IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Mon, 16 March 2015 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537271A8A3D for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hV7wQ62u_qc6 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0764.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:764]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9220B1A8A60 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR05MB441.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.147) by CO1PR05MB348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.52.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.106.15; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:39:20 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB441.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.106.15; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:39:18 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.61]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.61]) with mapi id 15.01.0106.007; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:39:17 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "Cerveny, Bill" <wcerveny@arbor.net>, Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd
Thread-Index: AQHQX5ZewIa8MokDT0qKja/32DTu+Z0fCWoAgABoG6A=
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:39:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CO1PR05MB442B46E5BCA0CA12D346CD4AE020@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857ADD@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <BE0CDC42-6940-4FBC-AC70-EBF74BA0F663@is.naist.jp> <CAOgyq9bQtBgPgnS9xsH9ACK9VgRBNSHyA6b6UQ3GGzJmVv76kw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOgyq9bQtBgPgnS9xsH9ACK9VgRBNSHyA6b6UQ3GGzJmVv76kw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
authentication-results: arbor.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO1PR05MB441; UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO1PR05MB348;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO1PR05MB44166337C3F010A6CFE66D6AE020@CO1PR05MB441.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(164054003)(24454002)(51704005)(377454003)(230783001)(99286002)(40100003)(106116001)(16236675004)(2656002)(50986999)(54356999)(19300405004)(86362001)(5890100001)(2900100001)(2950100001)(62966003)(46102003)(77156002)(122556002)(33656002)(74316001)(19580395003)(66066001)(15975445007)(19617315012)(87936001)(102836002)(19609705001)(19625215002)(19580405001)(92566002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB441; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010); SRVR:CO1PR05MB441; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO1PR05MB441;
x-forefront-prvs: 05177D47DC
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CO1PR05MB442B46E5BCA0CA12D346CD4AE020CO1PR05MB442namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Mar 2015 18:39:17.5353 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR05MB441
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/C5euRktdghMyFYUYDlEygzLfHEg>
Cc: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>, "draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd@tools.ietf.org" <draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:39:38 -0000

Hi Marius,

I agree with both of you. OTOH, we should restrict the scope of the current draft. OTOH, it would be a very good idea to start a new draft to benchmark DAD and NUD.

                                                                                                                   Ron


From: Cerveny, Bill [mailto:wcerveny@arbor.net]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 8:26 AM
To: Marius Georgescu
Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd@tools.ietf.org; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd

Hi Marius,

Thanks for your comments. I had been reluctant to expand the scope beyond that described by RFC6583, at least partially to keep the document focused and perhaps to help expedite the document's publication.

A question I have though ... what performance benchmarks would there be for DAD or NUD? One of the challenges we've had regarding draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd is to confirm that the tests are reporting performance and not compliance ...

Thanks,

Bill Cerveny

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp<mailto:liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>> wrote:
I think this draft is a very good initiative and I support its adoption. I also have a question/comment.

I understand that the draft is targeting the ND resilience problems described by RFC6583. However, I was wondering if it wouldn’t be beneficial to add benchmarking tests that can cover the performance of some other functions of ND devices (as presented in RFC4861), such as: Duplicate Address Detection (may be very useful for mobile IPv6) or Neighbor Unreachability Detection.

Best regards,
Marius Georgescu

On Mar 1, 2015, at 5:55, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com<mailto:acmorton@att.com>> wrote:

> Hi Bill and Ron,
>
> I made some time to read your latest update on a plane ride.
> This draft seems to have a few areas for further
> development, but otherwise in very good shape.
>
> I attach my comments,
> Al
> (as a participant)
>
>
>
> <draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-06review.txt>_______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org<mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email