[bmwg] SIP benchmarking drafts
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 14:59 UTC
Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.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 4A4DC1A0200 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:59:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 hAAlEXRmesYO for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31AF1A04FE for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s1IEx8Z5018162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:59:08 -0600 (CST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.61]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id s1IEx7xj012196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:59:08 -0600
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.237.229]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id s1IEx7e0000273; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:59:07 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <5303757F.90806@bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:00:15 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/ZNpagpB5caPry8_iQHkWVIXEXTw
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term@tools.ietf.org, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Subject: [bmwg] SIP benchmarking drafts
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: <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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:59:15 -0000
Folks: Carol, Scott and I have submitted the SIP benchmarking drafts for discussion in London. These drafts were in IETF LC [1,2] back in January 2013. As part of IETF LC, Robert Sparks performed an ind-epth review of the drafts [3]. The revised version of the drafts are based on attending to his review. We will follow up with a detailed list of changes. Here is a high- level list of changes outside the editorial changes to improve readability: - Simplified the testing of SIP devices. We no longer maintain test setup parameters (Terminology, or T) related to forking and loop detection. While these add time for each SIP transaction to complete, tests for these would be in essence protocol conformance tests, not benchmarking tests. Similarly, we have removed the test suites related to loop detection and forking from the Methodology (M) document as well. - We have simplified the benchmarks being sought in T and M to three: Session Establishment Rate, Registration Rate, and Registration Attempt Rate. Earlier sesison-related benchmarks (Session Capacity, Session Overload Capacity, Session Establishment Performance, and Session Attempt Delay) have been taken out for the simple reason that our implementation experience indicated that these additional benchmarks do not provide much benefit beyond what is provided by the singularly important Session Establishment Rate benchmark. Furthermore, reviewers also had questions on the nature of these benchmarks and their uniform interpretation. - We have taken out benchmark related to IM Rate due to the variabilities inherent in benchmarking it; for instance, size of payload, fragmentation potential on large payloads, varying user behaviour in the real world (an IM may pend until the subscriber actually reads it and replies), etc. The original intent of using IM was to benchmark a simple non-INVITE transaction. The current version of the draft takes the tact that the REGISTER transaction better serves this purpose. - We have expanded the test reporting template to include artifacts related to TLS ciphersuites (for TLS-based benchmarks) and IPSec profiles (for IPSec-based benchmarks). In sum, we believe that the reduced focus of the benchmarking results in a vastly more tractable system whose properties the testing organizations can understand (and control) much better. The results from the improved benchmarks will provide an authoritative answer for comparing different vendor offerings or understanding the behaviour of the device under test. -09 of terminology is available in [4] and methodology is available in [5]. Comments are welcome. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg02717.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg02718.html [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg02719.html [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-09 [5] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-09 Cheers, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
- Re: [bmwg] SIP benchmarking drafts Scott Poretsky
- Re: [bmwg] SIP benchmarking drafts Banks, Sarah
- [bmwg] SIP benchmarking drafts Vijay K. Gurbani