6P6TC28JmKSHPdWE/X/gTbdW8Jk MEy4sW0xVrjaGQGRZ/EPpA5rZ69z9Kx3GrISR3sTo3EDVA9D9ouol/T0mnucQew= =K69o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_36CDAB1B-679B-4057-843C-24C4E2312438--