Re: [bmwg] Comments are more than welcome for draft-lai-bmwg-istn-methodology
Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Mon, 08 November 2021 20:33 UTC
Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1033A10E5 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:33:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.229
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 SD_-Nde9wEKE for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:33:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8A1A3A10E2 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.148] (host-79-121-41-97.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.97]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 1A8KX4rf094763 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 21:33:09 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-41-97.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.97] claimed to be [192.168.1.148]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------KgqdqsJlVXmmYVNNkzK74ruU"
Message-ID: <83165b48-14aa-a0e0-60bb-b87423794739@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 21:32:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: bmwg@ietf.org
References: <tencent_C4ABCCE8155430256B5D1320@qq.com>
From: Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
In-Reply-To: <tencent_C4ABCCE8155430256B5D1320@qq.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.2 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.41.97; helo=[192.168.1.148]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/8pTbKJq3XkM4wMFEa-thWod9yFs>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Comments are more than welcome for draft-lai-bmwg-istn-methodology
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 08 Nov 2021 20:33:21 -0000
Dear Zeqi, Just to minor suggestions: I am aware that an ISTN system is much more than the sum of its elements, but perhaps it is still worth checking about all its building elements, what kind of laboratory benchmarking tests have been defined for measuring their performance. (E.g. RFC 2544 for routers.) Are there some elements that are missing a proper benchmarking methodology? If so, perhaps you have found some gaps to fill in as your first step towards a comprehensive benchmarking methodology for ISTN systems. You have mentioned some network simulators and emulators in your presentation and pointed out their limitations. Perhaps it would be worth checking OMNeT++ / OMNEST. It is quite resilient, and used in many areas. It is a simulator, but also supports e.g. hardware in the loop solutions. It can also be embedded. Full disclosure: its main author, András Varga was my fellow student at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. I used OMNeT++ in the first years of my academic carrier, and I still have a lecture about it in a subject for PhD students. (OMNeT++ is free for academic purposes, but you need to buy an OMNEST license for commercial use.) Best regards, Gábor On 11/8/2021 7:31 PM, zeqilai wrote: > > Dear co-chairs and bmwg: > > > Thanks a lot for arranging the slot for us and thank you for the > valuable comments this time. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lai-bmwg-istn-methodology/ > > We believe that the right evaluation methodology for ISTN will produce > a series of useful recommendations about the key performance > metrics/characteristics of future internetworking technologies in > ISTN. As our next-step work we will further clarify the problem > statement, as well as the possible key benchmark metrics for ISTN. > > > Any further comments, suggestions, recommendations are more than > welcome, thanks! > > > Best regards, > > Zeqi Lai > > > > _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > bmwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg