RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-00 .txt
Scott Poretsky <sporetsky@avici.com> Thu, 24 July 2003 18:24 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 OAA19922 for <bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:24:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fklJ-0004pj-AY for bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:24:21 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6OIOLBO018578 for bmwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:24:21 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fkky-0004pC-Nc; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:24:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19fkkh-0004oj-TC for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:23:43 -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 OAA19897 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:23:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fkkf-0000hV-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:23:41 -0400
Received: from [12.38.212.174] (helo=mailhost.avici.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19fkkR-0000gy-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:23:29 -0400
Received: from sporetsky-lt.avici.com ([10.2.104.35]) by mailhost.avici.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h6OIMAb9017252; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:22:10 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20030724142014.02eb05c8@pop.avici.com>
X-Sender: sporetsky@pop.avici.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:24:41 -0400
To: "Perser, Jerry" <jerry.perser@spirentcom.com>, "Perser, Jerry" <jerry.perser@spirentcom.com>, bmwg@ietf.org
From: Scott Poretsky <sporetsky@avici.com>
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-00 .txt
In-Reply-To: <629E717C12A8694A88FAA6BEF9FFCD44031B319E@brigadoon.spirent com.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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>
Jerry, Thomas suggested a Convergence Time measurement case for ECMP links, which is much different from a Recovery case in which the Convergence Time from the next-best path back to the best path is measured. Both are great suggestions and both will be added. As far as the term for the recovery case - I like "Restoration Convergence Time" or "Recovery Convergence Time". Do you have objections with either? I do not think this will cause problems with SONET APS or MPLS Protection benchmarking terminology since the word "Convergence" should not appear with those terms. Scott At 11:10 AM 7/24/2003 -0700, Perser, Jerry wrote: >This was actually Thomas suggestion. If you proceed (it sounds like you >will), you will need another metric to go along with this addition test >case. > >My concern was that people would confuse failure and recovery times. Two >separate metrics may solve this. You may want to consider a term that will >not be confused with MPLS protection or Sonet protection. > >Jerry. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Poretsky [mailto:sporetsky@avici.com] > > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:59 AM > > To: Perser, Jerry; bmwg@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [bmwg] Comments on > > draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-00 .txt > > > > > > Jerry, > > > > Are you suggesting we add another test case to measure > > Convergence Time > > when the original primary path is restored? I think this is > > a great idea > > and we will make this a test case. I agree it would require > > a new term > > such as "Restoration Convergence Time" or "Recovery Convergence > > Time". Which do you prefer, if either? > > > > We will also add another test case to measure Convergence > > Time when the > > interface for a better path is brought up for the first time. > > This should > > not produce any packet loss, but it is important to verify. > > We will add a > > term such as "Link-Enabled Convergence Time". Suggestions > > are welcome. > > > > Scott > > > > At 10:10 AM 7/24/2003 -0700, Perser, Jerry wrote: > > >Convergence time when traffic goes from backup path to > > preferred path should > > >be a separate metric. In past tests, we were toggling the > > preferred path > > >status up and down. We notice that the convergence times > > were different. I > > >do not have an explanation for why failure was different > > than restore. This > > >asymmetrical convergence time was observed on several > > different routers. > > > > > >Jerry. > > >___________________________________________________________ > > >Jerry Perser Spirent Communications > > >Director of Test Methodology SmartBits Division > > >Phone: 818.676.2320 26750 Agoura Road > > >Lab: 818.676.2337 Calabasas, CA, 91302 > > >Cell: 818.292.6457 Corp: 818.676.2300 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Thomas Eriksson [mailto:thomas.a.eriksson@teliasonera.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 8:04 AM > > > > To: bmwg@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [bmwg] Comments on > > > > draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are some comments on > > > > draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-00.txt. > > > > > > > > The draft is focusing mainly on convergence time when things > > > > break. It may > > > > also be interesting to study the convergence time when > > > > traffic goes from > > > > backup path to preferred path. > > > > > > > > An interesting test case is when ECMP is used on the SUT and > > > > we want to > > > > benchmark convergence time. I do not think that the current > > > > methodology > > > > will work for this case because some traffic will go over the > > > > "backup path" > > > > as well. This could be fixed by measuring the traffic on the > > > > "prefered > > > > path" and when this traffic is rerouted to the "backup path" > > > > calculate > > > > convergence time based on that. I am not sure however is if > > > > is possible to > > > > produce comparable results when using ECMP ? (I guess it somewhat > > > > implementation dependent function). > > > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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
- RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-datapl… Perser, Jerry
- RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-datapl… Scott Poretsky
- RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-datapl… Perser, Jerry
- RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-datapl… Scott Poretsky
- RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-datapl… Thomas Eriksson
- [bmwg] something wrong with this list? John Schnizlein