RE: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt
"Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry)" <sdry@cisco.com> Wed, 09 January 2008 19:20 UTC
Return-path: <bmwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCgTO-0001u7-4a; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:20:22 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCgTM-0001u1-QU for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:20:20 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCgTL-0000Aj-0q for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:20:20 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,263,1196668800"; d="scan'208";a="19029631"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2008 11:20:18 -0800
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m09JKImE030270; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:20:18 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m09JKHtg004690; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:20:17 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-215.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.124]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:20:16 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:19:37 -0500
Message-ID: <B5B7DAAD94DFDB41821DC302D96A4CE7046B0B1A@xmb-rtp-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1196960250.8526.34.camel@wintermute>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt
Thread-Index: Acg4KZJvTrhYgx8MR9iEzIm6sqY/XAawv1ow
From: "Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry)" <sdry@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2008 19:20:16.0743 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA94B770:01C852F4]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=8855; t=1199906418; x=1200770418; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sdry@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Silvija=20Andrijic=20Dry=20(sdry)=22=20<sdry@ci sco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[bmwg]=20Updated=3Adraft-sdry-bmwg-mvpn scale-03.txt |Sender:=20; bh=X2yjKewJYS6Y0t0VOH6enR/Z0MB7VQou+QVYhDbLEVo=; b=Wr90/QM+aGS5LOUlpzq6OkJYdUwNdTnK64nRZOrLnUXQEwof1RAMM62szx Fy9tEtYOzbqYNOeycWNh3NrM2CFmS6HN6dl+HF0vGNG8VPy4xg4b5zZ8curr f6JUx7BqQK;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=sdry@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: cdb443e3957ca9b4c5b55e78cfcf4b26
Cc: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <mnapierala@att.com>, bmwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Thomas, Thanks for your feedback ! I'm glad to see that you seem to be in agreement with revised scope of the document. See [SD]..[\SD] in-line for response to your specific comments and will appreciate any others you might have. Our intent is certainly to make any changes necessary to ensure document text is in line with its scope. Thanks, Silvija -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Morin [mailto:thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:58 AM To: Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry) Cc: bmwg@ietf.org; NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS Subject: Re: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt Hi Silvija, BMWG folks, My apologizes for only sending my comments now. I won't be able to attend bmwg meeting, but here are the general comments I have after reading your updated proposal. Having restructured the document in order to make it agnostic how mVPN is designed, is definitely a good point, but I still have the concern that the content itself is in many places still restricted to the draft-rosen implementation. For instance: - section 8.1 is supposedly generally applicable, but items 5,6, 7 only apply to a deployment using PIM in the provider backbone [SD] It is true that items 5,6,7 are applicable only when PIM is used in the core, but it is necessary to report them in that scenario as their value impacts system resources remaining for scaling of variables defined as a metric. Our intent was, rather than complicating text of Reported Results with "if-then" statements to make this a superset that includes relevant data for all architectures and for scenarios where for example PIM is not used in the core then value of these variables will be = 0 in the report. I still prefer that approach rather than complicating Reporting Results list with "if-then" type of statements and I think there is enough text in other areas of the document that explicitly state that PIM doesn't have to be used in the core so shouldn't be any confusion. But I don't have strong objections to changing text in section 8.1 if that's what majority feels would be better. Comments ? Perhaps, we should just add relevant variables for cases of MLDP and P2MP-TE, and by same logic their value would be 0 when PIM is used. [\SD] - section 9 is also supposedly generally applicable, but the test procedure common to 9.8, 9.9, 9.10 is described in terms only applicable to the PIM LAN procedures case [SD] Can you point out which sentence you specifically refering to here? Is it "mVPN instance here includes C-instance state, OIFs, PIM neighborships and data MDTs (S-PMSIs) as specified by Test Setup". ? If it's this one, I agree we should make it more clear ....perhaps "mVPN instance includes C-instance mroutes, C-instance OIFs, C-instance PIM neighborships and S-PMSIs as specified by Test Setup" ? [\SD] - section 10.1 is supposedly specific to the case of PIM LAN procedures, but could and should be made agnostic (writtent in terms of number of VRFs per VPN instance, instead of "PIM neighbourships") [SD] I was actually debating whether to make generic case where we look at impact of number of PEs, in place of this test case which looks at PIM neighborships for case where PIM is used to distribute C-instance mroutes. Reason why we went this way is because for cases where PIM is not used impact of number of PEs on PE router scale is I felt covered sufficiently through other test cases such as 9.8. But since in case where PIM is used, number of PIM neighborships device can scale to is often one of the most asked questions we included this additional test case which focuses on finding impact of PIM neighborships alone (i.e. excluding impact additional C-instance mroute messaging between PEs has) while minimizing impact of all other variables. If for example BGP is used impact of BGP neighborships alone on PE device should be negligable thus the test case in spirit of 10.1 wouldn't add too much value. On other hand generic case written in terms of number of PEs would not take away any value from this test case for PIM case, so I personaly don't have objections to making the change in that direction. Only drawback is that executors of the document will have to do one more test case regardless of whether PIM is used or not, and regardless whether it adds value or not for given architecture. Do you feel this additional test case in cases when PIM is not used would provide significant value to operators compared to test case 9.8 for example? [\SD] - section 11 could also be made agnostic to the type of PMSI used I have also other concerns which I'll take the time to share later, but the above are my primary concerns, and while I don't deny the effort made, major changes to the doc are still required to make it independent of the design process for mvpn standardization in the l3vpn working group. Thank you, -Thomas Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry): > We would like to solicit your feedback on the new version of MVPN > scalability benchmarking proposal: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt > > Note that in rev 03 we made couple of major changes based on feedback > from IETF68, namely: > - scope is modified to include both generic sections applicable to all > MVPN architectures specified in "draft-ietf- l3vpn-2547bis-mcast" and > sections specific to widely deployed "rosen-8" architecture > - metric is changed to be architecture agnostic > - text is rewritten to address changed scope of the document > > We are looking forward to the discussion in Vancouver. And for those > of you that won't be able to attend the meeting we would greatly > appreciate your comments sent to the mailing list. > > Thanks, > Authors > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 2:15 PM > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : Multicast VPN Scalability Benchmarking > Author(s) : S. Dry, et al. > Filename : draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt > Pages : 44 > Date : 2007-11-9 > > Multicast VPN (MVPN) is a service deployed by VPN service providers > to enable their customers to use IP multicast applications over VPNs. > > With the increased popularity the scalability of deploying such a > service is becoming of a great interest. This document defines > standard metric and test methodology for characterizing and > comparing > > control plane MVPN scalability of Provider Edge (PE) devices that > implement MVPN service. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of > the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After > logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get > draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > _______________________________________________ > 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] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.txt Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry)
- RE: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.t… Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
- RE: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.t… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- RE: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.t… Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry)
- RE: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.t… Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry)
- [bmwg] Re: Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.t… Aamer Akhter (aakhter)
- Re: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.t… Thomas Morin
- RE: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.t… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- RE: [bmwg] Updated:draft-sdry-bmwg-mvpnscale-03.t… Silvija Andrijic Dry (sdry)