[bmwg] IGP Data Plane Convergence
Scott Poretsky <sporetsky@avici.com> Wed, 09 July 2003 16:12 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 MAA08034 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:12:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHY1-00010t-UE; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:12:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19aHXb-00010G-R5 for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:11:35 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07974 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:11:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aHXa-0000Dy-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:11:34 -0400
Received: from [12.38.212.174] (helo=maildev.avici.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19aHXZ-0000Db-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:11:33 -0400
Received: from sporetsky-lt.avici.com ([10.2.104.211]) by maildev.avici.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h69GB2327943 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:11:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20030709121028.01e1b258@pop.avici.com>
X-Sender: sporetsky@pop.avici.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 12:13:05 -0400
To: bmwg@ietf.org
From: Scott Poretsky <sporetsky@avici.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [bmwg] IGP Data Plane Convergence
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>
> BMWG-ers, > > We have had a couple of issues raised for the IGP Data Plane Convergence > benchmarking. The first is the Packet Sampling Interval of the test > equipment and its impact to results and the second is the choice of values > for the timers that impact the results. We would like to address these in > the next revision of the documents as follow: > > 1. Packet Sampling Interval - > With some test equipment vendors you must use the Average Convergence > Time and not the preferred Full (Peak-to-Peak) Convergence Time. This is because the > minimum configurable packet sample interval is as high as 1 second. Being this high, the > Convergence Recovery Slope is grossly exaggerated for fast convergence times, causing > the Full Convergence Time to measure greater than it actually is. With the > other test equipment it is still appropriate to use the more accurate Full > Convergence Time instead of the Average Convergence Time, because 100msec packet > sample intervals are used. This is particularly important as the industry is > discussing millisecond convergence time. > > The authors intend to add to the Terminology draft a new term - Convergence > Sampling Rate - with a maximum value of 100msec. The Methodology draft will > recommend in the "Test Considerations" section will include this discussion > and state that when the Convergence Sampling Rate >100msec then the Average > Convergence Time must be used. > > 2. Convergence Timers > The Methodology draft "Test Considerations" section currently states to set > Convergence Timers to minimum value. It has been requested that we include > suggested values. We propose that the values appear as follow: > > SONET Failure Indication Delay (<10ms, almost immediate) > IGP Hello Timer (1 sec) > IGP Dead-Interval (3 sec) > LSA Generation Delay (0, immediate) > LSA Flood Packet Pacing (0, immediate) > LSA Retransmission Packet Pacing (0, immediate) > SPF Delay (0, immediate) > > Is there agreement, concern, or questions for these changes to be made for > the 01 versions of the drafts? Are there additional issues that should be > addressed? > > Scott/Brent _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] IGP Data Plane Convergence Scott Poretsky
- Re: [bmwg] IGP Data Plane Convergence Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] IGP Data Plane Convergence Scott Poretsky