headers
Rajiv Asati (rajiva | 2 Jan 2008 23:05
Picon
Favicon

RE: Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt

Hi Silvija,

Sorry about the delayed response. 

Please see inline,

> [SD]Metric was actually intended to be test output describing 
> overall scalability of PE device. As you are aware MVPN scale 

Is the term still intended in the same respect?

> [SD] This is useful feedback. Let me see if we can come up 
> with better term. Do you feel there is confusion even though 

Perhaps, an appropriate term needs to be considered, IMHO.

> [SD] Good question. Reason why we included it as a 
> requirement is to ensure results done by different parties 
> are comparable from MVPN perpective. As in cases when there 
> are large number of PEs (which is the case most of the 
> times), full mesh of BGP peerings among PEs would utilize 
> much larger amount of PE resources for BGP peerings compared 
> to case with RR. That in turn would leave less resources for 
> MVPN and make MVPN results for two cases uncomparable.
> Perhaps we could change wording to SHOULD and add a note that 
> lack of RR use MUST be documented in test report?

This should suffice.

Thanks.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Poretsky, Scott | 3 Jan 2008 22:01

FW: [Fwd: Benchmarking for SIP in BMWG]

Hello BMWG-ers,,

Dean Willis asked that this be posted to the BMWG mailing list on his
behalf.  There is a lot of interest in SIP Performance Benchmarking
through industry, as indicated by support for this work recently posted
by the leadership of the SIP and SIPPING working groups.

Scott

> From: Dean Willis <dean.willis <at> softarmor.com>
> Date: December 13, 2007 2:24:10 PM CST
> To: acmorton <at> att.com, Dan Romascanu <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
> Cc: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg <at> alcatel-lucent.com>
> Subject: Benchmarking for SIP in BMWG
>
>
>
> Vijay Gurbani just brought it to me attention that there are some  
> drafts related to the benchmarking of SIP systems being discussed  
> in the BMWG working group. In general, I'm very supportive of this  
> concept. We've tried to do it in SIP on several occasions in the  
> past and just don't have the right mindset.
>
> I think that the development of vocabulary and practice around the  
> benchmarking of SIP will be very helpful in the operator sector, as  
> sizing and performance planning with COTS systems are currently  
> very difficult to estimate "on paper" and currently require  
> building up labs just to get baselines.
>
> Further, I think that the SIP "overload" work (http://www.ietf.org/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry | 9 Jan 2008 20:19
Picon
Favicon

RE: Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for your feedback !

I'm glad to see that you seem to be in agreement with revised scope of
the document.

See [SD]..[\SD] in-line for response to your specific comments and will
appreciate any others you might have. Our intent is certainly to make
any changes necessary to ensure document text is in line with its scope.

Thanks,
Silvija

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Morin [mailto:thomas.morin <at> orange-ftgroup.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:58 AM
To: Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry)
Cc: bmwg <at> ietf.org; NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt

Hi Silvija, BMWG folks,

My apologizes for only sending my comments now.
I won't be able to attend bmwg meeting, but here are the general
comments I have after reading your updated proposal.

Having restructured the document in order to make it agnostic how mVPN
is designed, is definitely a good point, but I still have the concern
that the content itself is in many places still restricted to the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane