Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-02
"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Sat, 15 October 2016 23:36 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C63C129566 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FjNAMnZMIFcP for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAC7C129451 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u9FNYSJ8044444 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:36:06 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 263s7d5kjn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:36:06 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9FNa5qb000416 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:36:05 -0400
Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9FNZuUe000325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:35:59 -0400
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (clpi183.sldc.sbc.com [135.41.1.46]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:35:46 GMT
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9FNZjeJ027088 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:35:45 -0500
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.178.11]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9FNZaaO026590 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:35:39 -0500
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC577F0543 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:35:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:35:35 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:35:34 -0400
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-02
Thread-Index: AdIjCiDdYfo++7raSPSfgRah8jndNQEMgU7Q
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D45A1F2E5A0@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D459F860C12@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D459F860C12@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-10-15_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1610150414
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/C7ox6C9iWl4ayw5sEozytHIDotI>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-02
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 23:36:09 -0000
Hi Marius, Here are my comments on your draft (beyond the observation that this is an excellent piece of work, I've said that many times...) In these comments, I marked the margin with "|" where it might be difficult to find the text I suggest to change. regards, Al (as a participant) Section 1., paragraph 4: OLD: The document also includes an approach to quantify load scalability. Load scalability can be defined as a system's ability to gracefully accommodate higher loads. Because poor scalability usually leads to poor performance, the proposed approach is to quantify the load scalability by measuring the performance degradation created by a higher number of network flows. NEW: The document also includes an approach to quantify load scalability. Load scalability can be defined as a system's ability to gracefully accommodate higher loads. Because poor scalability usually leads to poor performance, the proposed approach is to quantify the load scalability by measuring the performance degradation created by a higher number of network flows. [ACM] maybe this instead: (?) This document also includes an approach to quantify flow scalability. Flow scalability can be defined as a system's ability to gracefully accommodate increasing numbers of flows. The approach taken here is to quantify the flow scalability by measuring the performance created by a number (>>1) of network flows, and comparing performance to the single flow case. [ACM] How hard would it be to add this??? The document also includes an approach to quantify performance when operating in overload. Overload scalability can be defined as a system's ability to gracefully accommodate greater numbers of flows than the maximum number of flows which the DUT can operate normally. The approach taken here is to quantify the Overload scalability by measuring the performance created by an excessive number of network flows, and comparing performance to the non-overload case. Section 1.1., paragraph 6: OLD: Note: X,Y are part of the {4,6} set. NEW: | Note: X,Y are part of the set {4,6}, and X NOT.EQUAL Y. Section 3., paragraph 0: OLD: 3. Encapsulation: The production network is assumed to have all three domains, Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core domain is IPvY specific. An encapsulation mechanism is used to traverse the core domain. The IPvX packets are encapsulated to IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the Core domain. Subsequently, the IPvY packets are decapsulated at the edge between the Core domain and Domain B. NEW: 3. Encapsulation: The production network is assumed to have all three domains, Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core domain is IPvY specific. An encapsulation mechanism is used to traverse the core domain. The IPvX packets are encapsulated to IPvY packets at the edge between Domain A and the Core domain. | Subsequently, the IPvY packets are de-encapsulated at the edge between the Core domain and Domain B. Section 2., paragraph 3: OLD: Although these terms are usually associated with protocol requirements, in this doc the terms are requirements for users and systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim conformance with this specification. NEW: Although these terms are usually associated with protocol | requirements, in this document the terms are requirements for users and systems that intend to implement the test conditions and claim conformance with this specification. Section 4.2., paragraph 1: OLD: For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation and Double translation transition technologies, a dual DUT setup (see Figure 2) SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of IPvX packets. The first DUT is responsible for the encapsulation or translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are decapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT and forwarded to the tester. NEW: For evaluating the performance of Encapsulation and Double translation transition technologies, a dual DUT setup (see Figure 2) SHOULD be employed. The tester creates a network flow of IPvX packets. The first DUT is responsible for the encapsulation or translation of IPvX packets into IPvY packets. The IPvY packets are | de-encapsulated/translated back to IPvX packets by the second DUT and forwarded to the tester. Section 4.2., paragraph 4: OLD: Note: For encapsulation IPv6 transition technologies, in the single DUT setup, in order to test the decapsulation efficiency, the tester SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets encasulated as IPvY. NEW: Note: For encapsulation IPv6 transition technologies, in the single | DUT setup, in order to test the de-encapsulation efficiency, the tester | SHOULD be able to send IPvX packets encapsulated as IPvY. Section 6., paragraph 1: OLD: The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some extent the conditions of a production environment. [RFC5180] describes complementary testing conditions specific to IPv6. Their recommendations can be referred for IPv6 transition technologies testing as well. NEW: The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some | extent the conditions of a production environment. Section ?? of [RFC5180] describes complementary testing conditions specific to IPv6. Their recommendations can be referred for IPv6 transition technologies testing as well. Section 7., paragraph 2: OLD: 7.1. Throughput - [RFC2544] NEW: 7.1. Throughput | Use Section ?? of [RFC2544] unmodified. Section 7.2., paragraph 12: OLD: The test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported value being the median of the recorded values. NEW: | The Latency test MUST be repeated at least 20 times with the reported | value being the median of the recorded values for TL and WCL (??). Section 7.3.2., paragraph 6: OLD: Where: Dmin - the minimum One-way delay in the stream NEW: | Where: Dmin - the minimum One-way IPDV in the stream Section 7.3.2., paragraph 7: OLD: Dmed - the median One-way delay of the stream NEW: | Dmed - the median One-way IPDV of the stream Section 7.3.2., paragraph 8: OLD: Dmax - the maximum One-way delay in the stream NEW: | Dmax - the maximum One-way IPDV in the stream Section 7.3.2., paragraph 11: OLD: 7.4. Frame Loss Rate - [RFC2544] NEW: 7.4. Frame Loss Rate Section 7.3.2., paragraph 12: OLD: 7.5. Back-to-back Frames - [RFC2544] NEW: | Use Section ?? of [RFC2544] unmodified. Section 7.3.2., paragraph 13: OLD: 7.6. System Recovery - [RFC2544] NEW: 7.5. Back-to-back Frames Section 7.3.2., paragraph 14: OLD: 7.7. Reset - [RFC2544] NEW: | Use Section ?? of [RFC2544] unmodified. 7.6. System Recovery | Use Section ?? of [RFC2544] unmodified. 7.7. Reset | Use Section ?? of [RFC6201] unmodified. Section 8., paragraph 3: OLD: 8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity -[RFC3511] NEW: 8.1. Concurrent TCP Connection Capacity Section 8., paragraph 4: OLD: 8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate -[RFC3511] NEW: | Use Section ?? of [3511] unmodified. 8.2. Maximum TCP Connection Establishment Rate | Use Section ?? of [3511] unmodified. Section 60, paragraph 0: OLD: Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate to the DUT and then count the replies received in time (within a predefined timeout period from the sending time of the corresponding query, having the default value 1 second) from the DUT. If the count of sent queries is equal to the count of received replies, the rate of the queries is raised and the test is rerun. If fewer replies are received than queries were sent, the rate of the queries is reduced and the test is rerun. The duration of the test SHOULD be at least 60 seconds to reduce the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able to exhibit higher performance by storing the requests and thus utilizing also the timeout time for answering them. For the same reason, no higher timeout time than 1 second SHOULD be used. NEW: Procedure: Send a specific number of DNS queries at a specific rate to the DUT and then count the replies received in time (within a predefined timeout period from the sending time of the corresponding query, having the default value 1 second) from the DUT. If the count of sent queries is equal to the count of received replies, the rate of the queries is raised and the test is rerun. If fewer replies are received than queries were sent, the rate of the queries is reduced | and the test is rerun. The duration of the each trial SHOULD be at least 60 seconds to reduce the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able to exhibit higher performance by storing the requests and thus utilizing also the timeout time for answering them. For the same reason, no higher timeout time than 1 second SHOULD be used. Section 60, paragraph 1: OLD: The number of processed DNS queries per second is the fastest rate at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is equal to the number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment. NEW: | The maximum number of processed DNS queries per second is the fastest rate at which the count of DNS replies sent by the DUT is equal to the number of DNS queries sent to it by the test equipment. Section 10., paragraph 0: OLD: 10. Scalability NEW: 10. Scalability | [ACM] If we agree on a terminology change, there are edits needed below. Section 10.2.1., paragraph 2: OLD: The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the network flows are started simultaneously. The performance degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as relative performance change between the 1-flow results and the n- flow results, using the following formula: NEW: The same tests have to be repeated for n network flows, where the network flows are started simultaneously. The performance degradation of the X benchmarking dimension SHOULD be calculated as | relative performance change between the 1-flow (single flow) results and the n- flow results, using the following formula: Section 12., paragraph 1: OLD: To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using the tests presented in Sections 6-9, multiple test iterations are RECOMMENDED. Using a summarizing function (or measure of central tendency) can be a simple and effective way to compare the results obtained across different iterations. However, over-summarization is an unwanted effect of reporting a single number. NEW: To ensure the stability of the benchmarking scores obtained using | the tests presented in Sections 6 through 9, multiple test iterations are RECOMMENDED. Using a summarizing function (or measure of central tendency) can be a simple and effective way to compare the results obtained across different iterations. However, over-summarization is an unwanted effect of reporting a single number. Section 12., paragraph 3: OLD: To that end, data presented in [ietf95pres] indicate the median as suitable summarizing function and the 1st and 99th percentiles as variation measures for DNS Resolution Performance and PDV. . The median and percentile calculation functions SHOULD follow the recommendations of [RFC2330] Section 11.3. NEW: To that end, data presented in [ietf95pres] indicate the median as suitable summarizing function and the 1st and 99th percentiles as | variation measures for DNS Resolution Performance and PDV. The median and percentile calculation functions SHOULD follow the recommendations of [RFC2330] Section 11.3. Section 14., paragraph 1: OLD: The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:0002::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6 benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies. NEW: The IANA has allocated the prefix 2001:0002::/48 [RFC5180] for IPv6 benchmarking. For IPv4 benchmarking, the 198.18.0.0/15 prefix was reserved, as described in [RFC6890]. The two ranges are sufficient | for benchmarking IPv6 transition technologies. Thus, no action is requested. > -----Original Message----- > From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C > (AL) > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:25 AM > To: bmwg@ietf.org > Subject: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-02 > > *** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***. > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more > information. > > BMWG: > > A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on > Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking- > 02 > > will be open from 10 October 2016 through 24 October 2016**. > > This is the first WGLC on this draft, following the BMWG Last Call > Process. > See > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00846.html > > Please read the draft and express your opinion on whether or not it > should be forwarded to the Area Directors for publication as an > Informational RFCs. Send your comments to this list or to the > co-chairs: acmorton@att.com and sbanks@encrypted.net > > for the co-chairs, > Al > > ** continuing comments are welcome through the IETF-97 meeting > > _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > bmwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-bench… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-b… Bhuvan (Veryx Technologies)
- Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-b… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)