Re: [bmwg] [bess] REG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/

Luc André Burdet <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 August 2019 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <laburdet.ietf@gmail.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 D3ECC120366; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 w717GYq-RE0r; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45F4B12034A; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id a15so88649594qtn.7; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 08:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :accept-language:content-language:mime-version; bh=8eztsKgUH3DzSoJchrknEzyhBDSIBbzuZTwlFkdgy1Q=; b=GhnDcXTVDqTJWeoJzz/IsSO9v73CGBCnT7DYdCJ0q/LMiUHDMz5Pp/SHhuiZXbthvH 17ZpIug8nkbmj2GYsrzf41NVa096ZzSwvr1SyFQND8DwbBF3Wre3AZi7lu03fus2qEwY E9lH928m7sKdLM1qr47/e2WOfWPSMNideHWliIxmF/a91DOA8eOrkt79uogj3bzY7rnZ JLkWsgTkuSVNNi1q0W31d8TXlM0gTdpVr15pdyIQXkYmcSKfWhB0TIPcXwheLJ5CpKYV qVnRTXmd1w8MWSa1Homp/5EBT4DswSH/Lkgr1FWF+3n51qI4dvxRR7mzw6t5BDNrRFv4 Gcwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:accept-language:content-language:mime-version; bh=8eztsKgUH3DzSoJchrknEzyhBDSIBbzuZTwlFkdgy1Q=; b=KdCpbJZ/XJiq/i5kLryPH/jVAfnMhkVmJJQm5aVbaWGI1I73qJpZdjowzqirqaHkhB V6Rv7IxPIu1cKq1+alRrt8F6G8XXe8fFqomU/dcaG0HP8qzpR8NbSTlnhHi8PxapoRZF o54x62XIzGA2YKJ17vQZjpmGTQSd2gXwKwTdO1fSsJxEcoGxEouQS0JZ5APleIXGV2/i C9Qz6RtLASXvyRFpEFkuagKdLi2YbyabodliuyAK4Rjd+4DqyJLhb7la0dH/RHmy7WtR 6STbvrbxuCsY9lfFh75Ua74lGA937v9h0HihY6Q/NUVbUDvIzVMPsyiphnYZ/F9dWx2h ekxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW1sEn3mQ7I/x8slf+R+x3NT97/aG1MgihG5bKaPOXF7eYICNhf Q98HN3qiahvMyAo24s6YcrQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzznoSUcyN8ra2GB40y7MKHwRjvHN20b6VrqNDhHi/DIHDnYu0zOecK02PTRtjAGv0lA80Itg==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:bd18:: with SMTP id m24mr8721336qvg.118.1565190948286; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 08:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MN2PR12MB3229.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([2603:1036:302:4062::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o43sm1251101qto.63.2019.08.07.08.15.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Aug 2019 08:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Luc_Andr=E9_Burdet?= <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Sudhin Jacob <sjacob=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] REG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/
Thread-Index: AQHVTTL9H6lTfy2Jz0mXIuR1lZ0ERA==
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 15:15:47 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR12MB32298891F426865769D8496EAFD40@MN2PR12MB3229.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR12MB32298891F426865769D8496EAFD40MN2PR12MB3229namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/EwZacbrI8sqnSUAMoK2rcFXDbXc>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] [bess] REG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 15:15:58 -0000

Thanks for the head’s up Sudhin.

I got as far as the TOC and associated document flow. I would suggest this needs work before WGLC.
A few suggestions based on cursory reading.



  1.  Section 2, Test topologies   (Nit: plural since you define 3...)

  *   Looks like you are defining only Single-Active?    (Nit:SHPE3 appears twice in its/box)
  *   You have only Figure1 and there are 3 topologies in there. Why not define 3 figures, one per topology ?
  *   The paging makes this section hard to read. Consider shrinking your diagrams.
  *   In fact, these are all the SAME Topology. All you are changing is the traffic pattern. Putting the details of traffic flow “per topology” and especially hiding those details in a one-liner behind “Traffic Generator” is not clear & concise.
  *   I would suggest:
     *   1 Figure detailing the physical network diagram defining node names, DUT, etc. ;
     *   A section defining “Test Topologies” overlayed onto that shared network diagram:
        *   Nit: by “different VLANs” do you mean “Multiple” here or that CE and SHPE3 have different VLANS from one another?)
        *   All-Active,  traffic SHPE3 -> CE direction
        *   All-Active,  traffic CE -> SHPE3 direction
        *   All-Active,  traffic SHPE3 <-> CE bidirectional
        *   Single-Active,  traffic SHPE3 -> CE direction
        *   Single-Active,  traffic CE -> SHPE3 direction
        *   Single-Active,  traffic SHPE3 <-> CE bidirectional
     *   That could fit nicely in a Table...


  1.  Repeating “How long it takes to learn” is redundant and makes the TOC needlessly unreadable.
This is a benchmarking draft, isn’t timing and timing-verification implied?
If you MUST then just add a simple section/sentence at the top of document specifying that and do away with the repetition and long titles


  1.  You have PBB-EVPN in titles that basically repeat the previous one (presumably for EVPN?)
Maybe just have one section, and unnumbered subsections for EVPN and PBB-EVPN ?
or better yet: Section 3 EVPN, Section 4 PBB-EVPN and repeat same TCs concisely per technology. Context switching as one reads through the document hinders readability and flow.


   3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3>-3>.  EVPN Test Cases

     3.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3.1>.1>.  Local MAC learning

     3.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3.3>.3>.  Remote MAC learning

     3.3.  Local MAC Flush, due to PE-CE link flap

        3.3.1 MAC Re-learning rate

     3.4.  Remote MAC Flush, due to remote link failure

   4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3>-3>.  PBB-EVPN Test Cases

     4.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3.1>.1>.  Local MAC learning

     4.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3.3>.3>.  Remote MAC learning

     4.3.  Local MAC Flush, due to PE-CE link flap

        4.3.1 MAC Re-learning rate

     4.4.  Remote MAC Flush, due to remote link failure



Regards,
Luc André

Luc André Burdet |  Cisco  |  laburdet.ietf@gmail.com  |  Tel: +1 613 254 4814


From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Sudhin Jacob <sjacob=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 02:01
To: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>rg>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [bess] REG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/

Hi All,

Our draft is going to be WGLC in BMWG workgroup. Could you please let us know any comments.

Regards,
Sudhin

Juniper Business Use Only