IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Cerveny, Bill" <wcerveny@arbor.net> Mon, 16 March 2015 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <wcerveny@arbor.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 12B2B1A870A for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 ZFaDCYhmlklX for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B9431A8706 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacwe9 with SMTP id we9so63666120pac.1 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=637YjvWVI7pl5K7x8JhwjCiVaLIKsQaMtAn2zyDKBaM=; b=hTmWag1wcCozAlVV+cR6WJeIxpzNth883suOxkHVFfoIQ3BRqnJr0vs2ovTrbFtdyP uMsOUx+gf0ISeaGmQmNJzAU6Z5sgJbzaLdpBPhhiQlJdo4Sm/bkGnXedP92NeOkrQAtg 2E4pT3exlE/s5+mNzHqw7+ARDHuRBl7F0JxyQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=637YjvWVI7pl5K7x8JhwjCiVaLIKsQaMtAn2zyDKBaM=; b=VMtgIvK00v+da7GieWGINTMZ/viH8RoiRWC5WZmvzbKF/n5T+qUjFhWmzGRxc2BZnC BP2WH52zIM89W+BpjSyLmpXl6blq3p2u8uGf8ye17F7BbtZRjnobYqbJBVI6uY2nHAdT tMlC/Ij8wClMIu8ADGG0wfdKTPbSzxuOcwraYCh7TDn3kdCMzvNNE4fGWaxjsaWCt3q3 7nrWS+dJZs0ZuklF1ddqfaQOJph1tpC8vH0oioSxwNXDvQTsoe13leWzZk1/dg+7DM8L HOGltdoSi2uUqZN5kZyD/32aUxl2/xBhCsy4hIbNIaFCNIlr02hUCw+w7Jbyy9Xr2cbB 8lyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnTOv6Zjwxse3kPcbJha2WJLD+kcb6x+5DFux2LICdRmPhAZS5yGQWc7NZM7bBlDgre8UBS
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.70.103.104 with SMTP id fv8mr11619351pdb.88.1426508732765; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.34.108 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BE0CDC42-6940-4FBC-AC70-EBF74BA0F663@is.naist.jp>
References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D89857ADD@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com> <BE0CDC42-6940-4FBC-AC70-EBF74BA0F663@is.naist.jp>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 08:25:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOgyq9bQtBgPgnS9xsH9ACK9VgRBNSHyA6b6UQ3GGzJmVv76kw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Cerveny, Bill" <wcerveny@arbor.net>
To: Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2e41c4949c6051166f2a7"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/FaOByav5KvOCoQwqIzMZU5o0IZg>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:37:17 -0700
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 12:25:36 -0000

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> 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> 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
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email