Re: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-04

Dear Eduard,

Thank you for your review and support.

And many thanks for suggesting Grammarly. I tested the abstract and it 
had exactly 3 recommendations. Two of them was removal and addition of 
commas, with which I agreed. The third one was:

connection tear down rate --> connection tear-down rate

Hopefully it is also correct. (I have applied it to the entire document.)

I have gone through the entire document using Grammarly and made a lot 
of corrections. (It had some bad ideas, too. I did not count them, 
perhaps I agreed 70-80% of its recommendations.)

In addition to that, my BSc student, Bertalan Kovács read the draft a 
few days ago and he also had two recommendations for correction:

test phase _phase_ 1 --> test phase 1
If Responder sent --> If *the* Responder sent

Now all changes are in the XML file. I wait for a few days just in case 
anyone has any further recommendation and then I plan to post version "05".

Best regards,

Gábor

1/4/2024 1:23 PM keltezéssel, Vasilenko Eduard írta:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have read the draft carefully. I support this RFC publishing.
>
> A few comments:
>
> 1.I have not found any logical problems. Everything looks right.
>
> 2.I am not a native speaker, but it looks to me that the draft has 
> grammar errors.
> I typically accept about 80% of what Grammarly proposes.
> I have put Abstract into grammarly.com – I agree to all 3 corrections.
> IMHO: it makes sense to pass the document through any spell checker.
>
> 3.A tradeoff of measurement complexity is probably right:
> Any software stateful device has a dependency between cps (new 
> sessions per second), pps, and bps. The more one performance – the 
> fewer others, because all need CPU cycles.
> Heavy stateful hardware devices may have a hardware separation between 
> “slow path” and “fast path” and then cps becomes independent from pps 
> and bps.
> (yet all historical attempts for such a separation failed, heavy 
> hardware our days is NP that plays both roles, i.e. “slow path” and 
> “fast path” share the same ASIC, cores split is dynamic)
>
> A)I did propose before to assume some proportion between cps:bps:pps 
> and then raise the load proportionally, It is what I did many years 
> ago. It is the best method for a specific environment/production. Yet, 
> it has 2 problems:
> 1. It is very specific for the environment, not general at all. Tests 
> from different proportions may not be comparable. Approximation of 
> cps, bps, and pps influence may be challenging.
> 2. Sometimes, It is difficult to find/assume this proportion, 
> especially for a new deployment.
>
> B)The draft proposes a separation for 2 test phases: test the “slow 
> path” and then test the “fast path” separately.
> IMHO: it is better for the RFC because it is general, no need to 
> assume cps:bps:pps proportion
>
> Eduard
>
> *From:* bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Paolo Volpato
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 3, 2024 5:36 PM
> *To:* bmwg <bmwg@ietf.org>
> *Cc:* bmwg-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bmwg] WG Last Call: 
> draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-04
>
> Dear BMWG,
>
> After reading the draft, I support that it is published as an 
> Informational RFC.
>
> BR
>
> Paolo
>
> *From:* bmwg <bmwg-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *sbanks@encrypted.net
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:22 PM
> *To:* bmwg <bmwg@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-04
>
> Hello BMWG,
>
> We are starting a working group last call (WGLC) for the "Benchmarking 
> Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814 Pseudorandom 
> Port Numbers”. It’ll start tomorrow, December 7, and run for 4 weeks, 
> closing on January 4. The extended WGLC allows for the holiday and new 
> year breaks.
>
> Please read the draft and express your opinion on whether or not this 
> Internet-Draft should be forwarded to the Area Directors for 
> publication and an Informational RFC. Send your comments to this list 
> (preferred), or to the co-chairs at bmwg-chairs@ietf.org.
>
> For the co-chairs,
>
> Sarah
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg