Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-01.txt
"Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" <aakhter@cisco.com> Mon, 09 April 2012 17:56 UTC
Return-Path: <aakhter@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B7F21F8427 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cjwPgrFH+plV for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75B221F84FF for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=aakhter@cisco.com; l=10787; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1333994193; x=1335203793; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=MXQYUHKJ5DL54OyaN9HfRnwyNHt7re4roE5LrWrZdKw=; b=G8SqzrrzJD133Aome7JHhR2RP/QONSj0TQ/bqRVyNvM4vO3Hp7Z/x93M Fh7RnNBo0Mn/k5OWKmmSVlumJCo1trAZH9Cnp6XEA+jgkMWSPEZQFVw2M WaDxbFyyUcMpzV/08nEvbWER8x86es76k03/H2tGYs/iOwoxSKyT3ann5 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAJMig0+tJV2a/2dsb2JhbABEgka2ZIEHggkBAQEEAQEBDwEJEQM+CwwEAgEIDgMBAgEBAQEKBhcBBgEmHwMGCAEBBBMIGodsC5l7oAAEj3djBIham1+BaYMF
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,393,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="73180912"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2012 17:56:32 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com [72.163.63.8]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q39HuVxR014963; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 17:56:32 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) by xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 9 Apr 2012 12:56:21 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD167A.1232BAC2"
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 12:56:18 -0500
Message-ID: <7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F07BB84FE@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201204091631.q39GVGiD014953@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-01.txt
Thread-Index: Ac0WbkkV6RVe/mEoRUeAJfVRCfbWWwAC7yJA
References: <7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F079F3DC7@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com> <201204091631.q39GVGiD014953@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
From: "Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" <aakhter@cisco.com>
To: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2012 17:56:21.0235 (UTC) FILETIME=[124B2C30:01CD167A]
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-01.txt
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:56:35 -0000
Thanks Al-this is fine. I think the existing RFC reference is ok as well. From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 12:32 PM To: Aamer Akhter (aakhter) Cc: bmwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-01.txt At 03:24 AM 3/28/2012, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote: Hi Al, :-) I don't have a strong opinion against the indirect reference. My preference would be to be more direct about it and perhaps even a mention of IPFIX as a scalable way to gather this data in private networks. OK, what if we say: ... The mixture of sizes a networking device will encounter is highly variable and depends on many factors. An IMIX suited for one networking device and deployment will not be appropriate for another. However, the mix of sizes may be known and the tester may be asked to augment the fixed size tests. The references above cite the original studies and their methodologies. Similar methods can be used to determine new size mixes present on a link or network. We note that the architecture for IP Flow Information Export [RFC5470] provides one method to gather packet size information on private networks. Are there any other canonical ipfix RFCs that should also be listed? Al -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-01.txt Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:23:09 -0400 From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> To: Aamer Akhter (aakhter) <aakhter@cisco.com> CC: bmwg@ietf.org Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.bmwg References: <20120108140704.17736.30648.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F71ACFC.5080706@cisco.com> <7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F078D5B82@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com> <7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F078D5B82@XMB-RCD-101.cisco .com <mailto:7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F078D5B82@XMB-RCD-101.cisco%20.co m> > At 08:10 AM 3/27/2012, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote: > Al, > > Just following up on the quick discussion on the live meeting at > IETF-83 regarding the creation of a representative the IMIX: > > A cntrl+f search against CAIDA didn't turn up any matches. > Perhaps this got lost in the editing Turns out that the CAIDA study is an indirect Reference, see below: 1. Introduction ... Streams of constant packet size differ significantly from the conditions encountered in operational deployment, and so additional tests are sometimes conducted with a mixture of packet sizes. The set of sizes used is often called an Internet Mix, or "IMIX" [Spirent], [IXIA], [Agilent]. The mixture of sizes a networking device will encounter is highly variable and depends on many factors. An IMIX suited for one networking device and deployment will not be appropriate for another. However, the mix of sizes may be known and the tester may be asked to augment the fixed size tests. The references above cite the original studies and their methodologies - *similar methods can be used to determine new size mixes. *hope that does it, Al _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-01… internet-drafts
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genom… Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genom… Aamer Akhter (aakhter)
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genom… Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genom… Aamer Akhter (aakhter)
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genom… Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genom… Aamer Akhter (aakhter)
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genom… Al Morton