headers
Samir Vapiwala (svapiwal | 4 Oct 2007 15:01
Picon
Favicon

RE: Thoughts ondraft-vapiwala-bmwg-rsvpte-convergence-motivation-01.txt

Hello Adrian,

It is great that this work is interesting you, and we would be very
happy to present this in the MPLS working group as well. 

As we are working towards streamlining the scope of this effort, the
primary focus of this work is to elaborate on the key performance and
scalability metrics that one need to consider evaluating the nodes to be
used in a MPLS-TE network. In this process, we consider convergence as
one of the key performance and scalability metrics. The convergence
within the context of this effort is defined as how long does it takes
to signal RSVP-TE based label switched paths following a network
convergence event. We will also try to bring this out more evidently in
the document to eliminate the ambiguity.
Furthermore, we do not consider IGP convergence under this umbrella
since it is being benchmarked separately. We can definitely make sure
that the TE extensions are either covered under this part of under IGP
convergence.  

For section 3, we will consider the RSVP Hellos and timers

For Section 3.1, we will clarify that

For Section 5, these are recommended scalability values that one may
consider to measure convergence. We could always limit this to the 1
LSP, but in order to come with the behavior or impact of scale on
convergence this range is necessary. One could always argue if this
recommended range is the optimal one, and we are open to suggestions.

For Section 6, Since there is a possibility of performance being
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 12 Oct 2007 22:15
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.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		: IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
	Author(s)	: C. Popoviciu, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt
	Pages		: 19
	Date		: 2007-10-12
	
The Benchmarking Methodologies defined in RFC2544 [8] are IP version
   independent.  However, RFC 2544 does not address some of the
   specificities of IPv6.  This document provides additional
   benchmarking guidelines, which in conjunction with RFC2544, lead to a
   more complete and realistic evaluation of the IPv6 performance of
   network interconnect devices.  IPv6 transition mechanisms are outside
   the scope of this document.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 22 Oct 2007 20:42
Favicon

FW: WG Review: Performance Metrics at Other Layers (pmol)


-----Original Message-----
From: IESG Secretary [mailto:iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:15 PM
To: ietf-announce <at> ietf.org
Subject: WG Review: Performance Metrics at Other Layers (pmol) 

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and
Management Area.  The IESG has not made any determination as yet.  
The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for
informational purposes only.  Please send your comments to the IESG
mailing list (iesg <at> ietf.org) by October 29.

+++

Performance Metrics at Other Layers (pmol)
==============================================

Current Status: Proposed Working Group

WG Chairs:
TBD

Operations and Management Area:
Dan Romascanu <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
Ronald Bonica <rbonica <at> juniper.net>

Description:

The successful implementation and operation of IP based applications
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Al Morton | 25 Oct 2007 22:54
Picon
Favicon

BMWG Status from Al's POV

Folks,

We have about a month till the next meeting.
Below I've reproduced the Action Items from our
IETF-69 session and my view of progress.

If your name doesn't appear below, read a draft anyway,
and everyone can root for Kevin's BoSox.
They're the only org. I know of that seems to be ahead of schedule
(they were supposed to wait 86 years before winning another pennant).

Al
bmwg chair

===========================================================================

>Action Items
>
>Jay Karthik has volunteered to restart the BGP convergence methodology,
>and Rajiv Papneja also volunteered to help out.

Attempts to contact the existing authors have gone unanswered, AFAIK.

>David Ward will identify a RIP expert to consult on adding RIP to 
>the IGP Dataplane drafts, and a small group of volunteers to help 
>expand the scope
>and resolve the DISCUSS comments.

A design team was formed in August. There have been revisions to the drafts,
and there are more comments to deal with now.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Al Morton | 25 Oct 2007 23:24
Picon
Favicon

Document Shepherding Form: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt as an INFORMATIONAL RFC

BMWG,

As part of the formal request to Publish
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt as an INFORMATIONAL RFC,
the Document Shepherding Form is shared with the WG (below).

regards,
Al
bmwg chair

==============================================================================

This is a publication request for
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-04.txt
as an INFORMATIONAL RFC.

    (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
           Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
           document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
           version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Al Morton, chair of BMWG, has personally reviewed the document and will
be the document shepherd. The document is ready for publication.

    (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
           and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
           any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
           have been performed?
The document has received extensive review and generated considerable
discussion over the last year and a half. Key people from the v6ops WG
have reviewed the draft at various stages, including Pekka Savola,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane