[bmwg] Status of draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd
William Cerveny <bmwg@wjcerveny.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 21:58 UTC
Return-Path: <bmwg@wjcerveny.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 CA87821E8094 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tlPk1km3HAZr for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498CE21E8096 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82824213C0 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web1 ([10.202.2.211]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:58:36 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject:date; s=smtpout; bh=8b+7IeCKIwiSkJSqjMDVj4pHBTc=; b=l10lWm8VbqtIUYalurJEFefqPPLK QMiq73y6bgLhmup/fZIcy9zoXnR66l2wTDTJ4E4b2jdJ0ghepn3o6+IyyCdPpqr9 JHyZLkCzTKD4RfK8kFUUs4evUivw/vHNiNaIUjzRpPEYs1TOO3MHwZ+AuerP+XX6 iebE2QuveMoV408=
Received: by web1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99) id 66D05F020F2; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1375135116.10197.3000051.4079BC6B@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: ja2F3IdOU+4RQy8SeAmQLE0gUmmX90SIPdefD+U+lkGj 1375135116
From: William Cerveny <bmwg@wjcerveny.com>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-23e62cd3
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:58:36 -0400
Subject: [bmwg] Status of draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 29 Jul 2013 21:58:42 -0000
Dear BMWGers, I had hoped to provide updates at IETF-87 regarding draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd, but I had to change my travel plans at the last minute. So, via e-mail, an update on where things are with the IPv6 NDP benchmarking draft, since IETF-86. The draft is currently at version 00: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-00 (see bottom of e-mail for more access info). I got a lot of good feedback at the BMWG meeting in Orlando (IETF-86). I also met with Ron Bonica and Varun Santosh after the BMWG meeting and we discussed 3 primary testing scenarios, as described below: 1) How many hosts can I have on a network - Still have connectivity between all endpoints - We use addresses in ascending order tester#1new sets up new addresses tester#2renew is pinging existing addresses granularity is something between a millisecond and a second. #1 and #2 should get responses to every packet 2) Given that you have that many hosts, how long does it take for the neighbor cache get into a reasonable state. - Lowest timer value and still have connectivity between all endpoints. - Make sure tester can keep up - Keep getting smaller intervals reduce timer on #new #1new should not always get responses #2renew should get responses to every packet 3) How do we behave when we’re being scanned. priority to hosts that have been seen before? Slow down tester#2 until one gets into refreshing every 6 seconds. If you have address in stale state, it should get priority over new request. increase timer on ixia#renew tester#renew should always get responses tester#1new should not always get responses. The above procedure is a bit of a departure on how I implemented the tests discussed draft version 00. I'm in the process of confirming this testing methodology on a commercial testing system. I'm hoping to update the draft and have something available to discuss at IETF-88. Regards, Bill Cerveny Filename: draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd Revision: 00 Title: Benchmarking Neighbor Discovery Problems Creation date: 2013-03-11 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 10 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-00.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd-00 Abstract: This document is a benchmarking instantiation of RFC 6583: "Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems". It describes a general testing procedure and measurements that can be performed to evaluate how the problems described in RFC 6583 may impact the functionality or performance of intermediate nodes.
- [bmwg] Status of draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd William Cerveny
- Re: [bmwg] Status of draft-cerveny-bmwg-ipv6-nd William Cerveny