RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12.txt

"Perser, Jerry" <jerry.perser@spirentcom.com> Wed, 21 May 2003 22:04 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 SAA10400 for <bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2003 18:04:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4LLVR321917 for bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 May 2003 17:31:27 -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 h4LLVGB21862; Wed, 21 May 2003 17:31:16 -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 h4LLUCB21781 for <bmwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2003 17:30:12 -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 SAA10204 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2003 18:02:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IbeE-0003JC-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 21 May 2003 18:01:22 -0400
Received: from mail-out-b.spirentcom.com ([199.1.46.14] helo=exch-connector.netcomsystems.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IbeD-0003Ii-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 21 May 2003 18:01:21 -0400
Received: by exch-connector.netcomsystems.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id <LF889Y6N>; Wed, 21 May 2003 15:02:13 -0700
Message-ID: <629E717C12A8694A88FAA6BEF9FFCD441E54EC@brigadoon.spirentcom.com>
From: "Perser, Jerry" <jerry.perser@spirentcom.com>
To: "'bmwg@ietf.org'" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12.txt
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:02:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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>

Brooks,

I do not understand.  Where in the 'baseline measurement' (section 5.1) do
you 'populating the FDB with unicast addresses'?  I do not see any unicast
traffic in the Multicast Latency Test.  From my reading of section 5.1, it
was a pure multicast measurement.

I also do not understand how the measurement done in section 5.1 is used to
calculate the measurement in section 8.1.  From my understanding, these are
two independent tests with independent metrics.

Jerry.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hickman, Brooks 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 10:57 AM
> To: Perser, Jerry; 'bmwg@ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12.txt
> 
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> The baseline measurement in the case of the burdened section 
> includes populating the FDB with unicast addresses. The test 
> is then repeated with the DUT/SUT actually forwarding the 
> multicast traffic. Since the
> "Join Delay' test in section 6.1 does not include this 
> populating of the FDB, the "baseline" would not be the same. 
> This was why the text specifies a baseline test first.  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Perser, Jerry [mailto:jerry.perser@spirentcom.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 9:00 AM
> > To: 'bmwg@ietf.org'
> > Subject: RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12.txt
> > 
> > 
> > Brooks,
> > 
> > Why perform the baseline at all?  How is the baseline metric used in
> > determining the burdened metric?
> > 
> > The point is that these are two separate tests.  They even 
> > have their own
> > sections.  The way it is written now, you can run test A, but 
> > you can not
> > run test B without first running test A.  It's the dependency 
> > that is the
> > issue.
> > 
> > If you remove the baseline measurement dependency from 
> > Forwarding Burdened
> > Multicast Latency, what breaks?  Are the burdened results 
> > INVALID if you
> > don't already have baseline results?
> > 
> > Jerry.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hickman, Brooks [mailto:brooks.hickman@spirentcom.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:41 PM
> > > To: 'bmwg@ietf.org'
> > > Subject: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12.txt
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >8.1. Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency
> > > >
> > > >- Why 'Perform a baseline measurement of Multicast Latency'? 
> > >  It is not
> > > used
> > > >in determining the Forwarding Burdened Multicast Latency.  
> > > You can run both
> > > >tests for comparison.  The burdened test is a separate test. 
> > >  Suggest to
> > > >remove this.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Jerry, the FDB of the DUT/SUT is populated with the unicast 
> > > addresses prior
> > > to performing a baseline
> > > test. The test is then performed with the DUT/SUT actually 
> > > forwarding the
> > > unicast traffic. This
> > > also applies to section 8.2. 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg