[bmwg] IGP Data Plane Convergence

Scott Poretsky <sporetsky@avici.com> Wed, 09 July 2003 16:12 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (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 ([] 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 ([] 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 []) 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 ([]) 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 [] (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 ([]) 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: <>
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