[bmwg] Update of Protection Terminology Draft

Takumi Kimura <takumi.kimura@lab.ntt.co.jp> Wed, 29 October 2003 04:34 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 XAA23268 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:34:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEi1w-00086S-KJ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:34:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEi1o-000860-3o for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:33:52 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23246 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:33:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEi1l-0000t6-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:33:49 -0500
Received: from tama5.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.102]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEi1l-0000t3-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:33:49 -0500
Received: from vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.110]) by tama5.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9T4XgUC029321 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:33:42 +0900 (JST)
Received: from nttmail3.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9T4Xgpo004802 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:33:42 +0900 (JST)
Received: from eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.69]) by nttmail3.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9T4Xf8H013328 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:33:41 +0900 (JST)
Received: from img.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.9.3p2/3.7W) with ESMTP id NAA06216; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:33:41 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost by img.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.9.3p2/3.7W) with ESMTP id NAA27527; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:33:40 +0900 (JST)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:28:22 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20031029.132822.71094797.takumi.kimura@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Cc: takumi.kimura@lab.ntt.co.jp
From: Takumi Kimura <takumi.kimura@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Organization: NTT Service Integration Laboratories
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [bmwg] Update of Protection Terminology Draft
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

BMWG,

We have revised the Protection Terminology Draft.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kimura-protection-term-02.txt

This document addresses common terminology and metrics for the
performance benchmarking of sub-IP layer protection technologies:
Automatic Protection Switching (APS) for SONET/SDH, Resilient Packet
Ring (RPR) for Ethernet, and Fast Reroute for Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS).  The benchmarks describe the performance based on
the effects in the IP-layer, to avoid dependence on a specific sub-IP
layer protection technology.

Changes from the previous version are followings:

1. To add new terms
    - Base Latency (defined in stable state)
    - Sequence-Error Period (derived from loss, out-of-order and duplicate)
    - Loss Period (derived from loss)
    - Unstable-latency Period (derived from positive Induced Latency)

2. To make Induced Latency more understandable:
      It is defined as Difference from Base Latency.

3. To make Recovery Time more accurate:
      It is defined by Sequence-Error Period and Unstable-latency
      Period.  As one alternative, "Recovery Time by Loss Period"
      is defined by Loss Period.

Thank you for your many comments in Vienna.
But we and Scott cannot yet agree about the focus which is common
or specific for sub-IP technologies.

Please send comments on this draft to the list or the authors.

Thanks,

Takumi

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg