Re: [bmwg] WG Last Call: OSPF convergence benchmarking

Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> Sat, 17 May 2003 15:38 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10266 for <bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 17 May 2003 11:38:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4HF6hM20824 for bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 17 May 2003 11:06:43 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4HF35B20663; Sat, 17 May 2003 11:03:05 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4HF2oB20629 for <bmwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 17 May 2003 11:02:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10144 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 May 2003 11:34:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19H3jF-0007GG-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Sat, 17 May 2003 11:36:09 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19H3jF-0007G4-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Sat, 17 May 2003 11:36:09 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (uzura.cisco.com [64.102.17.77]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h4HFaikL009249; Sat, 17 May 2003 11:36:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from russpc (rtp-vpn2-44.cisco.com [10.82.240.44]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA17157; Sat, 17 May 2003 11:36:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 11:36:44 -0400
From: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com>
Reply-To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
To: Scott Poretsky <sporetsky@avici.com>
cc: Kevin Dubray <kdubray@juniper.net>, bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] WG Last Call: OSPF convergence benchmarking
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20030517080557.0278cf40@pop.avici.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.55.0305171133490.1392@russpc>
References: <5.0.2.1.2.20030517080557.0278cf40@pop.avici.com>
X-X-Sender: ruwhite@uzura.cisco.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
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>

I agree that many of these same tests could be used for intraarea
measurements, but I also think there are unique tests that could be run for
intraarea and external route issues. I would like to see the intraarea and
external issues in a seperate draft, which refers to this draft as ways to
measure the more common elements of OSPF performance.

Thoughts?

:-)

Russ



On Sat, 17 May 2003, Scott Poretsky wrote:

> I support draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-intraarea-04.txt be given to the Area
> Directors for consideration in progressing the draft to an Informational
> RFC.  I have one question for the authors- why do these methodologies apply
> to only OSPF intraarea routes?  It seems that these same control plane
> convergence methodologies can be applied for OSPF inter-area routes and a
> mix of inter-area and intra-area routes, which is the practical scenario.
>
> Scott
>
> At 05:28 PM 5/7/2003 -0400, Kevin Dubray wrote:
> >BMWG'ers:
> >
> >A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Drafts regarding
> >OSPF convergence benchmarking terminology, methodology, and
> >benchmark applicability,
> >
> >    <draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-term-03.txt>,
> >    <draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-intraarea-04.txt>,
> >    <draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-02.txt>
> >
> >will be open from 7 May 2003 until 17 May 2003.
> >
> >These I-Ds contain modifications based on feedback from the previous
> >WG Last Call.
> >
> >Please weigh in on whether or not you feel each individual draft
> >should not be given to the Area Directors for consideration in
> >progressing the draft to an Informational RFC.  Send your comments
> >to this list or kdubray@juniper.net.
> >
> >
> >URLs for the Internet-Drafts are:
> >
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-term-03.txt
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-intraarea-04.txt
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-02.txt
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >bmwg mailing list
> >bmwg@ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>

__________________________________
riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone

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