[bmwg] draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-07

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Sat, 17 June 2017 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
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 0240612EAB9 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 19:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 hqM_xTuwEKXJ for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 19:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54A1212EABC for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 19:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87BA843F2C69 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JflRUXqruOna for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.20.6.214] (unknown [12.4.55.180]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 106B043F2C5F for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:28:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Message-Id: <E10D882D-B040-4CFF-BCC6-052EEB2548B7@sobco.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 22:27:59 -0400
To: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/IikFI6seTFFZDg8Gy0hlf-0PmGc>
Subject: [bmwg] draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-07
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 02:28:08 -0000

  IJ have been asked to do a OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-07


I quickly For all tests, the percentage of traffic per port capacity sent MUST

   be 99.98% at most, with no PPM adjustment to ensure stressing the DUT

   in worst case conditions. Tests results at a lower rate MAY be

   provided for better understanding of performance increase in terms of

   latency and jitter when the rate is lower than 99.98%. The receiving

   rate of the traffic SHOULD be captured during this test in % of line

   rate.