Re: [bmwg] BMWG interim meeting?

["Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Giuseppe!

From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 at 11:51
To: Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) <[e-mail]>, Sarah Banks <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Vratko Polák -X (vrpolak - PANTHEON TECH SRO at Cisco) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: BMWG interim meeting?
Hi Maciek, Vratko,
Yes, I think you can present the results on the mlrsearch applied topic in addition to the update to draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch.
We will include this presentation slot when Sarah and I prepare the agenda.

Regards,

Giuseppe


-----Original Message-----
From: Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) <mkonstan=[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 1:39 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>
Cc: Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) <[e-mail]>; Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>; Sarah Banks <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Vratko Polák -X (vrpolak - PANTHEON TECH SRO at Cisco) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BMWG interim meeting?

+Vratko

Hi Giuseppe,

Thank you for your note.
Agree that it probably does not make sense to organise the interim BMWG meeting for the mlrsearch applied topic, with IETF119 just round the corner.
We will be attending Brisbane remotely, so hackathon won’t work I don’t think, not for an interactive session that we would like to aim for.

Could we instead ask for a slot in the BMWG agenda to present the results?
This would be in addition to update on the mlrsearch draft.

And thanks for the update re SR drafts, makes sense.

Regards,
-Maciek

> On 23 Jan 2024, at 12:14, Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Maciek, All,
> To organize the interim meeting, I think that Sarah and I, as chairs, should start a poll to check everyone’s interest, time zone and availability over the next weeks. We may try to arrange it in February but it could be too close in time to our March meeting in Brisbane.
> An alternative option can be to propose a dedicated BMWG Hackathon project on mlrsearch at IETF 119 (https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/hackathons/119-hackathon/). I think the topic fits quite well with the IETF Hackathon as it involves implementations and tests. Then you can report the results during the BMWG session as well.
> Regarding the SR-related drafts, as coauthor of those documents, I can say that we are already working to merge the SR-MPLS and SRv6 drafts in order to address the comments received in Prague. The resulting document will be submitted for the IETF 119.
>
> Regards,
>
> Giuseppe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bmwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Maciek Konstantynowicz
> (mkonstan)
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 11:41 AM
> To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=[e-mail]>;
> Sarah Banks <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: [bmwg] BMWG interim meeting?
>
> Hi Sarah, Giuseppe,
>
> We would like to propose an interim (remote) BMWG meeting, following IETF118 Prague BMWG meeting and an impromptu small BOF while there (see email below).
>
> Topics for interim meeting already captured in BMWG IETF118 notes [1]:
>
> 1. Applying mlrsearch in practice in the LFN FD.io project for
> continuous networking software benchmarking
>
>   - walk-through NDR and PDR test results using mlrsearch as specified in mlrsearch draft.
>   - tested software workloads: VPP, DPDK and TRex.
>   - test environments:
>
>     - LFN FD.io physical labs with Intel Xeon, Arm Ampere Altra, Intel Atom servers.
>     - AWS EC2 instances.
>
>   - will be using FD.io public CSIT dashboard: https://csit.fd.io/
>
> 2. Merging the two SR-related drafts, per Sarah comments in [1].
>
> Other topics TBD.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Maciek and Vratko
>
> [1] https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-118-bmwg
>
>
>
>> On 8 Nov 2023, at 19:21, Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) <mkonstan=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Giuseppe,
>>
>> The impromptu BOF went well, we had only few people from BMWG
>> (Carsten, Jeffry, me), but attracted interest from wider IETF
>> community: netdef/frrouting, freebsd and St Andrews University, and
>> some opsawg folks.
>>
>> Co-authors of two opsawg drafts were asking questions about relevance
>> of the SW networking benchmarking to their work focusing on
>> sustainability and power measurements:
>>
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-almprs-sustainability-insights/
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsawg-poweff/
>>
>> We agreed to re-connect after IETF118 and see if there is a scope to
>> connect the dots.
>>
>> The focus was mainly on SW Networking data plane testing and
>> benchmarking, using LFN FD.io materials per links in my original
>> email from Mon 06-Nov.
>>
>> In line with what we discussed in IETF-118 BMWG meeting on Mon
>> -06-Nov in the morning,
>>
>> I like Sarah’s suggestion to schedule an interim meeting to cover the
>> topic properly, with more complete BMWG partiicipation, per
>> https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-118-bmwg.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Maciek
>>
>>> On 7 Nov 2023, at 06:59, Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Maciek,
>>> Thank you for having pointed out this BMWG discussion on the benchmarking of software networking devices and software workloads.
>>> Please feel free to share any outcome of the meeting with the BMWG mailing list.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Giuseppe
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan)
>>> <mkonstan=[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 3:30 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Cc: Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>; Sarah Banks
>>> <[e-mail]>; Vratko Polak -X (vrpolak - PANTHEON TECH SRO
>>> at Cisco) <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: BMWG informal "bar" BOF after Hackdemo Happy Hour on Mon
>>> 06-Nov
>>>
>>> // Apologies for wide distribution
>>> // If you are not interested in network benchmarking in general or
>>> // Software networking benchmarking in particular // you may want to
>>> ignore the rest of this message
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We would like to propose an informal BMWG “bar” BOF session for those interested in (continuous) benchmarking of software networking “devices” and SW workloads.
>>>
>>> Open to all IETFers and BMWG participants and contributors.
>>>
>>> TOPICS
>>>
>>> Covering network data plane benchmarking results, with focus on Software networking: DPDK and VPP (FD.io <http://fd.io/>).
>>>
>>> We will be using ope-source materials from Linux Foundation Networking Developer & Testing Forum:
>>>
>>> - FD.io CSIT dashboard: https://csit.fd.io/
>>>
>>> - LF Networking Developer & Testing Forum - FD.io CSIT Performance Dashboard - June 2023 talk:
>>> -
>>> https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/2023-06+-+FD.io%3A+CSIT+Per
>>> f
>>> ormance+Dashboard
>>> - https://youtu.be/LnbFNKhb99M?si=IMZ0NDz7zp0xgDAP
>>>
>>> - Depending on interest, also covering testing results for currently active BMWG WG mlrsearch draft:
>>> - draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch/
>>> - updated slides from this morning BMWG meeting:
>>> - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/session/bmwg/
>>> -
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-118-bmwg-2
>>> -
>>> multiple-loss-ratio-search-and-yang-model-01
>>>
>>> MEETING LOGISTICS
>>>
>>> - Proposed meeting point:
>>>
>>> - Location: Hackdemo Happy Hour in Ballroom Foyer.
>>> - Time: Start gathering from 19:00 / 7pm CET/local time.
>>> - Depending on turnout move to a different location around 19:30 / 7:30pm or earlier if out of space at Foyer.
>>> - Unfortunately we did not manage to secure a side meeting room, but will check again later today.
>>>
>>> Any questions, let me know by unicast reply.
>>>
>>> Thank you, and hopefully see you there.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Maciek
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bmwg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg