Re: [bmwg] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Mon, 14 December 2020 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 484743A1C3D; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:33:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.275
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RDNS_NONE=1.274, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 lbmsWuru5we3; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7FA3A1C2E; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB94E49B28E3; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 17:19:24 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NK7MBYmyeeIx; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 17:19:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.50.224] (unknown [173.166.5.67]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBC2449B2876; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 17:19:08 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF014766D179@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 17:18:29 -0500
Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame@ietf.org>, "bmwg-chairs@ietf.org" <bmwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BC09F3BD-B046-44D8-8063-3EA10E9DE574@sobco.com>
References: <160755503926.27888.3173906725876085467@ietfa.amsl.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF014766D179@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/bLTTq0us6DpbzP2MkXOYYkuT9e4>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:33:08 -0000

this would seem to work if 2 seconds is significantly longer than it takes to send the burst - but if it takes 2 second to send the burst 
then 2 seconds extra buffer could easily lose packets - seems to me that he extra time should be related to the time it takes to send the burst

e.g 50% of the burst time but not less than 2 seconds

Scott


> On Dec 12, 2020, at 10:18 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin, thanks for your review and comment,
> please see my reply, [acm] below,
> Al
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
> ...
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Thank you for engaging with the TSVART review. Despite the wordsmithing that
>> has gone on, I am not sure that we have captured the correct text.
>> 
>> The proposed change is:
>>> I clarified:
>>> The duration of the trial MUST include at least 2 seconds in addition to the time
>>> required to send and receive each burst of frames, to ensure that DUT buffers to deplete. 
>>> and I'll add: 
>>> The upper search limit for the time to send each burst MUST be configurable as 
>>> high as 30 seconds (buffer time results
>>> reported at the configured upper limit are likely invalid, and the test MUST
>>> be repeated with a higher search limit).
>> 
>> But IIUC it's the additional time that needs to scale up. 
> [acm] 
> 
> In the revised text where David and I reached agreement, we identified 3 time components of the trial duration, making the duration variable: no longer static and at "at least 2 seconds".
> 
> 1. the time to send the burst of frames (at the back-to-back rate), determined by the search algorithm
> 2. the time to receive the transferred burst of frames (at the RFC2544 Throughput rate), possibly truncated by buffer overflow, but certainly including the latency of the DUT with or without buffer-bloat
> 3. at least 2 seconds in addition to the time to receive the burst (2.), to ensure that DUT buffers have depleted.
> 
> So, both components 1. and 2. are variables, and the burst receive time component (2.) compensates for large buffers, non-back-to-back burst egress, and anything else that contributes to DUT latency. The final "at least 2 seconds" is simply about making sure the trial is really over before moving on in an automated test - we won't make an error if frames trickle-out very late for some unfortunate reason.
> 
>> A layman's reading of
>> the document, IMO, suggests that the burst length has a binary search but the 2
>> seconds of waiting can be fixed.
> [acm] 
> Yes, that's right, plus all the other factors above.
> 
> So, let's try this, but I'm trying not to extend or complicate the buffer time << 2 seconds testing for the sake of the buffer-bloat case:
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> The duration of the trial includes three REQUIRED components:
> 
> 1. the time to send the burst of frames (at the back-to-back rate), determined by the search algorithm
> 2. the time to receive the transferred burst of frames (at the RFC2544 Throughput rate), possibly truncated by buffer overflow, and certainly including the latency of the DUT 
> 3. at least 2 seconds not overlapping the time to receive the burst (2.), to ensure that DUT buffers have depleted.
> 
> The upper search limit for the time to send each burst MUST be configurable as high as 30 seconds (buffer time results reported at or near the configured upper limit are likely invalid, and the test MUST be repeated with a higher search limit).
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> Does that wording do it?
> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Other than that, this a well-written document. Thanks!
> [acm] 
> Thank you!
> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg