Re: [bmwg] FW: IETF BMWG Work Item Proposal for SIP PerformanceBenchmarking

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 25 May 2006 12:11 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjEgE-0007ts-BZ; Thu, 25 May 2006 08:11:06 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjEZl-0006xp-Rm for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 08:04:25 -0400
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FjEZa-0003VH-7F for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 25 May 2006 08:04:25 -0400
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 6A1904F0001; Thu, 25 May 2006 14:04:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.174]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 25 May 2006 14:04:11 +0200
Received: from [153.88.16.209] ([153.88.16.209]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 25 May 2006 14:04:10 +0200
Message-ID: <44759D38.8070105@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:04:08 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] FW: IETF BMWG Work Item Proposal for SIP PerformanceBenchmarking
References: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F0A8BD52D@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com> <447473A8.2080704@lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <447473A8.2080704@lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2006 12:04:10.0833 (UTC) FILETIME=[551C3410:01C67FF3]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 May 2006 08:11:04 -0400
Cc: fluffy@cisco.com, davids@iit.edu, "Moore, Sean (Sean)" <smoore@avaya.com>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, bmwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

As AVT WG chair I do have some opinions on this topic.

Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:

>> I am not saying that RTP media plane benchmarking is not useful, but I
>> believe that it should be within the scope of a different document. 
> 
> I am curious: is there such an existing document?  Has there been
> any work in avt or mmusic for RTP benchmarking?  Would the bench-
> mark be specific to a codec?

There are at least two performance monitoring frameworks for RTP. The 
first one is RTCP with additional metrics, see RFC 3550 and RFC 3611. 
There is also the RMONMIB work, which provides another framework for 
real-time monitoring of performance.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-framework-16.txt

There is a very difficult problem when trying to benchmark end to end 
performance of media. The reason is that the performance depends on the 
users subjective quality impression. Errors affects the subjective 
quality different, and are also dependent on the consuming individual. 
Thus the connection between objective measurements and subjective 
quality is very difficult. A common method to get somewhere is to 
calibrate a objective measurement method towards subjective assessments. 
That way one can get decent quality of the objective measurement. 
However the important factor here is that theses measurements are only 
valid within the confines of the method used in the test. Thus certain 
system changes or simply values outside of the correlated values lack 
meaning.

The problem with the media plane is that beyond the network 
characteristics there is so much implementation dependent behavior that 
affect quality. It is also very difficult to setup probes in meaningful 
ways within these implementations that are comparable between 
implementations.

> 
> It would be nice to gauge some consensus in the WG around whether
> the "Media Plane" is inline with the notion of SIP benchmarking
> or not.
> 

In my knowledge there there is clearly separate parts which are linked 
in that the full performance of a VoIP "system" clearly is the sum of 
the signalling and the media plane behavior. The debate about how to 
correlate the signalling with the media plane measurements that we have 
had regarding the RFC 3611 update in AVT WG clearly shows there is 
important factors to consider here. The bottom line is that it is 
important to be able to correlate a signalling measurement with the 
media plane measurements to determine the system performance.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com

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