RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

[Russ White <[e-mail]>]

Okay, it's been a couple of months since we've talked about this.... Have 
we reached any concensus on it? If BMWG isn't going to take it on, I need 
to get with the ADs and see what can be done about pushing it as an 
individual contribution (though I still think it's more benchmarking 
related than real world testing, after re-reading it).

If anyone would like to contribute more considerations, to make the draft 
"wider," those would be welcome, too.

:-)

Russ

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jim McQuaid wrote:

> You make an excellent point (can it be tested with created traffic or does
> it require live network traffic in some form).  That's the "bench" in
> benchmark; it can be done with lab equipment.
>
> I would agree with that distinction.  On the other hand, if there is
> enthusiasm to do this work within BMWG, tthat may be more important than
> legalisms, however sound.
>
> Jim McQuaid
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 9:29 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?
>
>
> At 10:56 AM +0000 4/7/04, Jim McQuaid wrote:
>> <sorry for the blank reply>
>>
>> At the time the IPPM was "spun off" of the BMWG, the general understanding
>> was that BMWG would look at "things" more or less in isolation, although
>> that concept is somewhat elastic.  IPPM would look at end to end network
>> kinds of performance issues.
>>
>> It seems clear to me that convergence is a performance characteristic of
>> complete networks and primarily an end to end or at least, core element to
>> core element characteristic.
>>
>> My thought would be that this is interesting and useful work but not
>> necessarily for BMWG.
>>
>> Jim McQuaid
>
>
> I don't completely disagree with you.  I do feel that single-platform
> performance definition and benchmarking is definitely within the
> scope of BMWG, and some of my comments relating to clarifying test
> methods (e.g., black box vs. white box vs. passive analysis)
> definitely can be applied to one box.  BMWG has always looked at
> forwarding plane performance of single boxes, and I really don't
> think we are straying far to look at there control plane performance.
>
> You are correct that IPPM, as well as some of the internet
> scalability issues both in the IETF and IRTF, are probably better
> places for end-to-end convergence.
>
> At least in the case of BGP, however, there is a meaningful
> intermediate level that isn't single box and isn't end-to-end:
> convergence within an AS, and conceivably subsets thereof such as
> route reflector clusters.  Similar points can be made about
> intra-area convergence in OSPF and ISIS.  Where do these fit?
>
> I'm inclined to say BMWG, and let me suggest what might be a very
> crude rule of thumb in saying BMWG or not-BMWG.  Many of the
> Internet-wide experiments have to rely on sampling live data, with
> perhaps some selective probes.  Single-box, or small-system-of-boxes
> measurement, plausibly can be done with an artificial benchmark in a
> testing lab.
>
> Given the name of this group, perhaps, then, the decision if
> something belongs here depends on asking the question early, "can the
> measurement be made with a synthetic benchmark and test equipment,"
> or does some of it really have to come from sampling and probing live
> networks?  If the former, it's BMWG eligible. If the latter, it's
> interesting, might even warrant BMWG liaison and/or help in placing
> it elsewhere, but shouldn't stay in BMWG.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>

__________________________________
[e-mail] CCIE <>< Grace Alone


_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg