[bmwg] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 30 June 2021 09:48 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1FA3A149D; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 02:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest@ietf.org, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, sbanks@encrypted.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.33.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <162504649414.10962.1441547963006182184@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 02:48:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/kQ5-ivRWuqzJI8VPHONV4f6WKDM>
Subject: [bmwg] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 30 Jun 2021 09:48:15 -0000
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. I have some regrets about the amount of typos, bad capitalizations, ... Special thanks for Sarah Banks' shepherd write-up about the WG process / consensus. Please find below 3 blocking DISCUSS points (but should be easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == Most of the tests are labelled 'rate' but what they measure is not 'rate' but 'time'. What did I fail to understand ? -- Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 4.3 -- Perhaps did I fail to understand the purpose of this test but how can it be that "Flush Rate" is equal to "Relearning Rate" ? Should there be different T1 for flush / relearn ? -- Section 3.9 -- Please s/ip/IPv4/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- == COMMENTS == As most of the test in section 4 are identical to those in section 3, is there a reason for having such repetition ? I.e., rather than having a single set of tests and mentioning the applicability of those tests to the PBB-EVPN scenarios. -- Abstract -- Suggest to expand PBB as https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt does not have the compound PBB-EVPN. Same applies in section 1 where the expansion is used but not defined. -- Section 2 -- Suggest to mention early that SH = single home and MH = multi-home Strange use of 'traffic generator' for a box that also receives traffic. Is there a better word in BMWG ? Unclear from figure 1 whether the link between SHPE3 and traffic generator acts as a "PE-CE link" as this link is the only unqualified one. -- Section 3.1 -- In "X different source and destination MAC address for one vlan" (beside the singular form for "address") aren't X different source addresses enough to trigger the MAC learning ? I.e., no need to vary the destination MAC addresses. Using external scripts to count learned MAC addresses appears very rudimentary and not very accurate... -- Section 3.2 -- Suggest to use the same text or similar presentation for the measurement part as in section 3.1 -- Section 3.9 -- As it can be expected that most of the EVPN are dual-stack, I wonder whether the 2 single-stack measurements are useful as there could be an interaction between IPv4 and IPv6 learning. Unsure how to test it though (perhaps 50% IPv4 and 50 IPv6 ?). -- Section 3.12 -- If "SOAK" is an acronym (based on the all uppercase), then please expand it, else use "Soak" == NITS == Please always use the all uppercase character for VLAN same for 'ipv6', 'arp', 'ip', ... Also check punctuations as they should be followed by a space character. -- Section 5 -- You may want to add a last name to Al in "to thank Al"
- [bmwg] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-e… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker