Re: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04.txt

Scott,

My view is both.

One, the BWMG focus is on a SUT/DUT.  If you can draw a box around what 
you are testing and some of the network is outside the box, then it 
falls under the BMWG.  If you can't draw a box around what you are 
testing or none of the network is outside the box, then is falls under 
the IPPM.  My notion of what a DUT is was destroyed by a company called 
Avici Systems.  Those guys can take 14 routers, each in their own rack, 
and connect them to look like a single DUT.  From the networks point of 
view, the routers look like a single DUT.  If your draft can not support 
SUT, you should be clear about it.  I assumed that the draft supported 
both SUT and DUT.  Please clarify if we need another draft for SUT.

Two, does Al's comment about a Node Crash also apply to SUT, but not a DUT?

Jerry Perser

Scott Poretsky wrote:
> David,
>
> Are you making a general statement or a point relevant to this thread?
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> David Newman
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:42 PM
> To: bmwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04.txt
>
> On 2/25/09 12:38 PM, Scott Poretsky wrote:
>   
>> Yes, but in the BMWG we focus on a single DUT
>>     
>
> Not necessarily. Many bmwg documents use the term DUT/SUT, where SUT may
> be comprised of multiple systems (just not on a production network).
>
> dn
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>
>
>   

-- 
Jerry Perser