home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group W. Simpson
- Request for Comments: 1333 Daydreamer
- May 1992
-
-
-
- PPP Link Quality Monitoring
-
-
-
- Status of this Memo
-
- This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet
- community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
- Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
- Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
- Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- Abstract
-
- The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method of
- encapsulating Network Layer protocol information over point-to-point
- links. PPP also defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, which
- allows negotiation of a Quality Protocol for continuous monitoring of
- the viability of the link.
-
- This document defines a protocol for generating Link-Quality-Reports.
-
- This RFC is a product of the Point-to-Point Protocol Working Group of
- the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments on this memo
- should be submitted to the ietf-ppp@ucdavis.edu mailing list.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page i]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- Table of Contents
-
-
- 1. Introduction .......................................... 1
-
- 2. Link Quality Monitoring ............................... 2
- 2.1 Design Motivation ............................... 2
- 2.2 Counters ........................................ 2
- 2.3 Counting Packets and Octets ..................... 4
- 2.4 Processes ....................................... 4
- 2.5 Configuration Option Format ..................... 6
- 2.6 Packet Format ................................... 8
- 2.7 Transmission of Reports ......................... 12
- 2.8 Calculations .................................... 12
- 2.9 Failure Detection ............................... 13
- 2.10 Policy Suggestions .............................. 14
-
- SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 14
-
- REFERENCES ................................................... 14
-
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. 14
-
- CHAIR'S ADDRESS .............................................. 15
-
- AUTHOR'S ADDRESS ............................................. 15
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page ii]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- 1. Introduction
-
- PPP has three main components:
-
- 1. A method for encapsulating datagrams over serial links.
-
- 2. A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring,
- and testing the data-link connection.
-
- 3. A family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing
- and configuring different network-layer protocols.
-
- In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, each
- end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to configure the data
- link during the Establishment phase. During the Authentication and
- Network-Layer Protocol phases, the link may be tested to determine if
- quality is sufficient for operation. This testing is completely
- optional.
-
- If an implementation desires that the peer use some specific link
- quality monitoring protocol, then it MUST negotiate the use of that
- protocol using the Quality-Protocol Configuration Option during Link
- Establishment phase.
-
- The negotiation mechanism is independent in each direction. However,
- if the peer agrees to send Quality-Protocol packets, it MUST
- correctly process such packets on reception, even if it does not
- request such packets or implement a monitoring policy.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 1]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- 2. Link Quality Monitoring
-
- Data communications links are rarely perfect. Packets can be dropped
- or corrupted for various reasons (line noise, equipment failure,
- buffer overruns, etc.). Sometimes, it is desirable to determine
- when, and how often, the link is dropping data. Routers, for
- example, may want to temporarily allow another route to take
- precedence. An implementation may also have the option of
- disconnecting and switching to an alternate link. The process of
- determining data loss is called "Link Quality Monitoring".
-
- 2.1. Design Motivation
-
- There are many different ways to measure link quality, and even more
- ways to react to it. Rather than specifying a single scheme, Link
- Quality Monitoring is divided into a "mechanism" and a "policy". PPP
- fully specifies the "mechanism" for Link Quality Monitoring by
- defining the Link-Quality-Report (LQR) packet and specifying a
- procedure for its use. PPP does NOT specify a Link Quality
- Monitoring "policy" -- how to judge link quality or what to do when
- it is inadequate. That is left as an implementation decision, and
- can be different at each end of the link. Implementations are
- allowed, and even encouraged, to experiment with various link quality
- policies. The Link Quality Monitoring mechanism specification
- insures that two implementations with different policies may
- communicate and interoperate.
-
- To allow flexible policies to be implemented, the PPP Link Quality
- Monitoring mechanism measures data loss in units of packets, octets,
- and Link-Quality-Reports. Each measurement is made separately for
- each half of the link, both inbound and outbound. All measurements
- are communicated to both ends of the link so that each end of the
- link can implement its own link quality policy for both its outbound
- and inbound links.
-
- Finally, the Link Quality Monitoring protocol is designed to be
- implementable on many different kinds of systems. Although it may be
- common to implement PPP (and especially Link Quality Monitoring) as a
- single software process, multi-process implementations with hardware
- support are also envisioned. The PPP Link Quality Monitoring
- mechanism provides for this by careful definition of the Link-
- Quality-Report packet format, and by specifying reference points for
- all data transmission and reception measurements.
-
- 2.2. Counters
-
- Each Link Quality Monitoring implementation maintains counts of the
- number of packets and octets transmitted and successfully received,
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 2]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- and periodically transmits this information to its peer in a Link-
- Quality-Report packet.
-
- These counters are similar to sequence numbers; they are constantly
- increasing to give a "relative" indication of the number of packets
- and octets communicated across the outbound link. By comparing the
- values in successive Link-Quality-Reports, an LQR receiver can
- compute the "delta" number of packets and octets successfully
- communicated across the link. Comparing these absolute numbers then
- gives an indication of a link's quality. Relative numbers, rather
- than absolute, are transmitted because they greatly simplify link
- synchronization.
-
- The Link-Quality-Report uses the Interface counters defined by SNMP
- MIB-II [2]. These counters are not initialized to any particular
- value when the LCP enters the Establishment phase.
-
- In addition, the Link-Quality-Report requires the implementation of
- the following three unsigned, monotonically increasing counters which
- conform to the type and size requirements for SNMP MIB Counters [3].
-
- OutLQRs
-
- OutLQRs is a 32-bit counter which increases by one for each
- tranmitted Link-Quality-Report packet. This counter MUST be set
- to zero when the LCP enters the Establishment phase, and MUST NOT
- be reset until the LCP leaves the Termination phase. This counter
- is incremented before it is inserted into the LQR packet.
-
- InLQRs
-
- InLQRs is a 32-bit counter which increases by one for each
- received Link-Quality-Report packet. This counter MUST be set to
- zero when the LCP enters the Establishment phase, and MUST NOT be
- reset until the LCP leaves the Termination phase. This counter is
- incremented before it is inserted (in an implementation dependent
- fashion) into the LQR packet.
-
- InGoodOctets
-
- InGoodOctets is a 32-bit counter which increases by the number of
- octets in each successfully received Data Link Layer packet.
- Unlike the MIB ifInOctets, octets for frames which are counted in
- ifInDiscards and ifInErrors MUST NOT be counted. This counter MAY
- be set to any initial value when the LCP enters the Establishment
- phase, but MUST NOT be reset until the LCP leaves the Termination
- phase.
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 3]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- 2.3. Counting Packets and Octets
-
- The intent of the counters is to provide an indication of the amount
- of information passing over the link, rather than an actual
- measurement of the total bandwidth used. This specification is
- designed to yield the same count in various circumstances, such as
- when a separate device provides the framing and escaping mechanisms
- invisibly to the implementation, or a synchronous-to-asynchronous
- converter in the link changes between mechanisms.
-
- All octets which are included in the FCS calculation MUST be counted,
- including the packet header, the information field, and any padding.
- The FCS octets MUST also be counted, and one flag octet per frame
- MUST be counted. All other octets (such as additional flag
- sequences, and escape bits or octets) MUST NOT be counted.
-
- When inserting the packet and octet counts in the LQR, the counts
- MUST include the expected values for the LQR itself.
-
- 2.4. Processes
-
- The PPP Link Quality Monitoring mechanism is described using a
- "logical process" model. As shown below, there are five logical
- processes duplicated at each end of the duplex link.
-
- +---------+ +-------+ +----+ Outbound
- | |-->| Mux |-->| Tx |=========>
- | Link- | +-------+ +----+
- | Manager |
- | | +-------+ +----+ Inbound
- | |<--| Demux |<--| Rx |<=========
- +---------+ +-------+ +----+
-
- Link-Manager
-
- The Link-Manager process transmits and receives Link-Quality-
- Reports, and implements the desired link quality policy. LQR
- packets are transmitted at a constant rate, which is negotiated by
- the LCP Quality-Protocol Configuration Option.
-
- Mux
-
- The Mux process multiplexes packets from the various protocols
- (e.g., LCP, IP, XNS, etc.) into a single, sequential, and
- prioritized stream of packets. Link-Quality-Report packets MUST
- be given the highest possible priority to insure that link quality
- information is communicated in a timely manner.
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 4]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- Tx
-
- The Tx process maintains the MIB counters ifOutUniPackets and
- ifOutOctets, and the internal counter OutLQRs, which are used to
- measure the amount of data which is transmitted on the outbound
- link. When Tx processes a Link-Quality-Report packet, it inserts
- the values of these counters into the corresponding PeerOut...
- fields of the packet. The Tx process MUST follow the Mux process
- so that packets are counted in the order transmitted to the link.
-
- Rx
-
- The Rx process maintains the MIB counters ifInUniPackets,
- ifInDiscards, ifInErrors and IfInOctets, and the internal counters
- InLQRs and InGoodOctets, which are used to measure the amount of
- data which is received by the inbound link. When Rx processes a
- Link-Quality-Report packet, it inserts the values of these
- counters into the corresponding SaveIn... fields of the packet (in
- an implementation dependent manner).
-
- Demux
-
- The Demux process demultiplexes packets for the various protocols.
- The Demux process MUST follow the Rx process so that packets are
- counted in the order received from the link.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 5]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- 2.5. Configuration Option Format
-
-
- Description
-
- Implementations MUST be prepared to receive the Quality-Protocol
- Configuration Option for the Link-Quality-Report. However,
- negotiation is not required. Negotiation is only necessary when
- the implementation wishes to ensure that the peer transmits Link-
- Quality-Reports as opposed to some other Quality-Protocol, or else
- to prevent the peer from maintaining its own timer, or else to
- establish a maximum time between transmissions of Link-Quality-
- Reports.
-
- A summary of the Quality-Protocol Configuration Option format to
- negotiate the Link-Quality-Report is shown below. The fields are
- transmitted from left to right.
-
- 0 1 2 3
- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Type | Length | Quality-Protocol |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Reporting-Period |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- Type
-
- 4
-
- Length
-
- 8
-
- Quality-Protocol
-
- c025 (hex) for Link-Quality-Report
-
- Reporting-Period
-
- The Reporting-Period field is four octets and indicates the
- maximum time in hundredths of seconds between transmission of
- packets. The peer MAY transmit packets at a faster rate than that
- which was negotiated.
-
- A value of zero indicates that the peer does not need to maintain
- a timer. Instead, the peer generates a LQR immediately upon
- receiving a LQR. A value of zero MUST be Nak'd by the peer with
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 6]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- an appropriate non-zero value when that peer has sent or will send
- a Configure-Request packet containing the Quality-Protocol
- Configuration Option for the Link-Quality-Report with a zero
- Reporting-Period.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 7]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- 2.6. Packet Format
-
- Exactly one Link-Quality-Report packet is encapsulated in the
- Information field of PPP Data Link Layer frames where the protocol
- field indicates type hex c025 (Link-Quality-Report). A summary of
- the LQR packet format is shown below. The names of the fields are
- relative to the packet receiver, since it is the receiver who
- requested the packet in the Configuration Option. The fields are
- transmitted from left to right.
-
- 0 1 2 3
- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | Magic-Number |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | LastOutLQRs |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | LastOutPackets |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | LastOutOctets |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | PeerInLQRs |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | PeerInPackets |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | PeerInDiscards |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | PeerInErrors |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | PeerInOctets |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | PeerOutLQRs |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | PeerOutPackets |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | PeerOutOctets |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- The following fields are not actually transmitted over the inbound
- link. Rather, they are logically appended (in an implementation
- dependent manner) to the packet by the implementation's Rx process.
-
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | SaveInLQRs |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | SaveInPackets |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | SaveInDiscards |
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 8]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | SaveInErrors |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- | SaveInOctets |
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-
- Magic-Number
-
- The Magic-Number field is four octets and aids in detecting links
- which are in the looped-back condition. Unless modified by a
- Configuration Option, the Magic-Number MUST be transmitted as zero
- and MUST be ignored on reception. If Magic-Numbers have been
- negotiated, incoming LQR packets SHOULD be checked to ensure that
- the local end is not seeing its own Magic-Number and thus a
- looped-back link. See the Magic-Number Configuration Option for
- further explanation.
-
- LastOutLQRs
-
- The LastOutLQRs field is four octets, and is copied from the most
- recently received PeerOutLQRs on transmission.
-
- LastOutPackets
-
- The LastOutPackets field is four octets, and is copied from the
- most recently received PeerOutPackets on transmission.
-
- LastOutOctets
-
- The LastOutOctets field is four octets, and is copied from the
- most recently received PeerOutOctets on transmission.
-
- PeerInLQRs
-
- The PeerInLQRs field is four octets, and is copied from the most
- recently received SaveInLQRs on transmission.
-
- Whenever the PeerInLQRs field is discovered to be zero, the
- LastOut... fields are indeterminate, and the PeerIn... fields
- contain the initial values for the peer.
-
- PeerInPackets
-
- The PeerInPackets field is four octets, and is copied from the
- most recently received SaveInPackets on transmission.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 9]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- PeerInDiscards
-
- The PeerInDiscards field is four octets, and is copied from the
- most recently received SaveInDiscards on transmission.
-
- PeerInErrors
-
- The PeerInErrors field is four octets, and is copied from the most
- recently received SaveInErrors on transmission.
-
- PeerInOctets
-
- The PeerInOctets field is four octets, and is copied from the most
- recently received SaveInOctets on transmission.
-
- PeerOutLQRs
-
- The PeerOutLQRs field is four octets, and is copied from OutLQRs
- on transmission. This number MUST include this LQR.
-
- PeerOutPackets
-
- The PeerOutPackets field is four octets, and is copied from the
- current MIB ifOutUniPackets and ifOutNUniPackets on transmission.
- This number MUST include this LQR.
-
- PeerOutOctets
-
- The PeerOutOctets field is four octets, and is copied from the
- current MIB ifOutOctets on transmission. This number MUST include
- this LQR.
-
- SaveInLQRs
-
- The SaveInLQRs field is four octets, and is copied from InLQRs on
- reception. This number MUST include this LQR.
-
- SaveInPackets
-
- The SaveInPackets field is four octets, and is copied from the
- current MIB ifInUniPackets and ifInNUniPackets on reception. This
- number MUST include this LQR.
-
- SaveInDiscards
-
- The SaveInDiscards field is four octets, and is copied from the
- current MIB ifInDiscards on reception. This number MUST include
- this LQR.
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 10]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- SaveInErrors
-
- The SaveInErrors field is four octets, and is copied from the
- current MIB ifInErrors on reception. This number MUST include
- this LQR.
-
- SaveInOctets
-
- The SaveInOctets field is four octets, and is copied from the
- current InGoodOctets on reception. This number MUST include this
- LQR.
-
- Note that InGoodOctets is not the same as the MIB ifInOctets
- counter, as InGoodOctets does not include octets for packets which
- are discards or errors.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 11]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- 2.7. Transmission of Reports
-
- When the PPP Link Control Protocol has reached the Opened state, the
- Link Quality Monitoring process MAY commence sending Link-Quality-
- Reports. If a Protocol-Reject is received specifying a LQR packet,
- the LQM process MUST cease sending LQRs.
-
- Usually, the LQR is transmitted when the LQR timer for the link
- expires. If no LQR timer is used, a LQR is generated upon receipt of
- an incoming LQR. The negotiation process ensures that at least one
- side of the link is using a LQR timer.
-
- In addition, a LQR is generated whenever two successive LQRs are
- received which have the same PeerInLQRs value. This may indicate
- that a LQR has been missed, or that the implementation is sending at
- a significantly slower rate than the peer, or that the peer has
- accelerated LQR generation to better quantify errors on the link.
-
- Whenever a LQR is sent, the LQR timer MUST be restarted.
-
- 2.8. Calculations
-
- Each time a Link-Quality-Report packet is received from the inbound
- link, the Link-Manager can compare the associated fields. The fields
- of the previous LQR can be subtracted from the current LQR values to
- obtain an absolute "delta", which allows comparision of the changes
- seen by each end of the link.
-
- If the received PeerInLQRs field is zero, the LastOut... fields are
- indeterminate, and the PeerIn... fields contain the initial values
- for the peer. No calculations using these fields can be performed at
- this time.
-
- Implementation Note:
-
- The following counters wrap to zero when their maximum value is
- reached. Care must be taken to ensure that correct "delta"
- calculations are performed at that time.
-
- The LastOutLQRs field may be directly compared with the PeerInLQRs
- field to determine how many outbound LQRs have been lost.
-
- The LastOutLQRs field may be directly compared with the OutLQRs
- counter to determine how many outbound LQRs are still in the
- pipeline.
-
- The change in PeerInPackets may be compared with the change in
- LastOutPackets to determine the number of lost packets over the
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 12]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- outgoing link.
-
- The change in PeerInOctets may be compared with the change in
- LastOutOctets to determine the number of lost octets over the
- outgoing link.
-
- The change in SaveInPackets may be compared with the change in
- PeerOutPackets to determine the number of lost packets over the
- incoming link.
-
- The change in SaveInOctets may be compared with the change in
- PeerOutOctets to determine the number of lost octets over the
- incoming link.
-
- The change in the PeerInDiscards and PeerInErrors fields may be used
- to determine whether packet loss is due to congestion in the peer
- rather than physical link failure.
-
- 2.9. Failure Detection
-
- When the link is operating well in both directions of the link, the
- LQR is superfluous. The maximum time interval for transmitting LQRs
- SHOULD be chosen to minimally interfere with active traffic.
-
- When there is a measurable loss of data in either direction, if the
- overall throughput is adequate, conditions are not severe enough to
- warrant dropping the link. Sending LQRs faster will gain nothing,
- except to measure peaks in the loss rate. The time interval MUST be
- chosen to be long enough to have a good smoothing effect on the data,
- while short enough to ensure fast enough response to complete
- failure.
-
- When the link is good incoming, but very bad outgoing, incoming LQRs
- indicate a high loss on the outgoing side of the link. Sending LQRs
- faster won't help, because they are probably lost on the way to the
- peer.
-
- When the link is good outgoing, but very bad incoming, incoming LRQs
- will be frequently lost. In this case, LQRs SHOULD be sent at a
- faster rate. This primarily relies on the peer to make an informed
- policy decision. The peer will also send LQRs in response (due to
- the duplicate PeerInLQRs field), and some of those LQRs may
- successfully arrive.
-
- When a LQR does not arrive within the time expected, or the LQR
- received indicates that the links are truly bad, at least one
- additional LQR SHOULD be sent. An algorithmic decision requires at
- least 2 round trip intervals. The loss rate could be transient, due
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 13]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- to a heavily loaded link, or a lost outgoing LQR.
-
- 2.10. Policy Suggestions
-
- Link-Quality-Report packets provide a mechanism to determine the link
- quality, but it is up to each implementation to decide when the link
- is usable. It is recommended that this policy implement some amount
- of hysteresis so that the link does not bounce up and down. One
- policy is to use a K out of N algorithm. In such an algorithm, there
- must be K successes out of the last N periods for the link to be
- considered of good quality.
-
- Procedures for recovery from poor quality links are unspecified and
- may vary from implementation to implementation. A suggested approach
- is to immediately close all other Network-Layer protocols (i.e.,
- cause IPCP to transmit a Terminate-Request), but to continue
- transmitting Link-Quality-Reports. Once the link quality again
- reaches an acceptable level, Network-Layer protocols can be
- reconfigured.
-
- Security Considerations
-
- Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
-
- References
-
- [1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol", RFC 1331, May 1992.
-
- [2] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
- Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II", RFC
- 1213, March 1991.
-
- [3] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
- Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", RFC 1155,
- May 1990.
-
- Acknowledgments
-
- Some of the text in this document is taken from RFC 1172, by Drew
- Perkins of Carnegie Mellon University, and by Russ Hobby of the
- University of California at Davis.
-
- Special thanks to Craig Fox (Network Systems), and Karl Fox (Morning
- Star Technologies), for design suggestions based on implementation
- experience.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 14]
-
- RFC 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring May 1992
-
-
- Chair's Address
-
- The working group can be contacted via the current chair:
-
- Brian Lloyd
- Lloyd & Associates
- 3420 Sudbury Road
- Cameron Park, California 95682
-
- Phone: (916) 676-1147
-
- EMail: brian@ray.lloyd.com
-
-
-
- Author's Address
-
- Questions about this memo can also be directed to:
-
- William Allen Simpson
- Daydreamer
- Computer Systems Consulting Services
- P O Box 6205
- East Lansing, MI 48826-6025
-
- EMail: bsimpson@ray.lloyd.com
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simpson [Page 15]
-
-