IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] the draft "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies"

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 21 August 2015 06:36 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 AC4431A8825 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 noT2tGnV-rhZ for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12FED1A8828 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2160; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440138987; x=1441348587; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=xMDW1eJsAZ98Dgr+K4YQpjE5RpwksNOAUty6EF0YoRE=; b=XY5t226cTgqlC6pm2AgCxaWw6mJD8GlpmyHy1qoG8uqabS0oIQA9zzCA nxNm+mKVFj7rpdTfNmKvlUBRRisFhPM00XOlqcYfneKShsmZrPAb94vAW d6SENomxcE/aLDgL9ieVJr5vjER3LlqpahM2ON+Hj7XnQKWNZi1t5+8le c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 833
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AhAwB1xtZV/49dJa1dgxuBPQa9UgqHcgKBOjgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEDASNWBQsCAQgOCioCAjIlAgQOBQ6IGAi5DZYRAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4tThQoHgmkvgRQFlSkBgj6BXIhUgUqVCINpJoN9cYFIgQQBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,720,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="180643897"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2015 06:36:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (xch-rcd-008.cisco.com [173.37.102.18]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7L6aQ8P017487 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:36:26 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:36:25 -0500
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (173.37.183.89) by xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:36:25 -0500
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.173]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:36:25 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
Thread-Topic: the draft "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies"
Thread-Index: AQHQ2x7z6qjWPyQosEqDp0zFig369J4V/JdjgABYYYA=
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:36:24 +0000
Message-ID: <A559E8A1-0CAA-4468-9F16-ABE0AE2870CB@cisco.com>
References: <E063AAC7-4CF7-414C-AE35-321C9AA81D38@is.naist.jp> <CD932701-A631-40BF-8348-EB6ADDD6D227@cisco.com> <6A01278C-E8AE-4A44-81DB-913483C51CDB@cisco.com> <124B3D83-F1BE-4C26-B26B-43DAF41FCD5A@is.naist.jp>
In-Reply-To: <124B3D83-F1BE-4C26-B26B-43DAF41FCD5A@is.naist.jp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.24]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_817650A3-89CF-47DF-9D22-FF48149D2DBC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/HbKg903gk3QpMFEbYHHgfXLwMBc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:43:06 -0700
Cc: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] the draft "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies"
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: <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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:36:30 -0000

> On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp> wrote:
> 
>> Dumb question. In your translation cases, between IPvx and IPvy, you have gone out of your way to say that x != y. Is there any reason to not use the same set of sets for x==y - NAT44, NAT66, NAT444?
> 
> This is a good point, if I’m not misunderstanding :).
> Actually, looking back,  I haven’t mentioned anywhere that X and Y are  included in the  {4,6} set.
> And by  “ x==y-NAT44, NAT66, NAT444” I guess you mean the same IP NATs should be excluded?

The opposite. You're very carefully testing translation from IPv4 to IPv6 to IPv4. As a result, you've done all the legwork to test IPv4/IPv4 or IPv6/IPv6 translation. Why not simply make that be among your cases?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email