Re: [alto] [ippm] Cost metrics in draft-wu-alto-te-metrics

Hi Mirja,

thanks for bringing this topic to ippm. Some technical notes on this:
RFC2330  does not differentiate at which layer timestamps are acquired.
If the host time is considered to be an application layer timestamp,
alto could immediately adopt/use the base framework and all the metrics
that have been defined so far in ippm - including OWD, RTD, IPDV (alias
Jitter), Loss, Loss Patterns, BTC, etc., all defined in separate
documents and in substantial detail.

So yes, I share your opinion. I recommend alto to consider this
procedure - unless there are specific reasons why this can't be done (in
which case ippm will likely be very interested in feedback on the reasons).

Some more related documents:
- The update to 2330 (RFC7312) has particular focus on uncertainty
factors that measurements at application level will encounter in today's
networks.

- Al and I have written a draft to update RFC2330 to be more specific
wrt timestamp acquisition, even considering virtualization and related
challenges. The draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fabini-ippm-2330-time/ )  has
expired but I plan to rewrite it to fit what we have discussed in
Yokohama (in particular a use-case based discussion of timestamp
acquisition in measurements).

- IPv6 update for 2330 is on the way.
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-00 )

Any feedback and summary on requirements from alto is very welcome;
likewise some statements on the challenges in adopting the existing ippm
metrics. I guess that this information is valuable feedback for ippm in
evaluating past and guiding future work.

Joachim

On 2016-07-21 15:41, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Hi ippm folks, hi alto folks,
> 
> cross-posting because draft-wu-alto-et-metrics defines a set of alto cost metrics such as delay or bandwidth which sound to me like IP performance metrics. At the same time IPPM is currently in the process of defining a metric registry (draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-07 and draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-01). How do these relate to each other and how can we make sure that they are inline with each other?
> 
> Mirja
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> 