Subject: [lmap] Comments on Collaborative LMAP

From: Sørensen, Frode <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 08:12:47 +0000

Dear Lingli & Rachel & Shihui, dear all,

As agreed with authors of the Collaborative LMAP draft, I circulate a few proposals regarding the description of regulators in draft-deng-lmap-collaboration-04. The general idea is to generalize the description so it fits different types of regulators, since regulation varies from region to region. Furthermore, I suggest emphasizing the need stakeholders, e.g. regulators, may have regarding interworking between different measurement systems as a major motivation for a collaborative LMAP architecture.

Frode

Section 1, paragraph on page 3
-----------------------------------------
Suggested new wording, added last sentence (could also consider making the last sentence the first motivation in the list):

   On the other hand, for a large network, collaboration between
   multiple Controllers may also be needed for performing local
   measurement tasks, either because there is a practical limit on the
   number of MAs a single Controller can manage simultaneously for
   scalability considerations, because that a local task may involve
   multiple MAs that are speaking different languages (i.e. different
   control/report protocols), or because different organizations want
   to interconnect their measurement systems.

Section 1, paragraph on page 4
-----------------------------------------
Suggested new wording, minor modification + added last sentence:

   This document discusses the motivation and use-cases for
   collaborative LMAP practices, where multiple autonomous measurement
   systems collaborate together to help with QoE enhancement by ICPs,
   network performance monitoring to guide planning for network
   infrastructure and cross-boundary troubleshooting for SLA complaints
   from end consumers, as well as performing regulatory supervision by
   national regulators.

Section 3, top of page 6
-------------------------------
Suggested new wording, shortened the description of regulators to generalize:

   for multiple parties, including: (1) Internet Service Providers, in
   solving end user's QoE issues by better managing and optimizing their
   networks, (2) Internet Content Providers, for enhance its service
   logic and application design, (3) regulators in examining the status
   of and guiding future regulation.

Section 3, paragraph on page 6
-----------------------------------------
Suggested new wording, modifications + added last sentence:

   On one hand, for the regulator, in order to stimulate network
   development, it is necessary to have a clear picture of ISPs' peering
   performance for interconnection points in addition to their own
   network construction. Considering the cost of a unified third-party
   deployment for LMAP MAs at various peering links among ISPs for a large
   geographic area, it may be more practical to make use of ISPs' autonomous
   LMAP systems for collaboration. Alternatively, regulators in different
   countries may want to interconnect their own measurement systems to
   perform cross-border measurements.

Section 4.2, on pages 7-8
-----------------------------------------
Suggested new wording, miscellaneous modifications, note the slightly modified headers:

4.2 QoE-oriented network measurements

   A regulator may want to monitoring the current status and
   the future development of network construction and operation of its
   region. In order to promote network development, the
   regulator needs to monitor the status of interconnection between
   different ISPs as well as the overall network status.

4.2.1 The current situation of its own region

   Understanding the current situation of its own region is
   necessary for a regulator to form guiding policies for stimulating
   further growth in high-speed networks.
   In order to get a clear picture of a large geographic area,
   the regulator may choose to not deploy a dedicated LMAP system
   on its own, while it's necessary to deploy a large number of MAs.
   The regulator may achieve this goal by means of the ISP's LMAP
   and the third-party LMAPs.

   In that case, multiple organizations would
   simultaneously deploy their dedicated MAs for private LMAP systems
   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 regional network in great depth, which can reflect the
   network's operational state.

4.2.2 The peering performance between ISPs

   Low performance of peering links between different ISPs not only has
   great impact on ICP services, but also on an access ISPs relying
   on transit ISPs for internet connectivity. For example, a mobile
   operator lacking access to an internet resource will have to pay
   interconnections to other operators. The regulator can
   formulate policies to promote information sharing
   between ISP networks and investigate the user QoE problem by understanding
   the interconnection performance. For the same reason, an ISP/ICP can also
   benefit from a more clear understanding of the performance of the
   interconnection.

   For example, the data flow for a service request from a mobile
   terminal to an ICP first goes through the access ISP network
   and then into the Internet via a transit 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.