IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd

"Marius Georgescu" <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp> Mon, 16 March 2015 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7C01A876F for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n4KIt0sYhoRp for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailrelay21.naist.jp (mailrelay21.naist.jp [IPv6:2001:200:16a:50::71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A571A8756 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpost21.naist.jp (mailscan21.naist.jp [163.221.80.58]) by mailrelay21.naist.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F71B622; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:11:46 +0900 (JST)
Received: from aslim (dn158-103.naist.jp [163.221.158.103]) by mailpost21.naist.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5DBA621; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:11:45 +0900 (JST)
From: Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
To: "'Cerveny, Bill'" <wcerveny@arbor.net>
References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857ADD@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <BE0CDC42-6940-4FBC-AC70-EBF74BA0F663@is.naist.jp> <CAOgyq9bQtBgPgnS9xsH9ACK9VgRBNSHyA6b6UQ3GGzJmVv76kw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOgyq9bQtBgPgnS9xsH9ACK9VgRBNSHyA6b6UQ3GGzJmVv76kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:13:11 +0900
Message-ID: <006401d05ff3$55d97270$018c5750$@is.naist.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0065_01D0603E.C5C204D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQIfEPf+RhloAf4Ff6co82be0J7oegI/Dk1LAlPggYmcXRIlsA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-TM-AS-MML: No
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1392-7.5.0.1018-21400.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--29.120-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--29.120-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: K+amKtq7kRlITndh1lLRAe5i6weAmSDKWDesRNOOJ5SYThAWoWvpQBTS akRpgXR8mMQziC3Ur0Dg3AB799bgl0oNmUsFJ/yrQr2qXCJMSV9flOpBqBHTt2sTVziYHlSanrL IcB7LL59BFoT14xygSR8oHph1yfXaiNCj8jDazVJT46Ow+EhYONMGD8JuBXZPFJfW7wEu1kDzNF lYdBMBi92twJN7QDfV/sqBVf1RssAHLPLU/KtyUEvrB8UvzFr49r9tEcSw8jddTHZA+mUxZ+ph8 zS0iA+pq3sfTJtORr0psHkndYzh+xjWaWrUflneg0i8KoAEaoieCG7F5rpuxqq9wgXVNwtgHoC1 i0Ap1tjV2LmQHQzwVmjYdvnyTXHfYWo9dIuk10Ac8J6ZrWP/q/2xX1OVrWqLVxt8iPZNr2wlnjh 4pS9Fhz+ZqQbT6/3u4ieqF9MLBlLMIrbnE93ROwwfhKwa9GwDWq9ln3+CkiFnnK6mXN72mznuQW M5MjklgExzV+J9XRhRqc17zaHc5zWBtSWZ+bE6Ij0zFI5DoJItUSMDHceMrpgjZJ0l7MH/QdJ83 XuBKfrOH38lNbOoTHis8jsaMFSeyRYR+nJAalzf8GJjBXCUiDPYPmH3aiShsstO9qYbwEmjxYyR Ba/qJegL5WVEeE7Igaw1fl6D9o7P/MyuVlT/C0tIkhusciGXoz8VuEzoU/aqXhuxoVFU9QaH9DC wLZby6h8LsB8TuHU1SBe2NgM7bdwv8aZ6a9ZA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/5aHi6VOeDm8G_PnUWIkon30aRvk>
Cc: "'MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)'" <acmorton@att.com>, bmwg@ietf.org, draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:11:53 -0000

Hello Bill,

 

Regarding DAD, I was thinking something like DAD Delay (time during which the Tentative Address is not

usable) can be considered a performance benchmark. An analytical performance study  for the most popular DAD strategies is presented in:  <http://www.researchgate.net/publication/4316259_Fast_Duplicate_Address_Detection_for_Mobile_IPv6> http://www.researchgate.net/publication/4316259_Fast_Duplicate_Address_Detection_for_Mobile_IPv6 

 

Best regards,

Marius Georgescu

 

From: Cerveny, Bill [mailto:wcerveny@arbor.net] 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:26 PM
To: Marius Georgescu
Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd@tools.ietf.org; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd

 

Hi Marius,

 

Thanks for your comments. I had been reluctant to expand the scope beyond that described by RFC6583, at least partially to keep the document focused and perhaps to help expedite the document's publication. 

 

A question I have though ... what performance benchmarks would there be for DAD or NUD? One of the challenges we've had regarding draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd is to confirm that the tests are reporting performance and not compliance ...

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Cerveny

 

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp <mailto:liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp> > wrote:

I think this draft is a very good initiative and I support its adoption. I also have a question/comment.

I understand that the draft is targeting the ND resilience problems described by RFC6583. However, I was wondering if it wouldn’t be beneficial to add benchmarking tests that can cover the performance of some other functions of ND devices (as presented in RFC4861), such as: Duplicate Address Detection (may be very useful for mobile IPv6) or Neighbor Unreachability Detection.

Best regards,
Marius Georgescu


On Mar 1, 2015, at 5:55, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com <mailto:acmorton@att.com> > wrote:

> Hi Bill and Ron,
>
> I made some time to read your latest update on a plane ride.
> This draft seems to have a few areas for further
> development, but otherwise in very good shape.
>
> I attach my comments,
> Al
> (as a participant)
>
>
>

> <draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-06review.txt>_______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email