Re: [bmwg] feedback on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-05
"Jan Novak (janovak)" <janovak@cisco.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 16:10 UTC
Return-Path: <janovak@cisco.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 E4ECC21F863B for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:10:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 36M0J8VyW2g4 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DE721F85C5 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:10:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=janovak@cisco.com; l=10176; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327075811; x=1328285411; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=UuhTbcmqu+3pEO2kyLeJMSPGALqNhq+6qSuDYwP1shg=; b=eysZPC8KA86DnHZQSypoGs3+JRCVg0EK2juBVCSD4t3byuP/eyTzN2A7 bvNdv4BqS4pQKwGKzqxhH3XI1WnFZ+Si8CYNjFm5hzb9HYp5H/mndDNTM anUzzTI5kNG444hw0EixpxbADqHPD44zCGuCjTvr1wJTPX31umCq9iLgu 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,543,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="127134141"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2012 16:10:10 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0KGAATc013800; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:10:10 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-212.cisco.com ([144.254.75.23]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:10:10 +0100
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:10:07 +0100
Message-ID: <C95CC96B171AF24CA1BB6CA3C52D0BA0017DE455@XMB-AMS-212.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F149629.6020402@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: feedback on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-05
Thread-Index: AczUlZy6UFn1w19vSemaow46C31wBwC9xCaw
References: <4F149629.6020402@cisco.com>
From: "Jan Novak (janovak)" <janovak@cisco.com>
To: "Paul Aitken (paitken)" <paitken@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2012 16:10:10.0026 (UTC) FILETIME=[FBB5D4A0:01CCD78D]
Cc: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>, IETF BMWG <bmwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] feedback on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-05
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: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:10:13 -0000
Hi Paul, Thank you for your text suggestions and language corrections - these are always particularly valuable. I will address your comments in the next submitted draft version. Jan The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young .... and the strong envy them. Dr. Johnson -----Original Message----- From: Paul Aitken (paitken) Sent: 16 January 2012 21:27 To: Jan Novak (janovak) Cc: Al Morton Subject: feedback on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-05 Jan, I've finally been able to review the latest version of the draft. I apologise that it's taken so long. Although it's late, hopefully this is still useful for the WGLC which ended Jan 1st. What few comments I have are minor. I think the draft should progress swiftly now. I'm sure Al would like to see these comments on the WG mailing list. I'll wait for your feedback. Thanks, P. > Internet Engineering Task Force Jan Novak > Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. > Intended status: Informational > Expires: 7 June, 2012 6 December 2011 > > IP Flow Information Accounting and Export Benchmarking > Methodology > draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-05.txt > > Abstract > > This document provides a methodology and framework for quantifying > the performance impact of monitoring of IP flows on a network device > and export of this information to a collector. It identifies the rate > at which the IP flows are created, expired, and successfully exported > as a new performance metric in combination with traditional > throughput. The metric is only applicable to the devices compliant > with the Architecture for IP Flow Information Export [RFC5470]. > > 2.2.5 Flow Export Rate > > Definition: > The number of Cache entries that expire from the Cache (as defined > by the Flow Expiration term) and are exported to the Collector > within a measurement time interval. There SHOULD NOT be any export > filtering, so that all the expired cache entries are exported. If > there is export filtering and it can't be disabled, this needs to > be noted. > > The measured Flow Export Rate MUST include *both* the Data Stream ===== PA ===== I don't think you can add emphasis like this "*both*" in an RFC. > 4.3 Flow Monitoring Configuration > > This section covers all the aspects of the Flow monitoring > configuration necessary on the DUT in order to perform the Flow > monitoring performance measurement. The necessary configuration has > a number of components (see [RFC5470]), namely Observation Points, > Metering Process and Exporting Process as detailed below. > > The DUT MUST support the Flow monitoring architecture as specified by > [RFC5470]. The DUT SHOULD support IPFIX [RFC5101] to allow easier > results comparison due to identical export protocol architecture when > using a standard. ===== PA ===== Different DUTs may contain different partial IPFIX implementations, even while claiming full IPFIX compatibility. So I suggest, "The DUT SHOULD support IPFIX [RFC5101] to allow meaningful results comparison due to the standard export protocol." > The DUT configuration and any existing Cache MUST be erased before > application of any new configuration for the currently executed > measurement. > > 4.3.2 Metering Process > > The Metering Process MUST be enabled in order to create the Cache > in the DUT and configure the Cache related parameters. > > The Cache Size available to the DUT MUST be known and taken into > account when designing the measurement as specified in section 5. > > The configuration of the Metering Process MUST be reported. For ===== PA ===== s/reported/recorded/ ? > example, when a Flow monitoring implementation uses timeouts to > expire entries from the Cache, the Cache's Inactive and Active > Timeouts MUST be known and taken into account when designing the > measurement as specified in section 5. If the Flow monitoring > implementation allows only timeouts equal zero (e.g. immediate ===== PA ===== "equal to zero". > timeout or non-existent Cache) then the measurement conditions in > the section 5 are fulfilled inherently without any additional ===== PA ===== s/the section 5/section 5/ > configuration. The DUT simply exports information about every > packet immediately. ===== PA ===== Assuming there's no input or export sampling. eg, say "subject to the Flow Export Rate definition in section 2.2.5 and the assumptions about sampling in section 4.5.". Or indeed, the second paragraph of 4.3.3 just below is sufficient - so you could say, "subject to the Exporting Process details below". > If the Flow monitoring implementation allows to configure multiple ===== PA ===== s/allows to configure/allows configuration of/ > Metering Processes on a single DUT, the exact configuration of > each process MUST be included in the results report. Only > measurements with the same number of Metering Processes can be > compared. > > The Cache Size, the Inactive and Active Timeouts MUST be included > as part of the results report. > Novak Expires June, 2012 > [Page 12] > Internet-Draft Flow Monitoring Benchmarking December 2011 > > The Exporting Process SHOULD be configured with IPFIX [RFC5101] as > the protocol to use to format the Flow Export data. If the Flow > monitoring implementation does not support it, proprietary ===== PA ===== s/support it/support IPFIX/ > protocols MAY be used. Only measurements with same export protocol > SHOULD be compared since the protocols may differ in their > export efficiency. ===== PA ===== Even identical protocols may use different IPFIX or NFv9 templates. eg, there was a draft a few years ago which suggested that different field orders in the exported templates were more or less efficient. So consider noting that only exports using identical templates should be compared - if that's not too restrictive? ie, if templates can't be configured or the field order is fixed, then that should be noted and the different field orderings recorded. > Various Flow monitoring implementations might use different > default values regarding the export of Control Information > [RFC5470] and therefore Flow Export corresponding to Control > Information SHOULD be analyzed and reported as a separate item on > the measurement report. Preferably, the export of Control > Information SHOULD always be configured consistently across all > testing and configured to the minimal possible value - ideally > just one exported set of Control Information during each > measurement. Note that Control Information includes IPFIX Options > 4.4 Collector > > The Collector is needed in order to capture the Flow Export data > which allows the Flow Monitoring Throughput to be measured. > > The Collector can be used as exclusively capture device providing > just hexadecimal format of the Flow Export data. In such a case it > does not need to have any additional Flow Export decoding > capabilities and all the decoding is done off line. > > However if the Collector is also used to decode the Flow Export data > then it SHOULD support IPFIX [RFC5101] for easier results analysis. ===== PA ===== I don't think that using IPFIX makes the analysis any easier. However, it probably makes the results more meaningful since implementations should be following the same standard. So I'd say "for meaningful results analysis." > If proprietary Flow Export is deployed, the Collector MUST support it > otherwise the Flow Export data analysis is not possible. > > The Collector MUST be capable of capturing at the full rate the > Active Timeout > Active Timeout is set (if configurable) to a value equal to or > higher than the Inactive Timeout. It MUST be known in order to > define the measurement circumstances completely and equally > across implementations. > > Flow Keys Definition: > The test needs large numbers of unique Cache entries to be created > by incrementing values of one or several Flow Keys. The number of > unique combinations of Flow Keys values SHOULD be several times > larger than the DUT Cache Size. This makes sure that any incoming > packet will never refresh any already existing Cache entry. > > The availability of Cache Size, Inactive Timeout, Active Timeout as > configuration parameters is implementation specific. If the Flow > monitoring implementation does not support it, the test possibilities ===== PA ===== s/not support it/not support these parameters/ > as specified by this document are restricted. Some testing might be > viable if the implementation follows the [IPFIX-CONFIG] document and > needs to be considered on the case by case basis. > > 5.2 Traffic Configuration > > Traffic Generation > The traffic generator needs to increment the Flow Keys values with > each sent packet, this way each packet represents one Cache entry > in the DUT Cache. >
- Re: [bmwg] feedback on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-met… Jan Novak (janovak)