Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> Wed, 29 October 2003 00:08 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09584 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:08:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdsX-0003ft-Nn; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:08:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdrn-0003Mq-KW for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:07:15 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09505 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:07:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdrk-0003PV-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:07:12 -0500
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu ([140.247.60.212] helo=newdev.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEdrj-0003PR-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:07:11 -0500
Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h9T0796U005754; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:07:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h9T0796l005753; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:07:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:07:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Message-Id: <200310290007.h9T0796l005753@newdev.harvard.edu>
To: herckt@cisco.com, sob@harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3F9F0302.8080504@cisco.com>
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
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>

> But the reality of the matter is that people, whether you like it or 
> not, will use it. Like Brian already mentioned, people want to see a 
> single number in a spec 

this was one of the 1st things that BMWG talked about when the WG
ws formed just because a lot of people would like to have such
a number - it is too bad that it may not be possible to come up
with one that gives the buyer any actual information to decide between
vendors on

> What if we do something like this :
> 
> A prerequisite will be that ingress and egress MTU have to be identical.
> 
> Then we send a round robin stream of the following packets :
>   - TCP (minimum allowed packetsize on PHY) bytes
>   - UDP 128 bytes
>   - TCP 256 bytes
>   - UDP 512 bytes
>   - keep on alternating UDP/TCP, increase by 256 bytes
>   - ....
>   - UDP (max MTU) bytes

that is about what I used to do (modulo alternating protocols 
within a packet size, I ran all the sizes then changed protocols but
I do not see any reason to do it one way or another)

but I do not see how that gets one closer to a single magic number
(which the BMWG designated a "millstone" after Dave Mills)

Scott

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg