RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> Tue, 28 October 2003 23:19 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 SAA06601 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:19:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEd77-00064r-0A; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:19:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEd6t-00063M-SJ for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:47 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06535 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEd6q-0002QX-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:45 -0500
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu ([140.247.60.212] helo=newdev.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEd6q-0002QT-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:44 -0500
Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h9SNIc6U005480 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h9SNIc8W005479 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:18:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Message-Id: <200310282318.h9SNIc8W005479@newdev.harvard.edu>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
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>

fwiw
it is my opinion that doing a perfomance test of a stream of
a mix of packet sizes is almost useless - very small changes in
the mix can produce large changes in the result and any time that
small changes in conditions can produce large changes in output
you get a test that is quite hard to 1/ repeate and 2/ find any meaning in

This is someting that the WG has talked about from time to time, starting
in Vancover a long time ago, and always decided that such a test was
not one that would produce clear enough information to be meaningful 
to do.

I think it is far more important to test multiple sizes one after the other

I can think of one build-to-be-tested case that could be overcome 
by a mix of sizes and that is an auto tuning of buffer sizes based
on packet size but that hardly seems worth dealing with.

Scott

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