Re: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review
ramki Krishnan <ramk@Brocade.com> Tue, 29 April 2014 00:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ramk@Brocade.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCD11A8844 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O_MGxfV_HhcJ for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:71::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC7A1A8841 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048192 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s3T0SEJP009276; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:36:43 -0700
Received: from hq1wp-exchub01.corp.brocade.com ([144.49.131.13]) by mx0b-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1kfyw4uhdp-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:36:42 -0700
Received: from HQ1WP-EXHUB01.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.14) by HQ1WP-EXCHUB01.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:36:41 -0700
Received: from HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::a540:dc22:25c4:398e]) by HQ1WP-EXHUB01.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::55ee:533:4b9d:a097%12]) with mapi; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:36:40 -0700
From: ramki Krishnan <ramk@Brocade.com>
To: "Fernando Calabria (fcalabri)" <fcalabri@cisco.com>, Barry Constantine <Barry.Constantine@jdsu.com>, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:36:36 -0700
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review
Thread-Index: AQHPYuYI+sFq4e5XzUOeDhY19DyGBpsnwFPQ
Message-ID: <C7634EB63EFD984A978DFB46EA5174F2C004004CCE@HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com>
References: <CF83D031.1663F%fcalabri@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF83D031.1663F%fcalabri@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.96, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-04-28_03:2014-04-28, 2014-04-28, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1404290004
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/qaTp_2Nuk_0KfmrSBnu4ELEO9WQ
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:36:52 -0000
+1. -----Original Message----- From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Calabria (fcalabri) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:31 AM To: Barry Constantine; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); bmwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review +1 On 4/28/14, 9:07 AM, "Barry Constantine" <Barry.Constantine@jdsu.com> wrote: >Hi Al, > >I think the charter is well written and with topics that are very >relevant. > >Thank you, >Barry Constantine > >JDSU Network and Service Enablement >Principal Member Technical Staff >301-325-7069 > >-----Original Message----- >From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C >(AL) >Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:21 PM >To: bmwg@ietf.org >Subject: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review > >BMWG, > >Over the last year, we've developed this set of paragraphs for specific >work items one at a time. Now it's time for one last look (by May 2) and >then we declare consensus and move to the next step (unless the wheels >come-off). Reply with your comments on the text below. > >Al and Sarah, >bmwg co-chairs > >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >Description of Working Group: > > >The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) will continue to >produce a series of recommendations concerning the key performance >characteristics of internetworking technologies, or benchmarks for >network devices, systems, and services. Taking a view of networking >divided into planes, the scope of work includes benchmarks for the >management, control, and forwarding planes. > >Each recommendation will describe the class of equipment, system, or >service being addressed; discuss the performance characteristics that are >pertinent to that class; clearly identify a set of metrics that aid in >the description of those characteristics; specify the methodologies >required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present the requirements >for the common, unambiguous reporting of benchmarking results. > >The set of relevant benchmarks will be developed with input from the >community of users (e.g., network operators and testing organizations) >and from those affected by the benchmarks when they are published >(networking and test equipment manufacturers). When possible, the >benchmarks and other terminology will be developed jointly with >organizations that are willing to share their expertise. Joint review >requirements for a specific work area will be included in the detailed >description of the task, as listed below. > >To better distinguish the BMWG from other measurement initiatives in the >IETF, the scope of the BMWG is limited to the characterization of >implementations of various internetworking technologies using controlled >stimuli in a laboratory environment. Said differently, the BMWG does not >attempt to produce benchmarks for live, operational networks. Moreover, >the benchmarks produced by this WG shall strive to be vendor independent >or otherwise have universal applicability to a given technology class. > >Because the demands of a particular technology may vary from deployment >to deployment, a specific non-goal of the Working Group is to define >acceptance criteria or performance requirements. > >An ongoing task is to provide a forum for discussion regarding the >advancement of measurements designed to provide insight on the >capabilities and operation of inter-networking technology implementations. > >The BMWG will communicate with the operations community through >organizations such as NANOG, RIPE, and APRICOT. > >In addition to its current work items, the BMWG is explicitly tasked to >develop benchmarks and methodologies for the following technologies: > >Traffic Management: Develop the methods to characterize the capacity of >traffic management features in network devices, such as classification, >policing, shaping, and active queue management. Existing terminology will >be used where appropriate. Configured operation will be verified as a >part of the methodology. The goal is a methodology to assess the maximum >forwarding performance that a network device can sustain without dropping >or impairing packets, or compromising the accuracy of multiple instances >of traffic management functions. This is the benchmark for comparison >between devices. Another goal is to devise methods that utilize flows >with congestion-aware transport as part of the traffic load and still >produce repeatable results in the isolated test environment. > >IPv6 Neighbor Discovery: Large address space in IPv6 subnets presents >several networking challenges, as described in RFC 6583. Indexes to >describe the performance of network devices, such as the number of >reachable devices on a sub-network, are useful benchmarks to the >operations community. The working group will develop the necessary >terminology and methodologies to measure such benchmarks. > >In-Service Software Upgrade: Develop new methods and benchmarks to >characterize the upgrade of network devices while in-service, considering >both data and control plane operations and impacts. >These devices are generally expected to maintain control plane session >integrity, including routing connections. Quantification of Upgrade >impact will include packet loss measurement, and other forms of recovery >behavior will be noted accordingly. The work will produce a definition of >ISSU, which will help refine the scope. Liaisons will be established as >needed. > >Data Center Benchmarking: This work will define additional terms, >benchmarks, and methods applicable to data center performance >evaluations. >This includes data center specific congestion scenarios, switch buffer >analysis, microburst, head of line blocking, while also using a wide mix >of traffic conditions. Some aspects from BMWG's past work are not >meaningful when testing switches that implement new IEEE specifications >in the area of data center bridging. For example, throughput as defined >in RFC 1242 cannot be measured when testing devices that implement three >new IEEE specifications: priority-based flow control (802.1Qbb); priority >groups (802.1Qaz); and congestion notification (802.1Qau). >This work will update RFC1242, RFC2544, RFC2889 (and other key RFCs), and >exchange Liaisons with relevant SDOs, especially at WG Last Call. > >VNF and related Infrastructure Benchmarking: Benchmarking Methodologies >have reliably characterized many physical devices. This work item extends >and enhances the methods to virtual network functions (VNF) and their >unique supporting infrastructure. First, the new task space will be >considered to ensure that common issues are recognized from the start. >Benchmarks for platform capacity and performance characteristics of >virtual routers, switches, and related components will follow, including >comparisons between physical and virtual network functions. > >_______________________________________________ >bmwg mailing list >bmwg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg > >_______________________________________________ >bmwg mailing list >bmwg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review Barry Constantine
- Re: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review Fernando Calabria (fcalabri)
- Re: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review ramki Krishnan
- Re: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Re-Charter Text for review joel jaeggli