Al Morton | 5 Jul 02:21 2011
Picon

Fwd: Nomcom 2011-2012: Third Call for Volunteers

More volunteers are sought for this important process.

>From: NomCom Chair <nomcom-chair <at> ietf.org>
>To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
>Subject: Nomcom 2011-2012: Third Call for Volunteers
>Date: Mon,  4 Jul 2011 08:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
>Cc: ietf <at> ietf.org
>X-BeenThere: ietf-announce <at> ietf.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
>List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <ietf-announce.ietf.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-announce>,
>         <mailto:ietf-announce-request <at> ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce>
>List-Post: <mailto:ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:ietf-announce-request <at> ietf.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>,
>         <mailto:ietf-announce-request <at> ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: ietf-announce-bounces <at> ietf.org
>
>This is the Third call for Volunteers for the 2011-12 Nomcom.  We are
>almost through the volunteer period so if you are considering
>volunteering, please do so very soon.
>
>We have had a very good response to the initial call for volunteers and
>I am pleased to report that we have 84 volunteers thus far whose
>qualifications have been confirmed by the secretariat. I have notified
>each of these volunteers by email.
>
>However, we would like to have many more volunteers. The more volunteers,
>the better chance we have of choosing a random yet representative cross
(Continue reading)

Al Morton | 8 Jul 03:34 2011
Picon

Fwd: I-D Action: draft-morton-bmwg-imix-genome-02.txt

BMWG,

I've revised this draft according to Steve Maxwell's comments
and discussion that followed.

Al

>Sender: i-d-announce-bounces <at> ietf.org
>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
>
>         Title           : IMIX Genome: Specification of variable 
> packet sizes for additional testing
>         Author(s)       : Al Morton
>         Filename        : draft-morton-bmwg-imix-genome-02.txt
>         Pages           : 9
>         Date            : 2011-07-07
>
>    Benchmarking Methodologies have always relied on test conditions with
>    constant packet sizes, with the goal of understanding what network
>    device capability has been tested.  Tests with constant packet size
>    reveal device capabilities but differ significantly from the
>    conditions encountered in operational deployment, and so additional
>    tests are sometimes conducted with a mixture of packet sizes, or
>    &quot;IMIX&quot;.  The mixture of sizes a networking device will 
> encounter is
>    highly variable and depends on many factors.  An IMIX suited for one
>    networking device and deployment will not be appropriate for another.
>    However, the mix of sizes may be known and the tester may be asked to
(Continue reading)

Al Morton | 8 Jul 03:38 2011
Picon

Agenda requests for IETF-81

BMWG,

If you'd like to make a presentation that proposes or
advances work in BMWG, please send your request to me.
As always, include references to the latest drafts on
the topic and specific goals for discussion during our
face2face session.

The current agenda places us on Thursday, 13:00.

thanks and regards,
Al
bmwg chair
internet-drafts | 11 Jul 15:10 2011
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03.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           : IP Flow Information Accounting and Export Benchmarking Methodology
	Author(s)       : Jan Novak
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03.txt
	Pages           : 31
	Date            : 2011-07-11

   This document provides a methodology and framework for quantifying
   the performance impact of monitoring of IP flows on a network device
   and export of this information to a collector. It identifies the rate
   at which the IP flows are created, expired, and successfully exported
   as a new performance metric in combination with traditional
   throughput. The metric is only applicable to the devices compliant
   with the Architecture for IP Flow Information Export [RFC5470].

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03.txt
Al Morton | 12 Jul 14:29 2011
Picon

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03.txt

Hi Jan,

Thanks for posting this update, could you please summarize
the status of this draft w.r.t. comments during the 2nd WGLC?

regards,
Al
bmwg chair

PS to all: agenda preparation is in-progress, make requests soon.

At 09:10 AM 7/11/2011, internet-drafts <at> ietf.org wrote:
>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           : IP Flow Information Accounting and Export 
> Benchmarking Methodology
>         Author(s)       : Jan Novak
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03.txt
>         Pages           : 31
>         Date            : 2011-07-11
>...
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03.txt
Jan Novak (janovak | 12 Jul 14:57 2011
Picon

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03.txt

Hi Al,
The 03 version is only a minor update for
comments Brian made last time after the LC
cut off date.
02 version implements all comments I received
from all the reviewers during both LCs including 
the discussion we had with Brian at the Prague 
meeting.
I don't believe there are any open issues.

Jan

The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young .... 
and the strong envy them.
                                 Dr. Johnson

-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Al Morton
Sent: 12 July 2011 13:30
To: bmwg <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-03.txt

Hi Jan,

Thanks for posting this update, could you please summarize
the status of this draft w.r.t. comments during the 2nd WGLC?

regards,
Al
(Continue reading)

Al Morton | 13 Jul 18:19 2011
Picon

Re: benchmarking of routing protocols modern routers

I want to hear from all interested parties, but I'll
add my brief thoughts now:

All our dataplane/black-box measurements measure packet
transfer characteristics and *infer* something from those
measurements, like convergence time.  We try to strengthen
the inference through test design and configuration, yet there
are many actions possible inside a black-box that could restore a
datapath after our procedures provide the intended stimulus.

It appears to me that we should now recognize and own the problem.
There are cases where the inference may break down and something else
was measured, so we could recognize this possibility as a source
of experimental error and give the topic the treatment it deserves,
including some explanation in scope section(s) where applicable.

we'll all keep learning together,
Al
bmwg chair

At 10:10 AM 6/30/2011, Rajiv Papneja wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ilya
>Varlashkin
>Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:45 PM
>To: Rajiv Papneja; IETF BMWG; gregory.cauchie <at> orange-ftgroup.com
>Subject: Re: [bmwg] benchmarking of routing protocols modern routers
>
> >> We will try to clarify things in the next version based on AIs from
> >> the last meeting and ML discussions, but question remains that
(Continue reading)

Carlos Pignataro | 13 Jul 20:42 2011
X-Face
Picon

Re: benchmarking of routing protocols modern routers

Al, all,

My 2ยข say that the point raised by Ilya is quite valid, and a corollary
is that the inference can be qualified (and sometimes bounded). I think
that one of the main points, is that the inference-introduced error is
different for different protocol test cases, and that BGP in particular
is one that is further from the assumption than others.

I also think that it is very important to measure data-plane black-box
scenarios, as that is observable downtime; it is also important in those
methodologies to specify the conditions/requirements, what is being
measured, and what other variables contribute to the delta.

In summary, I agree that BMWG should own the issue. In a way, that's
what we did (in the reverse direction) with RFC5695, measuring
forwarding but describing the effect of dynamic protocols.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

On 7/13/2011 12:19 PM, Al Morton wrote:
> I want to hear from all interested parties, but I'll
> add my brief thoughts now:
> 
> All our dataplane/black-box measurements measure packet
> transfer characteristics and *infer* something from those
> measurements, like convergence time.  We try to strengthen
> the inference through test design and configuration, yet there
> are many actions possible inside a black-box that could restore a
(Continue reading)

Ilya Varlashkin | 13 Jul 22:46 2011

Re: benchmarking of routing protocols modern routers

Al,

I had discussion with Rajiv and Bhavani and we came to a conclusion to revise existing BGP benchmarking
draft to be more clear regarding what's being tested. It's likely that we won't make update before
submission freeze begins but we have a plan regarding future development of the draft and it hopefully
will be presented during up coming IETF by either Rajiv or Bhavani (unfortunately I won't make it to Canada
but hope to be there in Taiwan).

Recently I was busy measuring convergence for our network and some procedures look quite generic to be
applicable for most (if not all) networks. It is clear that modern routers can restore traffic flow before
protocols converge, and updated tests will account for that. Can't say more at the moment because that
would be speculation. So let's way for short while and we will bring update when there's something solid.

Cheers,
iLya

On Jul 13, 2011, at 18:19 , Al Morton wrote:

> I want to hear from all interested parties, but I'll
> add my brief thoughts now:
> 
> All our dataplane/black-box measurements measure packet
> transfer characteristics and *infer* something from those
> measurements, like convergence time.  We try to strengthen
> the inference through test design and configuration, yet there
> are many actions possible inside a black-box that could restore a
> datapath after our procedures provide the intended stimulus.
> 
> It appears to me that we should now recognize and own the problem.
> There are cases where the inference may break down and something else
(Continue reading)

Al Morton | 14 Jul 13:55 2011
Picon

Re: benchmarking of routing protocols modern routers

At 04:46 PM 7/13/2011, Ilya Varlashkin wrote:
>I had discussion with Rajiv and Bhavani and we came to a conclusion 
>to revise existing BGP benchmarking draft to be more clear regarding 
>what's being tested.

That's a very useful outcome, thanks to you all.

>It's likely that we won't make update before submission freeze 
>begins but we have a plan regarding future development of the draft 
>and it hopefully will be presented during up coming IETF by either 
>Rajiv or Bhavani (unfortunately I won't make it to Canada but hope 
>to be there in Taiwan).

Note that draft submission opens again on Monday of IETF week,
but the presentation to summarize the discussion on the list
and the proposed path forward will be welcome during BMWG's session.
It will give folks who have followed along another opportunity for input.

regards,
Al
bmwg chair

Gmane