Re: [bmwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-02.txt

BMWG,

The topic of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery-related benchmarking has been 
discussed in the BMWG for almost a year, so we should determine whether
there is support to include this work in our future charter, and 
discuss how to describe the work item in our charter text.

So, please read the current draft and the short description of work
below, then provide comments/edits and indicate whether you support
the work item. Let's use our IETF session on Friday Nov 8 as the deadline.

regards,
Al
bmwg co-chair

_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

IPv6 Neighbor Discovery-related benchmarking

Large address space in IPv6 subnets presents several networking 
challenges, as described in RFC 6583. Indexes to describe the 
performance of network devices, such as the number of reachable
devices on a sub-network, are useful benchmarks to the operations
community. The working group will develop the necessary terminology
and methodologies to measure such benchmarks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> William Cerveny
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 10:46 AM
> To: bmwg@ietf.org
> Subject: [bmwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-
> nd-02.txt
> 
> I've updated the "Benchmarking Neighbor Discovery Problems" draft.
> 
> Updates since v00 and v01
> 
> - Transition to writing from the perspective of testing via standalone
> Linux boxes to using specialized testers.
> - Added narrative describing more about how NDP works and the problems
> that are being benchmarked.
> - Removed tests/measurements that rely upon information obtained from
> DUT, such as CPU load, etc.
> - Lots of text changes since v00.
> 
> To-do:
> - New tests need to be understood better. In particular, specific value
> and procedure needs to be clarified.
> - I have left the concept of a “non-participating” network in the draft,
> which is a leftover from v00. I’ve left it in for now because I might
> have a use for it as I experiment more in testing. If it turns out I
> don’t need it, I’ll remove references to non-participating network/node
> in future revisions.
> - Looking back at my IETF-86 notes, Scott Bradner had issues with
> benchmarking “problems”, as this is currently a benchmarking
> instantiation of RFC 6583, “Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems”.  I
> haven’t changed this yet and need to determine what it should change to
> …
> 
> Bill Cerveny
> 
> ----- Original message -----
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: William Cerveny <None@ietfa.amsl.com>, William Cerveny
> <bill@wjcerveny.com>, William Cerveny
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-02.txt
> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:46:13 -0700
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by William Cerveny and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Filename:        draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd
> Revision:        02
> Title:           Benchmarking Neighbor Discovery Problems
> Creation date:   2013-10-17
> Group:           Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 12
> URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-02.txt
> Status:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd
> Htmlized:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-02
> Diff:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-02
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document is a benchmarking instantiation of RFC 6583:
>    "Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems" [RFC6583].  It describes a
>    general testing procedure and measurements that can be performed to
>    evaluate how the problems described in RFC 6583 may impact the
>    functionality or performance of intermediate nodes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg