RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com> Tue, 28 October 2003 22:41 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03179 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:41:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEcWL-0000pS-De; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:41:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEcVv-0000nM-C1 for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:40:35 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03115 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:40:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEcVs-0001ac-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:40:32 -0500
Received: from [208.201.152.19] (helo=modus.surfnetusa.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEcVr-0001aU-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:40:32 -0500
Received: from seabreeze.merike.com (unverified [4.33.105.153]) by modus.surfnetusa.com (Vircom SMTPRS 2.1.258) with ESMTP id <B0020184318@modus.surfnetusa.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:40:29 -0800
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20031028142807.00b4fbc8@mail.merike.com>
X-Sender: kaeo@merike.com@mail.merike.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:40:18 -0800
To: sporetsky@quarrytech.com, brian.talbert@mci.com, mbustos@ixiacom.com, bmwg@ietf.org
From: Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com>
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
Cc: ipsec-term@external.cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <496A8683261CD211BF6C0008C733261A03DBCC6C@email.quarrytech. com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
I think some packet sizes should be explicitly stated so that results would be comparable if different testing devices were used to test different products. I personally like the idea of using 64-byte, 768-byte, 1518-byte and 4470-byte packets if for no other reason that it covers a mix. Min and max mtu is always good to catch sw issues and then some mid-size packets give you feel for what performance curve looks like for a device. The 768-byte number can be removed or replaced with another size.....just threw it out there......somewhy I remember that looking at corporate network traffic data from a few years back produced a lot of traffic around that size. - merike At 05:17 PM 10/28/2003 -0500, sporetsky@quarrytech.com wrote: >Also consider that the specified IMIX does not account for 4470 byte >packets. 4470 is the default MTU on POS links. > >I do recommend stating that "a mix of Packet Sizes can be used and MUST be >reported with the results". That could eliminate the argument about >definition of "IMIX" and allow the document user to select the best "IMIX" >for his/her network. Is this a good solution? > >Scott > >-----Original Message----- >From: Talbert, Brian [mailto:brian.talbert@mci.com] >Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:03 AM >To: 'Michele Bustos'; 'bmwg@ietf.org' >Cc: Ipsec-Term@External. Cisco. Com (E-mail) >Subject: RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology > > >The definition seems to draw from Agilent's Journal of Internet Test >Methodologies. That is about the only source where I have seen the term >"Simple IMIX" referenced. Though your definition here does seem to draw >the Ixia IMIX test script which uses 64, 570, and 1518 as packet sizes >(including Ethernet header). Agilent sticks to IP (as should probably be >done here) but with some variance in the packet sizes, using 40, 576, and >1500. > >In any event, I will again raise caution about trying to define IMIX or at >least to give reference to any particular distribution. The distribution >provided does not appear to be directly based upon any data studies, but >rather taken from 3rd party sources, be it Agilent or Ixia. And that may in >itself be fine if so recorded (as examples) but there is concern here as >well. For one, the data from which these were based (the NLANR data) is >coming up on 3 years old and more importantly it represents generalized >Internet data. This draft focuses on VPN traffic patterns, for which there >isn't necessarily any correlation at all to the NLANR data. > >================================================= >To echo (quite literally) my previous sentiments: > > Well, I'm not sure that someone must state it in an RFC ... not at >least in so far as it defines a specific pattern. First, why do we all use >IMIX? I use it because our sales engineers and marketing folks don't want a >lot of information. They want a single number that they can quote that >gives a rough idea of the "customer experience". I suspect the appeal is >similar for vendors, and IMIX is OK for this purpose. So the question >becomes, would a standardized IMIX fairly represent the "customer >experience". Well, if that standard includes a specific packet size pattern >then it would be fair assuming that the customer experience closely >resembles the source of the model data. And we know a few things about the >model data: it is several years old and was only then representative of >general Internet consumption. So, how well does this data model represent >VPN applications where the usage is quite differnet from general Internet >consumption? VPNs bring the element of enterprise applications into the >foray and so an IMIX model based on general Internet traffic will loose >correlation significance. > >The alternative would be to define IMIX very generically and not include >specific packet distributions. Do this looses the advangate of have easy >cross-comparison but it does allow replication. Also, while this doesn't >standardize everyone on the exact same mix, it would at least allow for you >to stipulate that the IMIX pattern (packet sizes and interleave) be >documented. This would still go a long way as I see many reports of "IMIX" >testing only to find out later that the pattern had a smallest packet size >of 512 or that max size was reduced to avoid fragmentation effects, etc. > >I think you pretty much already do this, though for clarity I would avoid >any specific references in the discussion and instead focus on issues such >as: > >1. General distribution of packet sizes >2. Interleaving of packets >3. Correlation to actual data >etc. > >If you definately think it is best to go forward with referencing IMIX >in the meth then you should probably have it defined in the term. I don't >think it would be good to rely on Agilent or another outside source for >definition. This is how I would probably tackle it: > > >======================= >Mixed Packet Size Stream > >Definition: A stream (per Network Layer Traffic Control Term draft??) of >packets with varying framesizes. > >Discussion: Mixed packet size streams allow testing to be conducted using >traffic patterns that simulate those observed in live networks. Such >streams can be used to analyze forwarding rates, throughput, and other >metrics in a scenario that best represents the specific deployment >utilization of a device. > >The particular distribution of packet sizes and how they are interleaved may >vary depending upon expected operational use of a device. It is conceivable >that for some purposes a packet mix representing general Internet traffic >(Internet Mix, or IMIX) will be appropriate, while for other purposes a >packet mix representing other characteristics will be more appropriate (for >examplle, a VPN Mix, VoIP Mix, etc.). In all cases, however, it is >important the the specific packet sizes, thier distribution ratios, and how >they are interleaved be as closely correlated to the operational usage as >possible. The National Laboratory for Applied Network Research has >collected data that could be used to correlate an Internet MIX with general >Internet traffic. Other data collection efforts may be necessary to >significantly correlate a mixed packet size stream to actual usage patterns. > >Measurment Units: The units applicable to the underlying test to wich the >mixed packet size stream is being applied. >========================== > > > >This approach to defining a "MIX" allows for the flexiblity for the >individual tester to define a mix that meets thier own needs and alows it to >be applied to a variety of metrics. You could for instance further define a >"VPN MIX Throughput" or "Internet with G.729 MIX Forwarding Rate". It also >opens the doors to require in a meth (or here if that seems more >appropriate) that any type of MIX must be defined in results to include: > >1. Packet sizes within the stream >2. Distribution ratios of the packet sizes >3. Interleaving characteristics >???4. Targeted operational use? >???5. Correlation to targeted use > > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Brian Talbert >UUNET Access Engineering >MCI > >Office: 703-886-5812 Fax: 703-886-0535 >Email: brian.talbert@mci.com AIM: wbriantalbert >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: bmwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-admin@ietf.org] On > >>Behalf Of Michele Bustos > >>Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:58 PM > >>To: 'bmwg@ietf.org' > >>Cc: Ipsec-Term@External. Cisco. Com (E-mail) > >>Subject: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology > >> > >> > >>To address the issues raised at the last meeting regarding > >>the IPsec Term draft. > >> > >>>The current draft defined IMIX (Internet Mix for traffic synthesis), > >>>but did not include the reference that Michele Bustos > >>provided on the > >>>list. There was a comment suggesting that this is a good > >>definition to > >>>include, with the caveat that no one mix of packet sizes represents > >>>Internet usage. > >> > >>We eliminated the NLARR reference from the draft for several > >>reasons. The reference never actually refers to IMIX, and > >>they never suggest any frame > >>sizes or traffic patterns. > >> > >>If anyone can provide a reference for IMIX specifically, we > >>would be happy to investigate it. > >> > >>Michele Bustos > >>Ixia > >>mbustos@ixiacom.com > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>bmwg mailing list > >>bmwg@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg > >> > >_______________________________________________ >bmwg mailing list >bmwg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg > >_______________________________________________ >bmwg mailing list >bmwg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Kevin Dubray
- [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology Michele Bustos
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Talbert, Brian
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… sporetsky
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Merike Kaeo
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… sporetsky
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Tim Van Herck
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Scott Bradner
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Tim Van Herck
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Merike Kaeo
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Michele Bustos
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Michele Bustos
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Michele Bustos
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Tim Van Herck
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Scott Bradner
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Tim Van Herck
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Scott Bradner
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Tim Van Herck
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Sunil Kalidindi
- RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Talbert, Brian
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Tim Van Herck
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminol… Al Morton