RE: [bmwg] Updates to MPLS Protection Meth/Term draft- Request forcomments/review
"Samir Vapiwala \(svapiwal\)" <svapiwal@cisco.com> Thu, 08 March 2007 14:28 UTC
Return-path: <bmwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPJbf-00017O-V0; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:28:35 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPJbf-00016o-3P for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:28:35 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HPJbc-0005WM-DV for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:28:35 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2007 09:28:34 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,264,1170651600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="54321273:sNHT124923524"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l28ESWdt007509 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:28:32 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l28ESCaH008050 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:28:32 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-214.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.75]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:28:29 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Updates to MPLS Protection Meth/Term draft- Request forcomments/review
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:28:28 -0500
Message-ID: <C14B21C3CFBE6F4C81665B29F9880D3E03217272@xmb-rtp-214.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5o6f1p$3utemj@sj-inbound-f.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] Updates to MPLS Protection Meth/Term draft- Request forcomments/review
thread-index: AcdhA6yFK6XUEJ16SdaMm09b0UqjowAJ6heQABiZ2DA=
From: "Samir Vapiwala (svapiwal)" <svapiwal@cisco.com>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2007 14:28:29.0213 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A7664D0:01C7618E]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=17549; t=1173364112; x=1174228112; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=svapiwal@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Samir=20Vapiwala=20\(svapiwal\)=22=20<svapiwal@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[bmwg]=20Updates=20to=20MPLS=20Protection=20Meth/Term =20draft-=20Request=20forcomments/review |Sender:=20 |To:=20<bmwg@ietf.org>; bh=Q6poQCi18aRwLF03Awu6VolFH3fjMUWiuEfzx/sif74=; b=RwslaGZ2WRPSds2soVwUaJgzp/hKUEGNHddDsLXyI22XQ3Kc8hJlCOa/cmC8OpzFQXiKU+sH m72ZejJYnhKnrnCXAdLLTL7v9N7BCPAO8g5JZKs/l8Bq9FPBK3vNH/Sk;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=svapiwal@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 876202f9cbc0933cffbc58102e40f8f2
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1936638194=="
Errors-To: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org
Further to Rajiv's earlier email we as MPLS Protection benchmarking Author team would like to seek input to the following unaddressed items on the mailing list so that we can get closure on these open items prior to the BMWG meeting: Since the packet smapling interval recommended in the "draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-12.txt, section 3.2.5 Convergence Time Metrics" may not be applicable to the MPLS FRR scenario where failover times have to be below 45ms, here are some of our thoughts or questions to the list: 1. We would like to adapt similar approach the IGP convergence as this defiinition applies to current work item 2. We feel that 100ms is large for MPLS FRR application, under which the target is always keeping the failover times below 45ms. 3. We are considering changing this number to 10ms, and would expect test tool to offer this smapling interval Please provide your input to this suggested value so that we can have a conclusion before the next meeting. Regards, MPLS Protection Benchmarking Author Team ________________________________ From: Rajiv Papneja [mailto:rpapneja@isocore.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 4:58 PM To: bmwg@ietf.org Subject: [bmwg] Updates to MPLS Protection Meth/Term draft- Request forcomments/review BMWG-ers, The updated drafts (term is still in the process of being published) for the MPLS Protection benchmarking work item has been submitted. Please review the drafts, and post any comments on the mailing list. I am providing brief overview of the changes done to the latest versions by the team in the light of comments received during the previous meeting and subsequently: Highlights of the latest versions: 1. draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-01.txt ( http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-01.t xt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-01. txt> ) 1. Shortened the Abstract to make it more to the point 2. Refined, and edited Introduction to improve the flow of the document, and rearranged the paragraphs. 3. Editorial review of the entire version-00, and made changes to the text 4. Deleted figure 4.9 and edited section 5.5 to reduce the number of test cases to 2 5. New boilerplate changes 6. Attempted to address the discussion from the previous meeting - "Duration of Failure" vs "Time taken for pakets to be switched to backup path", and hence added 1) packet based loss method 2) Time based loss method for computing failover times. Note: We seek input from the list on recommendations for the Packet sampling interval since section 3.2.5 of draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-12.txt suggests sampling interval of 100ms, which for MPLS FRR scenarios is high. 2. draft-itef-bmwg-protection-term-01.txt (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-01. txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-01. txt> ) a. No major changes from the previous version b. new boilerplate changes We look forward to active discussions on the mailing list. Regards, MPLS Protection Benchmarking Author Team
_______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- RE: [bmwg] Updates to MPLS Protection Meth/Term d… Samir Vapiwala (svapiwal)
- RE: [bmwg] Updates to MPLS Protection Meth/Term d… cary_wright
- RE: [bmwg] Updates to MPLS Protection Meth/Term d… Jay Karthik (jakarthi)
- FW: RE: [bmwg] Updates to MPLS Protection Meth/Te… cary_wright