RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

Michele Bustos <mbustos@ixiacom.com> Tue, 28 October 2003 23:38 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 SAA07637 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:38:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdPV-0000RD-DV; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:38:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdP9-0000J6-8Q for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:37:39 -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 SAA07587 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:37:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdP1-0002k9-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:37:31 -0500
Received: from 64-60-75-69.cust.telepacific.net ([64.60.75.69] helo=racerx.ixiacom.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdP0-0002ix-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:37:31 -0500
Received: by mail.ixiacom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <VV0LV09T>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:37:54 -0800
Message-ID: <15FDCE057B48784C80836803AE3598D50349A3CE@mail.ixiacom.com>
From: Michele Bustos <mbustos@ixiacom.com>
To: "'Merike Kaeo'" <kaeo@merike.com>, sporetsky@quarrytech.com, sporetsky@quarrytech.com, brian.talbert@mci.com, Michele Bustos <mbustos@ixiacom.com>, bmwg@ietf.org
Cc: ipsec-term@external.cisco.com
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:37:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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>

Excellent.  Can we agree then that the frame/packet sizes should be defined,
with an escape clause for those who want to define their own mix.  BUT
including a mandate that all tested sizes be reported, ensuring
apples-to-apples.

Thoughts?

-----Original Message-----
From: Merike Kaeo [mailto:kaeo@merike.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:21 PM
To: sporetsky@quarrytech.com; sporetsky@quarrytech.com;
brian.talbert@mci.com; mbustos@ixiacom.com; bmwg@ietf.org
Cc: ipsec-term@external.cisco.com
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology



>We are going to end up debating Packet Sizes for an "Imix" instead of IPsec
>benchmarking.  I would add to your list 40 bytes, 48 bytes, and 512 bytes
>packets.  40 and 48 bytes are common POS benchmarks and 512 bytes is a
>common packet size on the Internet.
>
>The Imix definition is not unique to IPsec.  It applies to many BMWG drafts
>and RFCs.  One alternative is to reference the phrase "a mix of packet
>sizes" in the IPsec draft and have it _defined_ in the General Benchmarking
>Terminology draft that Al and Kevin plan to write.

ok....I agree having  the mix defined generally is a better solution 
overall.  I would hate for the benchmarking docs for IPsec get hung up on 
test packet size debates :)  One would hope that people are getting smarter 
and asking for what packet sizes were tested when looking at perfomance 
data and comparing numbers.......

- merike

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