[bmwg] draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark

"Ger, Javier" <jger@cablevision.com.ar> Thu, 07 April 2016 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jger@cablevision.com.ar>
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 7552112D64D for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 grE6y127HaO7 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.cablevision.com.ar (smtp.cablevision.com.ar [200.49.158.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40B812D663 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c8319e92-f792e6d0000067b4-99-5706a10a98e1
Received: from HERMES-MBX2.corp.cablevision.com.ar ([fe80::6027:5d96:9e1f:eed8]) by HERMES-HCAS2.corp.cablevision.com.ar ([fe80::587a:dce6:cc47:37fe%10]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:03:54 -0300
From: "Ger, Javier" <jger@cablevision.com.ar>
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark
Thread-Index: AdGQ9bjMZM8Y0V7rSe+Wgboigf+vUQ==
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:03:53 +0000
Message-ID: <94E7360D59AAB64F852152C5579B5F22802FD308@HERMES-MBX2.corp.cablevision.com.ar>
Accept-Language: es-AR, en-US
Content-Language: es-ES
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.183.12]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94E7360D59AAB64F852152C5579B5F22802FD308HERMESMBX2corpc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVyYMX2NF2uhWzhBsdabCz6v95kc2D0WLLk J1MAY1QDo01iXl5+SWJJqkJKanGyrZJLZnFyTmJmbmqRgrOjk49rmGewp7+fkkJmiq2SsZJC QU5icmpual6JrVJiQUFqXoqSHZcCBrABKsvMU0jNS85PycxLt1XyDPbXtbAwtdQ1VLILyyzO BFqXUVJSUGyln/CdLWP6xo+MBcsNKpqeTWNpYPyk2cXIySEhYCKx9t4qVghbTOLCvfVsXYxc HEICtxklth/awg6SYBPQlZizfDkjiC0ioCzx48VHZhBbWMBQ4uHULWwQcTOJubt2s0PYehKz /04Es1kEVCRW978CW8ArECXRufwgE4jNKCArceZzKwuIzSwgLnFvSg/UEQISS/acZ4awRSVe Pv4HFVeSaJ22lRWiPl/i0vGX7BAzBSVOznzCMoFRcBaSUbOQlM1CUgYR15FYsPsTG4StLbFs 4WtmGPvMgcdMyOILGNlXMYoX55YU6CUnJuWklgFDNT9PLzk/Vy+xaBMjMN5PGM6btIPx0xeV Q4wCHIxKPLwWnazhQqyJZcWVuYcYfYABMJFZSjQ5H5hU8kriDY1MLQyMTY3NTA0MLXAIK4nz TllxLkhIIB2YXrJTUwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwys9MWi+R+GuV7KsZ0peXCOfOSbqaeisl dv0Buf/Vq07POJw5/6pVxL2ZTP92/7S22dV7wS4gNWRnSeSKiS/cJJk6HZYrMLzfPtstoCe+ 9Z7D2k42bs6JfPZJJuK8keunfGqo5dV+l/Y6baVv6OFwNY8ZbbPsinoceHMzdJRDrxq1nf/G ezJWiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAAMLS5gkDAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/CTlgKza3nzhN7AGjJts92gKX06M>
Subject: [bmwg] draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 18:04:03 -0000

Hi Bhuvan,

I was wondering if defining more precisely what DoS attacks mean makes sense. Although there are several DoS attack types, based in the document content I assume it is referring to volumetric attacks, so it could be useful to include this clarification in the "term" draft.

Additionally, if my previous assumption is true, I was also wondering if having a clear baseline or values related to DoS attacks can help (basically would allow running different tests consistently and avoid misinterpretations). Since the increased amount of requests (packets/traffic/sessions/etc.) is the typical behavior of the volumetric DoS attacks, in the "meth" draft you could include some value in order to define when you are considering that a certain volume of these requests mean a volumetric DoS attack is ongoing.

Probably giving just one fixed value can be difficult because it will vary from one controller to another (in fact depending of their performance). But perhaps a table including a list/group of them or even some relative values based in what you have already measured about the controller performance in the first part of the procedure can give some kind of curve or ramp about how each value of illegitimate requests affects performance until the controller goes off.

Regards.

Visite https://www.cablevisionfibertel.com.ar<br>__________________________________________<br>
Este mensaje es confidencial. Puede contener informacion amparada por el secreto comercial.<br>Si usted ha recibido este e-mail por error, debera eliminarlo de su sistema.<br>No debera copiar el mensaje ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona.<br>Muchas gracias.<br>This message is confidential. It may also contain information that is privileged or not authorized to be disclosed. If you have received it by mistake, delete it from your system.<br>You should not copy the messsage nor disclose its contents to anyone.<br>Many thanks.<br>__________________________________________