Network Working Group G. Almes
Request for Comments: 2679 S. Kalidindi
Category: Standards Track M. Zekauskas
Advanced Network & Services
September 1999
Network Working Group G. Almes
Request for Comments: 2679 S. Kalidindi
Category: Standards Track M. Zekauskas
Advanced Network & Services
September 1999
A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM
IPPM的单向延迟度量
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
This memo defines a metric for one-way delay of packets across Internet paths. It builds on notions introduced and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330 [1]; the reader is assumed to be familiar with that document.
此备忘录定义了跨Internet路径的数据包单向延迟的度量。它以IPPM框架文件RFC 2330[1]中介绍和讨论的概念为基础；假定读者熟悉该文档。
This memo is intended to be parallel in structure to a companion document for Packet Loss ("A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM") [2].
本备忘录旨在在结构上与分组丢失的配套文件（“IPPM的单向分组丢失度量”）平行[2]。
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 [6]. 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.
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[6]中所述进行解释。尽管RFC 2119在编写时考虑了协议，但出于类似的原因，本文档中使用了关键词。它们用于确保两个不同实现的测量结果具有可比性，并用于记录实现可能干扰网络的实例。
The structure of the memo is as follows:
备忘录的结构如下：
+ A 'singleton' analytic metric, called Type-P-One-way-Delay, will be introduced to measure a single observation of one-way delay.
+ 将引入称为P型单向延迟的“单例”分析度量来测量单向延迟的单次观测。
+ Using this singleton metric, a 'sample', called Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, will be introduced to measure a sequence of singleton delays measured at times taken from a Poisson process.
+ 使用此单例度量，将引入称为Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream的“样本”，以测量在从Poisson过程中获取的时间测量的单例延迟序列。
+ Using this sample, several 'statistics' of the sample will be defined and discussed.
+ 使用此样本，将定义和讨论样本的几个“统计数据”。
This progression from singleton to sample to statistics, with clear separation among them, is important.
这种从单一样本到样本再到统计的过程，在它们之间有明确的分离，是很重要的。
Whenever a technical term from the IPPM Framework document is first used in this memo, it will be tagged with a trailing asterisk. For example, "term*" indicates that "term" is defined in the Framework.
本备忘录中首次使用IPPM框架文件中的技术术语时，将使用尾随星号进行标记。例如，“term*”表示框架中定义了“term”。
2.1. Motivation:
2.1. 动机：
One-way delay of a Type-P* packet from a source host* to a destination host is useful for several reasons:
P型数据包从源主机*到目标主机*的单向延迟有以下几个原因：
+ Some applications do not perform well (or at all) if end-to-end delay between hosts is large relative to some threshold value.
+ 如果主机之间的端到端延迟相对于某个阈值较大，则某些应用程序的性能不好（或根本不好）。
+ Erratic variation in delay makes it difficult (or impossible) to support many real-time applications.
+ 延迟的不稳定变化使得支持许多实时应用程序变得困难（或不可能）。
+ The larger the value of delay, the more difficult it is for transport-layer protocols to sustain high bandwidths.
+ 延迟值越大，传输层协议就越难以维持高带宽。
+ The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the delay due only to propagation and transmission delay.
+ 该度量的最小值提供仅由传播和传输延迟引起的延迟的指示。
+ The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the delay that will likely be experienced when the path* traversed is lightly loaded.
+ 该度量的最小值提供了当路径*被轻装时可能经历的延迟指示。
+ Values of this metric above the minimum provide an indication of the congestion present in the path.
+ 此度量值高于最小值表示路径中存在的拥塞。
The measurement of one-way delay instead of round-trip delay is motivated by the following factors:
测量单向延迟而非往返延迟的原因如下：
+ In today's Internet, the path from a source to a destination may be different than the path from the destination back to the source ("asymmetric paths"), such that different sequences of routers are used for the forward and reverse paths. Therefore round-trip measurements actually measure the performance of two distinct paths together. Measuring each path independently highlights the performance difference between the two paths which may traverse
+ 在今天的互联网中，从源到目的地的路径可能不同于从目的地返回到源的路径（“非对称路径”），因此不同的路由器序列用于正向和反向路径。因此，往返测量实际上同时测量两条不同路径的性能。独立测量每条路径会突出显示两条可能穿过的路径之间的性能差异
different Internet service providers, and even radically different types of networks (for example, research versus commodity networks, or ATM versus packet-over-SONET).
不同的互联网服务提供商，甚至是完全不同类型的网络（例如，研究与商品网络，ATM与SONET上的数据包）。
+ Even when the two paths are symmetric, they may have radically different performance characteristics due to asymmetric queueing.
+ 即使这两条路径是对称的，由于非对称排队，它们也可能具有完全不同的性能特征。
+ Performance of an application may depend mostly on the performance in one direction. For example, a file transfer using TCP may depend more on the performance in the direction that data flows, rather than the direction in which acknowledgements travel.
+ 应用程序的性能可能主要取决于一个方向上的性能。例如，使用TCP的文件传输可能更依赖于数据流方向的性能，而不是确认的传输方向。
+ In quality-of-service (QoS) enabled networks, provisioning in one direction may be radically different than provisioning in the reverse direction, and thus the QoS guarantees differ. Measuring the paths independently allows the verification of both guarantees.
+ 在支持服务质量（QoS）的网络中，一个方向的供应可能与反向的供应完全不同，因此QoS保证不同。独立测量路径可以验证两种保证。
It is outside the scope of this document to say precisely how delay metrics would be applied to specific problems.
确切地说延迟度量将如何应用于特定问题超出了本文档的范围。
{Comment: the terminology below differs from that defined by ITU-T
documents (e.g., G.810, "Definitions and terminology for
synchronization networks" and I.356, "B-ISDN ATM layer cell transfer
performance"), but is consistent with the IPPM Framework document.
In general, these differences derive from the different backgrounds;
the ITU-T documents historically have a telephony origin, while the
authors of this document (and the Framework) have a computer systems
background. Although the terms defined below have no direct
equivalent in the ITU-T definitions, after our definitions we will
provide a rough mapping. However, note one potential confusion: our
definition of "clock" is the computer operating systems definition
denoting a time-of-day clock, while the ITU-T definition of clock
denotes a frequency reference.}
{Comment: the terminology below differs from that defined by ITU-T
documents (e.g., G.810, "Definitions and terminology for
synchronization networks" and I.356, "B-ISDN ATM layer cell transfer
performance"), but is consistent with the IPPM Framework document.
In general, these differences derive from the different backgrounds;
the ITU-T documents historically have a telephony origin, while the
authors of this document (and the Framework) have a computer systems
background. Although the terms defined below have no direct
equivalent in the ITU-T definitions, after our definitions we will
provide a rough mapping. However, note one potential confusion: our
definition of "clock" is the computer operating systems definition
denoting a time-of-day clock, while the ITU-T definition of clock
denotes a frequency reference.}
Whenever a time (i.e., a moment in history) is mentioned here, it is understood to be measured in seconds (and fractions) relative to UTC.
每当这里提到一个时间（即历史上的一个时刻）时，它都被理解为以秒（和分数）为单位相对于UTC进行测量。
As described more fully in the Framework document, there are four distinct, but related notions of clock uncertainty:
正如框架文件中更全面地描述的，时钟不确定性有四个不同但相关的概念：
synchronization*
同步*
measures the extent to which two clocks agree on what time it is. For example, the clock on one host might be 5.4 msec ahead of the clock on a second host. {Comment: A rough ITU-T equivalent is "time error".}
测量两个时钟在时间上的一致程度。例如，一台主机上的时钟可能比另一台主机上的时钟早5.4毫秒。{注释：粗略的ITU-T等价物是“时间错误”。}
accuracy*
准确度*
measures the extent to which a given clock agrees with UTC. For example, the clock on a host might be 27.1 msec behind UTC. {Comment: A rough ITU-T equivalent is "time error from UTC".}
测量给定时钟与UTC一致的程度。例如，主机上的时钟可能比UTC慢27.1毫秒。{注释：粗略的ITU-T等价物是“UTC时间错误”。}
resolution*
决议*
measures the precision of a given clock. For example, the clock on an old Unix host might tick only once every 10 msec, and thus have a resolution of only 10 msec. {Comment: A very rough ITU-T equivalent is "sampling period".}
测量给定时钟的精度。例如，旧Unix主机上的时钟可能仅每10毫秒滴答一次，因此分辨率仅为10毫秒。{注释：一个非常粗略的ITU-T等价物是“采样周期”。}
skew*
歪斜*
measures the change of accuracy, or of synchronization, with time. For example, the clock on a given host might gain 1.3 msec per hour and thus be 27.1 msec behind UTC at one time and only 25.8 msec an hour later. In this case, we say that the clock of the given host has a skew of 1.3 msec per hour relative to UTC, which threatens accuracy. We might also speak of the skew of one clock relative to another clock, which threatens synchronization. {Comment: A rough ITU-T equivalent is "time drift".}
测量精度或同步度随时间的变化。例如，给定主机上的时钟可能每小时增加1.3毫秒，因此在某一时间比UTC慢27.1毫秒，而在一小时后仅为25.8毫秒。在这种情况下，我们说给定主机的时钟相对于UTC每小时有1.3毫秒的偏差，这威胁到准确性。我们也可以说一个时钟相对于另一个时钟的倾斜，这威胁到同步。{注释：粗略的ITU-T等价物是“时间漂移”。}
3.1. Metric Name:
3.1. 度量名称：
Type-P-One-way-Delay
P型单向延迟
3.2. Metric Parameters:
3.2. 公制参数：
+ Src, the IP address of a host
+ Src，主机的IP地址
+ Dst, the IP address of a host
+ Dst，主机的IP地址
+ T, a time
+ T、 一段时间
3.3. Metric Units:
3.3. 公制单位：
The value of a Type-P-One-way-Delay is either a real number, or an undefined (informally, infinite) number of seconds.
P型单向延迟的值可以是实数，也可以是未定义（非正式地说是无限）秒数。
3.4. Definition:
3.4. 定义：
For a real number dT, >>the *Type-P-One-way-Delay* from Src to Dst at T is dT<< means that Src sent the first bit of a Type-P packet to Dst at wire-time* T and that Dst received the last bit of that packet at wire-time T+dT.
对于实数dT，>>在T从Src到Dst的*Type-P-One-way-Delay*为dT<<意味着Src在连线时间*T将Type-P数据包的第一位发送到Dst，而Dst在连线时间T+dT接收到该数据包的最后一位。
>>The *Type-P-One-way-Delay* from Src to Dst at T is undefined (informally, infinite)<< means that Src sent the first bit of a Type-P packet to Dst at wire-time T and that Dst did not receive that packet.
>>从Src到T处Dst的*Type-P-单向延迟*未定义（非正式地说，无限）<<意味着Src在接线时间T向Dst发送了Type-P数据包的第一位，而Dst没有收到该数据包。
Suggestions for what to report along with metric values appear in Section 3.8 after a discussion of the metric, methodologies for measuring the metric, and error analysis.
在讨论度量、度量方法和误差分析后，第3.8节给出了报告内容和度量值的建议。
3.5. Discussion:
3.5. 讨论：
Type-P-One-way-Delay is a relatively simple analytic metric, and one that we believe will afford effective methods of measurement.
P型单向延迟是一个相对简单的分析指标，我们相信它将提供有效的测量方法。
The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
在实践中可能会出现以下问题：
+ Real delay values will be positive. Therefore, it does not make sense to report a negative value as a real delay. However, an individual zero or negative delay value might be useful as part of a stream when trying to discover a distribution of a stream of delay values.
+ 实际延迟值将为正值。因此，将负值报告为实际延迟是没有意义的。然而，当试图发现延迟值流的分布时，作为流的一部分，单个零或负延迟值可能是有用的。
+ Since delay values will often be as low as the 100 usec to 10 msec range, it will be important for Src and Dst to synchronize very closely. GPS systems afford one way to achieve synchronization to within several 10s of usec. Ordinary application of NTP may allow synchronization to within several msec, but this depends on the stability and symmetry of delay properties among those NTP agents used, and this delay is what we are trying to measure. A combination of some GPS-based NTP servers and a conservatively designed and deployed set of other NTP servers should yield good results, but this is yet to be tested.
+ 由于延迟值通常低至100 usec至10 ms的范围，因此Src和Dst必须非常紧密地同步。GPS系统提供了一种在usec数10秒内实现同步的方法。NTP的普通应用可能允许同步在几毫秒内，但这取决于所使用的NTP代理之间延迟特性的稳定性和对称性，我们正试图测量这种延迟。一些基于GPS的NTP服务器和一组保守设计和部署的其他NTP服务器的组合应该会产生良好的效果，但这有待测试。
+ A given methodology will have to include a way to determine whether a delay value is infinite or whether it is merely very large (and the packet is yet to arrive at Dst). As noted by
+ 给定的方法必须包括确定延迟值是无限大还是非常大（数据包尚未到达Dst）的方法。正如
Mahdavi and Paxson [4], simple upper bounds (such as the 255 seconds theoretical upper bound on the lifetimes of IP packets [5]) could be used, but good engineering, including an understanding of packet lifetimes, will be needed in practice. {Comment: Note that, for many applications of these metrics, the harm in treating a large delay as infinite might be zero or very small. A TCP data packet, for example, that arrives only after several multiples of the RTT may as well have been lost.}
Mahdavi和Paxson[4]，可以使用简单的上界（例如IP数据包寿命的255秒理论上界[5]），但在实践中需要良好的工程，包括对数据包寿命的理解。{注释：请注意，对于这些指标的许多应用程序，将大延迟视为无限的危害可能为零或很小。例如，仅在RTT数倍之后到达的TCP数据包也可能丢失。}
+ If the packet is duplicated along the path (or paths) so that multiple non-corrupt copies arrive at the destination, then the packet is counted as received, and the first copy to arrive determines the packet's one-way delay.
+ 如果数据包沿着路径（一个或多个路径）复制，以便多个未损坏的副本到达目的地，则数据包被计为已接收，并且到达的第一个副本确定数据包的单向延迟。
+ If the packet is fragmented and if, for whatever reason, reassembly does not occur, then the packet will be deemed lost.
+ 如果数据包被分割，并且无论出于何种原因，没有重新组装，那么数据包将被视为丢失。
3.6. Methodologies:
3.6. 方法：
As with other Type-P-* metrics, the detailed methodology will depend on the Type-P (e.g., protocol number, UDP/TCP port number, size, precedence).
与其他类型P-*指标一样，详细方法将取决于类型P（例如，协议号、UDP/TCP端口号、大小、优先级）。
Generally, for a given Type-P, the methodology would proceed as follows:
一般而言，对于给定的P型，方法如下：
+ Arrange that Src and Dst are synchronized; that is, that they have clocks that are very closely synchronized with each other and each fairly close to the actual time.
+ 安排Src和Dst同步；也就是说，它们的时钟彼此非常同步，并且每个时钟都非常接近实际时间。
+ At the Src host, select Src and Dst IP addresses, and form a test packet of Type-P with these addresses. Any 'padding' portion of the packet needed only to make the test packet a given size should be filled with randomized bits to avoid a situation in which the measured delay is lower than it would otherwise be due to compression techniques along the path.
+ 在Src主机上，选择Src和Dst IP地址，并使用这些地址形成类型为P的测试数据包。数据包的任何“填充”部分仅用于使测试数据包达到给定大小，应使用随机位填充，以避免测量的延迟低于由于路径上的压缩技术而产生的延迟。
+ At the Dst host, arrange to receive the packet.
+ 在Dst主机上，安排接收数据包。
+ At the Src host, place a timestamp in the prepared Type-P packet, and send it towards Dst.
+ 在Src主机上，在准备好的Type-P数据包中放置一个时间戳，并将其发送到Dst。
+ If the packet arrives within a reasonable period of time, take a timestamp as soon as possible upon the receipt of the packet. By subtracting the two timestamps, an estimate of one-way delay can be computed. Error analysis of a given implementation of the method must take into account the closeness of synchronization between Src and Dst. If the delay between Src's timestamp and the
+ 如果数据包在合理的时间段内到达，则在收到数据包后尽快获取时间戳。通过减去这两个时间戳，可以计算出单向延迟的估计值。对给定方法实现的错误分析必须考虑Src和Dst之间同步的紧密性。如果Src的时间戳和
actual sending of the packet is known, then the estimate could be adjusted by subtracting this amount; uncertainty in this value must be taken into account in error analysis. Similarly, if the delay between the actual receipt of the packet and Dst's timestamp is known, then the estimate could be adjusted by subtracting this amount; uncertainty in this value must be taken into account in error analysis. See the next section, "Errors and Uncertainties", for a more detailed discussion.
已知数据包的实际发送，则可通过减去该量来调整估计值；误差分析中必须考虑该值的不确定性。类似地，如果包的实际接收和Dst的时间戳之间的延迟是已知的，则可以通过减去该量来调整估计；误差分析中必须考虑该值的不确定性。有关更详细的讨论，请参见下一节“错误和不确定性”。
+ If the packet fails to arrive within a reasonable period of time, the one-way delay is taken to be undefined (informally, infinite). Note that the threshold of 'reasonable' is a parameter of the methodology.
+ 如果数据包未能在合理的时间内到达，则认为单向延迟是未定义的（非正式地说是无限的）。请注意，“合理”阈值是该方法的一个参数。
Issues such as the packet format, the means by which Dst knows when to expect the test packet, and the means by which Src and Dst are synchronized are outside the scope of this document. {Comment: We plan to document elsewhere our own work in describing such more detailed implementation techniques and we encourage others to as well.}
数据包格式、Dst知道何时期望测试数据包的方法以及Src和Dst同步的方法等问题不在本文件的范围内。{评论：我们计划在其他地方记录我们自己在描述这种更详细的实现技术方面的工作，我们鼓励其他人也这样做。}
3.7. Errors and Uncertainties:
3.7. 误差和不确定性：
The description of any specific measurement method should include an accounting and analysis of various sources of error or uncertainty. The Framework document provides general guidance on this point, but we note here the following specifics related to delay metrics:
任何特定测量方法的描述应包括对各种误差或不确定性来源的核算和分析。框架文件提供了关于这一点的一般指导，但我们注意到以下与延迟度量相关的细节：
+ Errors or uncertainties due to uncertainties in the clocks of the Src and Dst hosts.
+ Src和Dst主机时钟不确定性导致的错误或不确定性。
+ Errors or uncertainties due to the difference between 'wire time' and 'host time'.
+ 由于“连线时间”和“主机时间”之间的差异而导致的错误或不确定性。
In addition, the loss threshold may affect the results. Each of these are discussed in more detail below, along with a section ("Calibration") on accounting for these errors and uncertainties.
此外，损失阈值可能会影响结果。下面将详细讨论每一个问题，以及关于这些误差和不确定性的说明的一节（“校准”）。
The uncertainty in a measurement of one-way delay is related, in part, to uncertainties in the clocks of the Src and Dst hosts. In the following, we refer to the clock used to measure when the packet was sent from Src as the source clock, we refer to the clock used to measure when the packet was received by Dst as the destination clock, we refer to the observed time when the packet was sent by the source clock as Tsource, and the observed time when the packet was received by the destination clock as Tdest. Alluding to the notions of
单向延迟测量的不确定性部分与Src和Dst主机时钟的不确定性有关。在下文中，我们将用于测量数据包何时从Src发送的时钟称为源时钟，将用于测量数据包何时被Dst接收的时钟称为目标时钟，将数据包何时由源时钟发送的观测时间称为Tsource，以及目标时钟接收到分组时的观察时间，作为Tdest。暗指
synchronization, accuracy, resolution, and skew mentioned in the Introduction, we note the following:
介绍中提到的同步、精度、分辨率和倾斜，我们注意到以下几点：
+ Any error in the synchronization between the source clock and the destination clock will contribute to error in the delay measurement. We say that the source clock and the destination clock have a synchronization error of Tsynch if the source clock is Tsynch ahead of the destination clock. Thus, if we know the value of Tsynch exactly, we could correct for clock synchronization by adding Tsynch to the uncorrected value of Tdest-Tsource.
+ 源时钟和目标时钟之间的同步中的任何错误都将导致延迟测量中的错误。我们说，如果源时钟比目标时钟先同步，则源时钟和目标时钟的同步误差为Tsynch。因此，如果我们准确地知道Tsynch的值，我们可以通过将Tsynch添加到Tdest Tsource的未更正值来更正时钟同步。
+ The accuracy of a clock is important only in identifying the time at which a given delay was measured. Accuracy, per se, has no importance to the accuracy of the measurement of delay. When computing delays, we are interested only in the differences between clock values, not the values themselves.
+ 时钟的准确性仅在确定测量给定延迟的时间时才重要。准确度本身对延迟测量的准确度并不重要。当计算延迟时，我们只关心时钟值之间的差异，而不是值本身。
+ The resolution of a clock adds to uncertainty about any time measured with it. Thus, if the source clock has a resolution of 10 msec, then this adds 10 msec of uncertainty to any time value measured with it. We will denote the resolution of the source clock and the destination clock as Rsource and Rdest, respectively.
+ 时钟的分辨率增加了用它测量的任何时间的不确定性。因此，如果源时钟的分辨率为10毫秒，则这会给用它测量的任何时间值增加10毫秒的不确定性。我们将源时钟和目标时钟的分辨率分别表示为Rsource和Rdest。
+ The skew of a clock is not so much an additional issue as it is a realization of the fact that Tsynch is itself a function of time. Thus, if we attempt to measure or to bound Tsynch, this needs to be done periodically. Over some periods of time, this function can be approximated as a linear function plus some higher order terms; in these cases, one option is to use knowledge of the linear component to correct the clock. Using this correction, the residual Tsynch is made smaller, but remains a source of uncertainty that must be accounted for. We use the function Esynch(t) to denote an upper bound on the uncertainty in synchronization. Thus, |Tsynch(t)| <= Esynch(t).
+ 时钟的偏移与其说是一个额外的问题，不如说是一个认识到Tsynch本身就是时间的函数这一事实的问题。因此，如果我们试图测量或绑定Tsynch，则需要定期进行。在一段时间内，该函数可以近似为线性函数加上一些高阶项；在这些情况下，一种选择是使用线性组件的知识来校正时钟。使用此校正，剩余Tsynch变小，但仍然是必须考虑的不确定性来源。我们使用函数Esynch（t）来表示同步中不确定性的上界。因此，| Tsynch（t）|<=Esynch（t）。
Taking these items together, we note that naive computation Tdest-Tsource will be off by Tsynch(t) +/- (Rsource + Rdest). Using the notion of Esynch(t), we note that these clock-related problems introduce a total uncertainty of Esynch(t)+ Rsource + Rdest. This estimate of total clock-related uncertainty should be included in the error/uncertainty analysis of any measurement implementation.
把这些项放在一起，我们注意到原始计算Tdest Tsource将被Tsynch（t）+/-（Rsource+Rdest）关闭。使用Esynch（t）的概念，我们注意到这些与时钟相关的问题引入了Esynch（t）+Rsource+Rdest的总体不确定性。任何测量实施的误差/不确定度分析中都应包括与时钟相关的总不确定度的估计值。
As we have defined one-way delay, we would like to measure the time between when the test packet leaves the network interface of Src and when it (completely) arrives at the network interface of Dst, and we refer to these as "wire times." If the timings are themselves performed by software on Src and Dst, however, then this software can only directly measure the time between when Src grabs a timestamp just prior to sending the test packet and when Dst grabs a timestamp just after having received the test packet, and we refer to these two points as "host times".
正如我们定义的单向延迟，我们希望测量测试数据包离开Src网络接口和（完全）到达Dst网络接口之间的时间，我们称之为“连线时间”。但是，如果计时本身由软件在Src和Dst上执行，然后，该软件只能直接测量Src在发送测试数据包之前获取时间戳和Dst在收到测试数据包之后获取时间戳之间的时间，我们将这两点称为“主机时间”。
To the extent that the difference between wire time and host time is accurately known, this knowledge can be used to correct for host time measurements and the corrected value more accurately estimates the desired (wire time) metric.
在准确知道导线时间和主机时间之间的差异的情况下，此知识可用于校正主机时间测量值，且校正值可更准确地估计所需（导线时间）度量。
To the extent, however, that the difference between wire time and host time is uncertain, this uncertainty must be accounted for in an analysis of a given measurement method. We denote by Hsource an upper bound on the uncertainty in the difference between wire time and host time on the Src host, and similarly define Hdest for the Dst host. We then note that these problems introduce a total uncertainty of Hsource+Hdest. This estimate of total wire-vs-host uncertainty should be included in the error/uncertainty analysis of any measurement implementation.
然而，在一定程度上，导线时间和主机时间之间的差异是不确定的，在分析给定测量方法时必须考虑这种不确定性。我们用Hsource表示Src主机上的连线时间和主机时间之差的不确定性上限，并类似地定义Dst主机的Hdest。然后我们注意到，这些问题引入了Hsource+Hdest的总体不确定性。在任何测量实施的误差/不确定度分析中，应包括导线与主机总不确定度的估计值。
Generally, the measured values can be decomposed as follows:
通常，测量值可分解如下：
measured value = true value + systematic error + random error
measured value = true value + systematic error + random error
If the systematic error (the constant bias in measured values) can be determined, it can be compensated for in the reported results.
如果可以确定系统误差（测量值中的恒定偏差），则可以在报告的结果中对其进行补偿。
reported value = measured value - systematic error
报告值=测量值-系统误差
therefore
因此
reported value = true value + random error
报告值=真实值+随机误差
The goal of calibration is to determine the systematic and random error generated by the instruments themselves in as much detail as possible. At a minimum, a bound ("e") should be found such that the reported value is in the range (true value - e) to (true value + e) at least 95 percent of the time. We call "e" the calibration error for the measurements. It represents the degree to which the values
校准的目的是尽可能详细地确定仪器本身产生的系统和随机误差。至少应找到一个界限（“e”），以便报告的值至少在95%的时间内处于（真值-e）到（真值+e）的范围内。我们称“e”为测量的校准误差。它表示值的变化程度
produced by the measurement instrument are repeatable; that is, how closely an actual delay of 30 ms is reported as 30 ms. {Comment: 95 percent was chosen because (1) some confidence level is desirable to be able to remove outliers, which will be found in measuring any physical property; (2) a particular confidence level should be specified so that the results of independent implementations can be compared; and (3) even with a prototype user-level implementation, 95% was loose enough to exclude outliers.}
所产生的测量仪器具有可重复性；也就是说，30毫秒的实际延迟被报告为30毫秒的程度。{注释：选择95%是因为（1）需要某种置信水平来消除异常值，这将在测量任何物理特性时发现；（2）应该指定一个特定的置信水平，以便可以比较独立实现的结果；（3）即使使用原型用户级实现，95%的置信水平也足够宽松，可以排除异常值
From the discussion in the previous two sections, the error in measurements could be bounded by determining all the individual uncertainties, and adding them together to form
根据前两节中的讨论，测量误差可以通过确定所有单个不确定度并将它们相加形成一个整体来限定
Esynch(t) + Rsource + Rdest + Hsource + Hdest.
Esynch（t）+Rsource+Rdest+Hsource+Hdest。
However, reasonable bounds on both the clock-related uncertainty captured by the first three terms and the host-related uncertainty captured by the last two terms should be possible by careful design techniques and calibrating the instruments using a known, isolated, network in a lab.
然而，通过仔细设计技术和在实验室中使用已知的隔离网络校准仪器，前三项捕获的时钟相关不确定度和后两项捕获的主机相关不确定度的合理界限应是可能的。
For example, the clock-related uncertainties are greatly reduced through the use of a GPS time source. The sum of Esynch(t) + Rsource + Rdest is small, and is also bounded for the duration of the measurement because of the global time source.
例如，通过使用GPS时间源，大大降低了与时钟相关的不确定性。Esynch（t）+Rsource+Rdest之和很小，并且由于全局时间源，在测量期间也是有界的。
The host-related uncertainties, Hsource + Hdest, could be bounded by connecting two instruments back-to-back with a high-speed serial link or isolated LAN segment. In this case, repeated measurements are measuring the same one-way delay.
主机相关的不确定性（Hsource+Hdest）可通过使用高速串行链路或隔离LAN段背靠背连接两台仪器来限定。在这种情况下，重复测量是测量相同的单向延迟。
If the test packets are small, such a network connection has a minimal delay that may be approximated by zero. The measured delay therefore contains only systematic and random error in the instrumentation. The "average value" of repeated measurements is the systematic error, and the variation is the random error.
如果测试数据包很小，则这种网络连接具有可近似为零的最小延迟。因此，测量的延迟仅包含仪器中的系统和随机误差。重复测量的“平均值”是系统误差，变化是随机误差。
One way to compute the systematic error, and the random error to a 95% confidence is to repeat the experiment many times - at least hundreds of tests. The systematic error would then be the median. The random error could then be found by removing the systematic error from the measured values. The 95% confidence interval would be the range from the 2.5th percentile to the 97.5th percentile of these deviations from the true value. The calibration error "e" could then be taken to be the largest absolute value of these two numbers, plus the clock-related uncertainty. {Comment: as described, this bound is relatively loose since the uncertainties are added, and the absolute value of the largest deviation is used. As long as the resulting
计算系统误差和95%置信度的随机误差的一种方法是重复实验多次——至少数百次测试。系统误差即为中位数。然后，可以通过从测量值中去除系统误差来发现随机误差。95%的置信区间是这些偏离真实值的2.5%到97.5%之间的范围。然后，校准误差“e”可被视为这两个数字的最大绝对值，加上与时钟相关的不确定度。{注释：如上所述，由于添加了不确定性，该界限相对宽松，并且使用了最大偏差的绝对值。只要
value is not a significant fraction of the measured values, it is a reasonable bound. If the resulting value is a significant fraction of the measured values, then more exact methods will be needed to compute the calibration error.}
该值不是测量值的重要部分，它是一个合理的界限。如果结果值是测量值的重要部分，则需要更精确的方法来计算校准误差。}
Note that random error is a function of measurement load. For example, if many paths will be measured by one instrument, this might increase interrupts, process scheduling, and disk I/O (for example, recording the measurements), all of which may increase the random error in measured singletons. Therefore, in addition to minimal load measurements to find the systematic error, calibration measurements should be performed with the same measurement load that the instruments will see in the field.
请注意，随机误差是测量负载的函数。例如，如果一台仪器将测量多条路径，这可能会增加中断、进程调度和磁盘I/O（例如，记录测量），所有这些都可能会增加测量单例中的随机误差。因此，除了最小负载测量以发现系统误差外，还应使用仪器在现场看到的相同测量负载进行校准测量。
We wish to reiterate that this statistical treatment refers to the calibration of the instrument; it is used to "calibrate the meter stick" and say how well the meter stick reflects reality.
我们希望重申，这种统计处理是指仪器的校准；它用于“校准仪表杆”，并说明仪表杆反映现实的程度。
In addition to calibrating the instruments for finite one-way delay, two checks should be made to ensure that packets reported as losses were really lost. First, the threshold for loss should be verified. In particular, ensure the "reasonable" threshold is reasonable: that it is very unlikely a packet will arrive after the threshold value, and therefore the number of packets lost over an interval is not sensitive to the error bound on measurements. Second, consider the possibility that a packet arrives at the network interface, but is lost due to congestion on that interface or to other resource exhaustion (e.g. buffers) in the instrument.
除了校准仪器的有限单向延迟外，还应进行两次检查，以确保报告为丢失的数据包确实丢失。首先，应验证损失阈值。特别是，确保“合理”阈值是合理的：数据包不太可能在阈值之后到达，因此在一段时间间隔内丢失的数据包数量对测量值上的错误界限不敏感。其次，考虑数据包到达网络接口的可能性，但是由于该接口上的拥塞或该仪器中的其他资源耗尽（例如缓冲器）而丢失。
3.8. Reporting the metric:
3.8. 报告指标：
The calibration and context in which the metric is measured MUST be carefully considered, and SHOULD always be reported along with metric results. We now present four items to consider: the Type-P of test packets, the threshold of infinite delay (if any), error calibration, and the path traversed by the test packets. This list is not exhaustive; any additional information that could be useful in interpreting applications of the metrics should also be reported.
必须仔细考虑测量公制的校准和环境，并应始终与公制结果一起报告。现在，我们提出了四个需要考虑的项目：测试数据包的类型P、无限延迟阈值（如果有）、错误校准和测试数据包通过的路径。这份清单并非详尽无遗；还应报告在解释指标应用时可能有用的任何其他信息。
As noted in the Framework document [1], the value of the metric may depend on the type of IP packets used to make the measurement, or "type-P". The value of Type-P-One-way-Delay could change if the protocol (UDP or TCP), port number, size, or arrangement for special treatment (e.g., IP precedence or RSVP) changes. The exact Type-P used to make the measurements MUST be accurately reported.
如框架文件[1]中所述，度量值可能取决于用于进行测量的IP数据包的类型，或“type-P”。如果协议（UDP或TCP）、端口号、大小或特殊处理安排（如IP优先级或RSVP）发生变化，则类型-P-单向延迟的值可能会发生变化。必须准确报告用于进行测量的准确P型。
In addition, the threshold (or methodology to distinguish) between a large finite delay and loss MUST be reported.
此外，必须报告大型有限延迟和损失之间的阈值（或区分方法）。
+ If the systematic error can be determined, it SHOULD be removed from the measured values.
+ 如果可以确定系统误差，应将其从测量值中删除。
+ You SHOULD also report the calibration error, e, such that the true value is the reported value plus or minus e, with 95% confidence (see the last section.)
+ 还应报告校准误差e，以便真实值为报告值加上或减去e，置信度为95%（见最后一节）
+ If possible, the conditions under which a test packet with finite delay is reported as lost due to resource exhaustion on the measurement instrument SHOULD be reported.
+ 如果可能，应报告由于测量仪器上的资源耗尽而导致具有有限延迟的测试数据包丢失的情况。
Finally, the path traversed by the packet SHOULD be reported, if possible. In general it is impractical to know the precise path a given packet takes through the network. The precise path may be known for certain Type-P on short or stable paths. If Type-P includes the record route (or loose-source route) option in the IP header, and the path is short enough, and all routers* on the path support record (or loose-source) route, then the path will be precisely recorded. This is impractical because the route must be short enough, many routers do not support (or are not configured for) record route, and use of this feature would often artificially worsen the performance observed by removing the packet from common-case processing. However, partial information is still valuable context. For example, if a host can choose between two links* (and hence two separate routes from Src to Dst), then the initial link used is valuable context. {Comment: For example, with Merit's NetNow setup, a Src on one NAP can reach a Dst on another NAP by either of several different backbone networks.}
最后，如果可能的话，应该报告数据包经过的路径。一般来说，要知道给定数据包通过网络的精确路径是不切实际的。对于短路径或稳定路径上的某些P型，可能已知精确路径。如果Type-P在IP报头中包含记录路由（或松散源路由）选项，并且路径足够短，并且路径上的所有路由器*都支持记录（或松散源）路由，则将精确记录路径。这是不切实际的，因为路由必须足够短，许多路由器不支持（或未配置）记录路由，并且使用此功能通常会人为地降低从常见情况处理中删除数据包所观察到的性能。然而，部分信息仍然是有价值的。例如，如果主机可以在两条链路*（以及从Src到Dst的两条独立路由）之间进行选择，则使用的初始链路是有价值的上下文。{注释：例如，使用Merit的NetNow设置，一个NAP上的Src可以通过几个不同的主干网络之一到达另一个NAP上的Dst。}
Given the singleton metric Type-P-One-way-Delay, we now define one particular sample of such singletons. The idea of the sample is to select a particular binding of the parameters Src, Dst, and Type-P, then define a sample of values of parameter T. The means for defining the values of T is to select a beginning time T0, a final time Tf, and an average rate lambda, then define a pseudo-random
给定单例度量类型-P-单向延迟，我们现在定义一个此类单例的特定样本。样本的思想是选择参数Src、Dst和Type-P的特定绑定，然后定义参数T值的样本。定义T值的方法是选择开始时间T0、最终时间Tf和平均速率lambda，然后定义伪随机
Poisson process of rate lambda, whose values fall between T0 and Tf. The time interval between successive values of T will then average 1/lambda.
速率λ的泊松过程，其值介于T0和Tf之间。随后，T连续值之间的时间间隔将平均为1/lambda。
{Comment: Note that Poisson sampling is only one way of defining a sample. Poisson has the advantage of limiting bias, but other methods of sampling might be appropriate for different situations. We encourage others who find such appropriate cases to use this general framework and submit their sampling method for standardization.}
{注释：请注意，泊松抽样只是定义样本的一种方式。泊松抽样具有限制偏差的优势，但其他抽样方法可能适用于不同的情况。我们鼓励发现此类适当情况的其他人使用此通用框架，并将其抽样方法提交标准化。}
4.1. Metric Name:
4.1. 度量名称：
Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream
P型单向延迟泊松流
4.2. Metric Parameters:
4.2. 公制参数：
+ Src, the IP address of a host
+ Src，主机的IP地址
+ Dst, the IP address of a host
+ Dst，主机的IP地址
+ T0, a time
+ T0，一次
+ Tf, a time
+ Tf，一次
+ lambda, a rate in reciprocal seconds
+ λ，以倒数秒为单位的速率
4.3. Metric Units:
4.3. 公制单位：
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
成对的序列；每对的元素包括：
+ T, a time, and
+ T、 一次，和
+ dT, either a real number or an undefined number of seconds.
+ dT，一个实数或未定义的秒数。
The values of T in the sequence are monotonic increasing. Note that T would be a valid parameter to Type-P-One-way-Delay, and that dT would be a valid value of Type-P-One-way-Delay.
序列中T的值是单调递增的。注意，T将是Type-P-One-way-Delay的有效参数，dT将是Type-P-One-way-Delay的有效值。
4.4. Definition:
4.4. 定义：
Given T0, Tf, and lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0 and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times in this process, we obtain the value of Type-P-One-way-Delay at this time. The value of the sample is the sequence made up of the resulting <time, delay> pairs. If there are no such pairs, the
给定T0、Tf和lambda，我们计算一个伪随机泊松过程，从T0开始或之前，平均到达率lambda，到Tf结束或之后。然后选择大于或等于T0且小于或等于Tf的时间值。在这个过程中的每一次，我们都得到了此时P型单向延迟的值。样本值是由结果<时间，延迟>对组成的序列。如果没有这样的配对，则
sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be empty.
序列长度为零，样本称为空。
4.5. Discussion:
4.5. 讨论：
The reader should be familiar with the in-depth discussion of Poisson sampling in the Framework document [1], which includes methods to compute and verify the pseudo-random Poisson process.
读者应熟悉框架文件[1]中对泊松抽样的深入讨论，其中包括计算和验证伪随机泊松过程的方法。
We specifically do not constrain the value of lambda, except to note the extremes. If the rate is too large, then the measurement traffic will perturb the network, and itself cause congestion. If the rate is too small, then you might not capture interesting network behavior. {Comment: We expect to document our experiences with, and suggestions for, lambda elsewhere, culminating in a "best current practices" document.}
我们特别不限制lambda的值，只注意极端情况。如果速率太大，那么测量流量将干扰网络，并且本身会导致拥塞。如果速率太小，则可能无法捕获有趣的网络行为。{评论：我们希望记录我们在其他地方与lambda合作的经验和建议，最终形成一份“当前最佳实践”文件。}
Since a pseudo-random number sequence is employed, the sequence of times, and hence the value of the sample, is not fully specified. Pseudo-random number generators of good quality will be needed to achieve the desired qualities.
由于采用了伪随机数序列，因此没有完全指定时间序列以及样本值。需要质量良好的伪随机数生成器来实现所需的质量。
The sample is defined in terms of a Poisson process both to avoid the effects of self-synchronization and also capture a sample that is statistically as unbiased as possible. {Comment: there is, of course, no claim that real Internet traffic arrives according to a Poisson arrival process.} The Poisson process is used to schedule the delay measurements. The test packets will generally not arrive at Dst according to a Poisson distribution, since they are influenced by the network.
根据泊松过程定义样本，以避免自同步的影响，并捕获统计上尽可能无偏的样本。{注释：当然，没有人声称真正的互联网流量是根据泊松到达过程到达的。}泊松过程用于安排延迟测量。测试数据包通常不会根据泊松分布到达Dst，因为它们受到网络的影响。
All the singleton Type-P-One-way-Delay metrics in the sequence will have the same values of Src, Dst, and Type-P.
序列中的所有单例Type-P单向延迟度量将具有相同的Src、Dst和Type-P值。
Note also that, given one sample that runs from T0 to Tf, and given new time values T0' and Tf' such that T0 <= T0' <= Tf' <= Tf, the subsequence of the given sample whose time values fall between T0' and Tf' are also a valid Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream sample.
还要注意，给定一个从T0运行到Tf的样本，并且给定新的时间值T0'和Tf'，使得T0<=T0'<=Tf'<=Tf'，其时间值介于T0'和Tf'之间的给定样本的子序列也是有效的P型单向延迟泊松流样本。
4.6. Methodologies:
4.6. 方法：
The methodologies follow directly from:
这些方法直接来自：
+ the selection of specific times, using the specified Poisson arrival process, and
+ 使用指定的泊松到达过程选择特定时间，以及
+ the methodologies discussion already given for the singleton Type-P-One-way-Delay metric.
+ 已经给出了单例类型P单向延迟度量的方法论讨论。
Care must, of course, be given to correctly handle out-of-order arrival of test packets; it is possible that the Src could send one test packet at TS[i], then send a second one (later) at TS[i+1], while the Dst could receive the second test packet at TR[i+1], and then receive the first one (later) at TR[i].
当然，必须注意正确处理无序到达的测试数据包；Src可能在TS[i]发送一个测试数据包，然后在TS[i+1]发送第二个（稍后），而Dst可能在TR[i+1]接收第二个测试数据包，然后在TR[i]接收第一个（稍后）。
4.7. Errors and Uncertainties:
4.7. 误差和不确定性：
In addition to sources of errors and uncertainties associated with methods employed to measure the singleton values that make up the sample, care must be given to analyze the accuracy of the Poisson process with respect to the wire-times of the sending of the test packets. Problems with this process could be caused by several things, including problems with the pseudo-random number techniques used to generate the Poisson arrival process, or with jitter in the value of Hsource (mentioned above as uncertainty in the singleton delay metric). The Framework document shows how to use the Anderson-Darling test to verify the accuracy of a Poisson process over small time frames. {Comment: The goal is to ensure that test packets are sent "close enough" to a Poisson schedule, and avoid periodic behavior.}
除了与用于测量构成样本的单态值的方法相关的误差和不确定性来源外，还必须注意分析与发送测试数据包的连线时间有关的泊松过程的准确性。此过程中的问题可能由多种因素引起，包括用于生成泊松到达过程的伪随机数技术的问题，或Hsource值的抖动（如上所述为单态延迟度量中的不确定性）。框架文档展示了如何使用Anderson-Darling检验在小时间范围内验证泊松过程的准确性。{注释：目标是确保发送的测试数据包“足够接近”泊松计划，并避免周期性行为。}
4.8. Reporting the metric:
4.8. 报告指标：
You MUST report the calibration and context for the underlying singletons along with the stream. (See "Reporting the metric" for Type-P-One-way-Delay.)
您必须随流报告基础单例的校准和上下文。（请参阅“报告度量”了解P型单向延迟。）
Given the sample metric Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, we now offer several statistics of that sample. These statistics are offered mostly to be illustrative of what could be done.
给定样本度量类型P-单向延迟-泊松流，我们现在提供该样本的几种统计信息。提供这些统计数据主要是为了说明可以做些什么。
Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream and a percent X between 0% and 100%, the Xth percentile of all the dT values in the Stream. In computing this percentile, undefined values are treated as infinitely large. Note that this means that the percentile could thus be undefined (informally, infinite). In addition, the Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile is undefined if the sample is empty.
给定P型单向延迟泊松流和0%到100%之间的百分比X，流中所有dT值的第X百分位。在计算该百分位数时，未定义的值被视为无穷大。请注意，这意味着百分位数可能因此未定义（非正式地说是无限的）。此外，如果样本为空，则类型-P-单向延迟-百分比未定义。
Example: suppose we take a sample and the results are:
示例：假设我们抽取一个样本，结果如下：
Stream1 = <
<T1, 100 msec>
<T2, 110 msec>
<T3, undefined>
<T4, 90 msec>
<T5, 500 msec>
>
Stream1 = <
<T1, 100 msec>
<T2, 110 msec>
<T3, undefined>
<T4, 90 msec>
<T5, 500 msec>
>
Then the 50th percentile would be 110 msec, since 90 msec and 100 msec are smaller and 110 msec and 'undefined' are larger.
那么第50个百分位是110毫秒，因为90毫秒和100毫秒更小，110毫秒和“未定义”更大。
Note that if the possibility that a packet with finite delay is reported as lost is significant, then a high percentile (90th or 95th) might be reported as infinite instead of finite.
注意，如果具有有限延迟的数据包被报告为丢失的可能性很大，那么高百分位（第90或95位）可能被报告为无限而不是有限。
Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, the median of all the dT values in the Stream. In computing the median, undefined values are treated as infinitely large. As with Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile, Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median is undefined if the sample is empty.
给定一个P型单向延迟泊松流，流中所有dT值的中值。在计算中值时，未定义的值被视为无穷大。与Type-P-One-way-Delay-Percentile一样，如果样本为空，则Type-P-One-way-Delay-Median未定义。
As noted in the Framework document, the median differs from the 50th percentile only when the sample contains an even number of values, in which case the mean of the two central values is used.
如框架文件所述，只有当样本包含偶数个值时，中位数才与第50百分位不同，在这种情况下，使用两个中心值的平均值。
Example: suppose we take a sample and the results are:
示例：假设我们抽取一个样本，结果如下：
Stream2 = <
<T1, 100 msec>
<T2, 110 msec>
<T3, undefined>
<T4, 90 msec>
>
Stream2 = <
<T1, 100 msec>
<T2, 110 msec>
<T3, undefined>
<T4, 90 msec>
>
Then the median would be 105 msec, the mean of 100 msec and 110 msec, the two central values.
然后中位数将是105毫秒，100毫秒和110毫秒的平均值，这两个中心值。
Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream, the minimum of all the dT values in the Stream. In computing this, undefined values are treated as infinitely large. Note that this means that the minimum could thus be undefined (informally, infinite) if all the dT values are undefined. In addition, the Type-P-One-way-Delay-Minimum is
给定一个P型单向延迟泊松流，流中所有dT值的最小值。在计算时，未定义的值被视为无穷大。注意，这意味着如果所有dT值都未定义，则最小值可能因此未定义（非正式地说，无限）。此外，P型单向延迟最小值为
undefined if the sample is empty.
如果样本为空，则未定义。
In the above example, the minimum would be 90 msec.
在上述示例中，最小值为90毫秒。
Given a Type-P-One-way-Delay-Poisson-Stream and a time duration threshold, the fraction of all the dT values in the Stream less than or equal to the threshold. The result could be as low as 0% (if all the dT values exceed threshold) or as high as 100%. Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile is undefined if the sample is empty.
给定P型单向延迟泊松流和持续时间阈值，流中所有dT值的分数小于或等于阈值。结果可能低至0%（如果所有dT值超过阈值），或高达100%。如果样本为空，则类型-P-单向延迟-反向百分位数未定义。
In the above example, the Inverse-Percentile of 103 msec would be 50%.
在上面的例子中，103毫秒的反百分位为50%。
Conducting Internet measurements raises both security and privacy concerns. This memo does not specify an implementation of the metrics, so it does not directly affect the security of the Internet nor of applications which run on the Internet. However, implementations of these metrics must be mindful of security and privacy concerns.
进行互联网测量会引起安全和隐私问题。此备忘录未指定指标的实现，因此它不会直接影响Internet或在Internet上运行的应用程序的安全性。然而，这些指标的实现必须考虑安全和隐私问题。
There are two types of security concerns: potential harm caused by the measurements, and potential harm to the measurements. The measurements could cause harm because they are active, and inject packets into the network. The measurement parameters MUST be carefully selected so that the measurements inject trivial amounts of additional traffic into the networks they measure. If they inject "too much" traffic, they can skew the results of the measurement, and in extreme cases cause congestion and denial of service.
存在两种类型的安全问题：由测量引起的潜在危害和对测量的潜在危害。这些测量可能会造成危害，因为它们处于活动状态，并将数据包注入网络。必须仔细选择测量参数，以便测量将少量的额外流量注入到它们测量的网络中。如果它们注入了“太多”的流量，它们可能会扭曲测量结果，在极端情况下会导致拥塞和拒绝服务。
The measurements themselves could be harmed by routers giving measurement traffic a different priority than "normal" traffic, or by an attacker injecting artificial measurement traffic. If routers can recognize measurement traffic and treat it separately, the measurements will not reflect actual user traffic. If an attacker injects artificial traffic that is accepted as legitimate, the loss rate will be artificially lowered. Therefore, the measurement methodologies SHOULD include appropriate techniques to reduce the probability measurement traffic can be distinguished from "normal" traffic. Authentication techniques, such as digital signatures, may be used where appropriate to guard against injected traffic attacks.
路由器赋予测量流量不同于“正常”流量的优先级，或者攻击者注入人工测量流量，可能会损害测量本身。如果路由器能够识别测量流量并单独处理，那么测量将不会反映实际的用户流量。如果攻击者注入被认为合法的人工流量，则损失率将被人为降低。因此，测量方法应包括适当的技术，以降低测量流量可与“正常”流量区分的概率。在适当的情况下，可以使用诸如数字签名之类的认证技术来防止注入流量攻击。
The privacy concerns of network measurement are limited by the active measurements described in this memo. Unlike passive measurements, there can be no release of existing user data.
网络测量的隐私问题受到本备忘录中所述的主动测量的限制。与被动测量不同，不能释放现有用户数据。
Special thanks are due to Vern Paxson of Lawrence Berkeley Labs for his helpful comments on issues of clock uncertainty and statistics. Thanks also to Garry Couch, Will Leland, Andy Scherrer, Sean Shapira, and Roland Wittig for several useful suggestions.
特别感谢劳伦斯伯克利实验室的Vern Paxson对时钟不确定性和统计问题的有益评论。还要感谢加里·科奇、威尔·利兰、安迪·舍勒、肖恩·沙皮拉和罗兰·维蒂格提出了一些有用的建议。
[1] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J. and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May 1998.
[1] Paxson，V.，Almes，G.，Mahdavi，J.和M.Mathis，“IP性能度量框架”，RFC 2330，1998年5月。
[2] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", RFC 2680, September 1999.
[2] Almes，G.，Kalidini，S.和M.Zekauskas，“IPPM的单向分组丢失度量”，RFC 2680，1999年9月。
[3] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (v3)", RFC 1305, April 1992.
[3] Mills，D.，“网络时间协议（v3）”，RFC13051992年4月。
[4] Mahdavi J. and V. Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity", RFC 2678, September 1999.
[4] Mahdavi J.和V.Paxson，“测量连接性的IPPM度量”，RFC 2678，1999年9月。
[5] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[5] Postel，J.，“互联网协议”，STD 5，RFC 7911981年9月。
[6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[6] Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[7] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[7] Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
Guy Almes Advanced Network & Services, Inc. 200 Business Park Drive Armonk, NY 10504 USA
Guy Almes Advanced Network&Services，Inc.美国纽约州阿蒙克商业园区大道200号，邮编10504
Phone: +1 914 765 1120
EMail: almes@advanced.org
Phone: +1 914 765 1120
EMail: almes@advanced.org
Sunil Kalidindi Advanced Network & Services, Inc. 200 Business Park Drive Armonk, NY 10504 USA
Sunil Kaliddi Advanced Network&Services，Inc.美国纽约州阿蒙克商业园区大道200号，邮编10504
Phone: +1 914 765 1128
EMail: kalidindi@advanced.org
Phone: +1 914 765 1128
EMail: kalidindi@advanced.org
Matthew J. Zekauskas Advanced Network & Services, Inc. 200 Business Park Drive Armonk, NY 10504 USA
Matthew J.Zekauskas Advanced Network&Services，Inc.美国纽约州阿蒙克商业园区大道200号，邮编10504
Phone: +1 914 765 1112
EMail: matt@advanced.org
Phone: +1 914 765 1112
EMail: matt@advanced.org
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1999年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。