internet-drafts | 27 Jan 00:15 2015
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-02.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Traffic Management Benchmarking
        Authors         : Barry Constantine
                          Ram Krishnan
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-02.txt
	Pages           : 40
	Date            : 2015-01-26

Abstract:
   This framework describes a practical methodology for benchmarking the
   traffic management capabilities of networking devices (i.e. policing,
   shaping, etc.). The goal is to provide a repeatable test method that
   objectively compares performance of the device's traffic management
   capabilities and to specify the means to benchmark traffic management
   with representative application traffic.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
(Continue reading)

internet-drafts | 17 Jan 00:51 2015
Picon

New Version Notification - draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-05.txt


A new version (-05) has been submitted for draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-05.txt

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/

Diff from previous version:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

IETF Secretariat.
MORTON, ALFRED C (AL | 7 Jan 23:15 2015
Picon

Goodput Definition

BMWG,

I was asked to review a draft in the AQM working group 
which folks in BMWG may find interesting:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-00

At the moment, I'm looking at their metric descriptions
for Flow Completion time and Goodput.  These two metrics
have a third factor in their relationship: how much data was sent.

Flow Completion Time = (original data volume, bits) / (Goodput, bits/s)

BMWG has a definition of Goodput in RFC 2647:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2647#section-3.17

   Definition:
     The number of bits per unit of time forwarded to the correct
     destination interface of the DUT/SUT, minus any bits lost or
     retransmitted.

I understand why retransmitted bits are removed, but bits forwarded
to the "correct destination interface" seem not to be lost.

I wonder if author David Newman or anyone else can recollect why
lost bits must be removed, and where they were thought to be lost?

regards,
Al
MORTON, ALFRED C (AL | 10 Dec 20:30 2014
Picon

Second WGLC on draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management

BMWG (and AQM):

A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on
Traffic Management Benchmarking:

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management

will be open from 10 December 2014 through 6 January, 2015.

The first WGLC (on -00) closed October 21 2014, with substantial 
comments and the authors believe they are now addressed.

This draft is continuing the BMWG Last Call Process. See
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00846.html

Please read and express your opinion on whether or not this
Internet-Draft should be forwarded to the Area Directors for
publication as an Informational RFC.  Send your comments
to this list or acmorton <at> att.com and sbanks <at> encrypted.net

Al
bmwg co-chair
IETF Secretariat | 4 Dec 21:12 2014
Picon

ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04.txt>

IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/
Joel Jaeggli | 4 Dec 17:12 2014

Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT)

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Holding discuss for the resolution of the gen-art review dicussion.
Jari Arkko | 4 Dec 14:42 2014
Picon

Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT)

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shouldn't the conclusions from the discussion after the Gen-ART review be
incorporated to a new draft version?
Benoit Claise | 3 Dec 15:24 2014
Picon

Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As notes by Scott Bradner in his OPS directorate review.
Some comments/questions on the contents of the draft:

1.1 
  "FIB (Data plane) convergence is defined as the completion of all FIB
   changes so that all forwarded traffic now takes the new proposed
   route. "

should route be singular or plural - i.e. is the assumption that the 
routing table converges to a single next hop? (at least for the test
traffic)
if so, does the draft specifically say that (or does rfc 4098 and I
missed it)
(Continue reading)

Barry Leiba | 2 Dec 18:38 2014
Picon

Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So sorry... I posted comments about the wrong document here.  Please
ignore that last message.
Barry Leiba | 2 Dec 18:37 2014
Picon

Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of minor, non-blocking comments that I hope you'll consider:

-- Section 2 --
As RFC 6163 is used to define necessary terminology, I think it's a
normative reference.

-- Section 3 --
I found the first paragraph here to be confusing: one thing can't be
grouped into multiple categories, and "regardless" seems not the right
word.  Also, the sentence (ending in ":") that introduces the list
doesn't have anything to do with the list it introduces.

May I propose this instead, and let you fix it if I don't have it quite
(Continue reading)

Adrian Farrel | 1 Dec 16:20 2014
Picon

Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT)

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing Terry's Routing Directorate review.

---

I liked the understatement of
   BGP is ... used by several service providers as the
   default Inter AS routing protocol.

Several == "more than two but not many"

Perhaps you could s/several/many/

Gmane