Re: [bmwg] Comments/review on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence
Bhavani Parise <bhavani@cisco.com> Wed, 11 June 2014 23:04 UTC
Return-Path: <bhavani@cisco.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 A9B601B28B5 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.151
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 WClUMZqYkr28 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FF501B28CB for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=25849; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1402527861; x=1403737461; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=6ze+L4ezN/zV2QaCOSjwnB96ccIClgO88uy2qDYXH0A=; b=D8vUCiB58mdRMjN3SmPja3oZ7GAZk6Nm8tkQsyikzT/RAgyL9Lx8Q1Fv m9ZQHA2ZLZ1ZfZzHsW/6qZcBPXJ4Dh4wvsrBMeDmC0EJ4ufHbJxfh4F2c 4/ovQZiBwAUjtKRhZdIissLPK317bNs+kWwvIsxD7yJlnKsSb3ArQGgGH w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhcFAAzfmFOtJA2D/2dsb2JhbABQCoMNhBfBCgGBBxZ1hAMBAQEEI1UBDAQJAhEDAQIKFgEHAwICCQMCAQIBNAkIBgEMAQUCAQEViCmUapwknz4XjX1LEQYBBoJvgUwEijmPdYZ2jFWDXB0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,461,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="52334748"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2014 23:04:20 +0000
Received: from [10.154.210.154] ([10.154.210.154]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5BN4IFe007005; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:04:18 GMT
Message-ID: <5398E072.3030009@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:04:18 -0700
From: Bhavani Parise <bhavani@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sbanks@akamai.com, shares@ndzh.com, Dean Lee <dlee@ixiacom.com>, "ilya.varlashkin@easynet.com" <ilya.varlashkin@easynet.com>, Rajiv Papneja <Rajiv.Papneja@huawei.com>
References: <52B0D42F4BADB144B850705C4549F6EA2149CDFA@dfweml703-chm.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <52B0D42F4BADB144B850705C4549F6EA2149CDFA@dfweml703-chm.china.huawei.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <52B0D42F4BADB144B850705C4549F6EA2149CDFA@dfweml703-chm.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090705020404010602090402"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/r7rLBcybIG-18gS8dqqRw6m9xvo
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Comments/review on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence
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: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:04:23 -0000
Sarah, thanks very much for the valuable feedback. We will be publishing the newer version of the draft in the next couple of weeks. Please see below our responses (marked as <<BP>> ) and let us know if anything else needs to changed. regards, Bhavani -------- Original Message -------- *Subject: * Comments/review on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence *Date: * Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:47:16 -0400 *From: * Banks, Sarah <sbanks@akamai.com> <mailto:sbanks@akamai.com> *To: * bhavani@cisco.com <mailto:bhavani@cisco.com> <bhavani@cisco.com> <mailto:bhavani@cisco.com>, shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com> <shares@ndzh.com> <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>, dlee@ixiacom.com <mailto:dlee@ixiacom.com> <dlee@ixiacom.com> <mailto:dlee@ixiacom.com>, ilya.varlashkin@easynet.com <mailto:ilya.varlashkin@easynet.com> <ilya.varlashkin@easynet.com> <mailto:ilya.varlashkin@easynet.com> *CC: * bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> <bmwg@ietf.org> <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> Hello draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence authors, In prepping to be your document shepherd, I re-read the draft again with fresh eyes (hah) and have a few comments; mostly editorial, but nonetheless, here they come. Section 1 and 1.1 I'm not a fan of restating - say what you mean, and be clear and precise. The document generally reads this way, so consider starting off that way too. In particular, the first sentence of the first paragraph in Section 1.1, "Since benchmarking is a science of precision, let us restate the purpose of this document in benchmarking terms." There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way, as an editor. I'm also not 100% sure benchmarking is a science of precision. :) In any event, consider stating once what the draft is about. <<BP>> agreed, removed the sentence 'Since benchmarking is a science.." - have also reworded the rest of paragraph too Section 1.1 What is "Basic BGP"? Is there "Advanced BGP" too? I jest - but you're using a term before introducing it, instead, waiting to introduce it 2 paragraphs down. Consider adjusting this. You call out a test topology of 3 or 4 nodes - why? I don't think this has to be a long paragraph, just a sentence, that covers why you chose 3/4 nodes, and not 2, or 200. Speaking of Basic BGP definitions - your definition says "as RFC 4271 ... For IPv6". Your introduction states that this document covers methodologies for both IPv4 and v6, yet here, you say Basic BGP for v6 only. Consider revising this sentence/paragraph. <<BP>> accept, we reworded the paragraph and ensured that we introduce the terms first before using them Section 1.2 A minor language nit. In your second sentence/first paragraph, you state, "To maintain a reliable connectivity within...". Consider revising to, "To maintain reliable connectivity..." Last sentence, "These simple tests... High-level check, of the ..." - consider removing the ",". There's no need for a pause there. <<BP>> accept, changed the above 2 sentences Last sentence - what is "multiple implementations"? Please consider clarifying. <<BP>> clarified multiple implementations means to implementations from different vendors Section 1.4 While I understand what you're trying to do here, I often tell customers NOT to do this - that they SHOULD test with the timer settings, for example, that they deploy in the network today. There are lots of reasons why default timers don't work for real-life deployments, and test results you get from default timers are often NOT the same as when, for example, configured for aggressive timers. I think this skews the data in a way as to make it useless if non-standard or non-defaults are deployed in the wild. I'd prefer that if a customer wants to use aggressive timers, they be configured the same way across each iteration of the test, and across each vendor's gear, for apples to apples comparison. <<BP>> absolutely agree with you and thats what we have in sec.4.4. Option 'C' is what you are suggesting here, but let us know if you still want us to clarify any of the text. Also we suggest that optional parameters to be disabled because not all vendors might have the same options available to do a apple-to-apple comparison Section 3 You state, "These simple test nodes have 3 or 4 nodes with the following configuration:" - but then you list what I think are 4 different configurations. Consider revising the aforementioned sentence to read something like, "These simple test setups have 3 or 4 nodes with one of the following configurations:" BTW I'm not sure what use "simple" has in the original sentence; while I'm not married to this idea, I'd nix the use of the word "simple" here, even from the sample sentence I gave above. :) Section 3 is the first time the draft states that both iBGP and eBGP will be covered. Consider adding this fact to your overview/introduction. <<BP>> agreed, removed 'simple' and also modified the sentence. Good suggestion on ibgp/ebgp, have added this tothe intro section Section 4.2 Second paragraph - "each test run must identify... Number of routes. This route stream must be ... Reporting stream." Are these normative references? :) <<BP>> good catch, moved RFC4098 to Normative references Last paragraph, first sentence, "It is RECOMMENDED that the user may consider..." Consider revising this to remove the "may" - "It is RECOMMENDED that the user consider advertising..." <<BP>> changed this Section 4.3 why is "Minimal" with an "M"? Why are exact policy documentations a "should" - I think this is normative anyhow, but why not MUST? If you don't document the policy processes, so that the tests could be reproduced effectively? <<BP>> agree, changed these Section 4.8 Why should, and not MUST? <<BP>> changed this Section 5.1.1 When you say "Stand Deviation" did you mean "Standard Deviation"? <<BP>> thanks, changed Test repeatability: Some of the tests cases say that it's recommended to run the test case a couple times - and not others. I wonder if you meant this to be true for all the cases. In any event, consider adding a section or adding to the "test considerations" section a note on running the test cases multiple times - and even further, consider taking a stand on how many times to run them. :) <<BP>> we already do this in 4.7 - 'Measurement Statistics'. Do let us know if anything else needs to be added/altered Section 5.8 How does one trigger a GR event on the DUT? The document does a pretty good job hand holding the tester - consider adding a sentence or two at the start of the section on how to trigger the event. Do you expect the DUT interface to flap or the test tool to cause the flap? Do you care? Why does the draft cover a test case for GR and not NSR? <<BP>> NSR for all AFs and eBGP vs. iBGP was not supported by all vendors and there was no standard RFC to adhere to. If 1 vendor supports 1 AF and the other doesn't then there will not be an apple to apple comparison unless we have a test for only supported AFI/SAFI We plan on including this when we cover other AFs in extensions draft or in the PIC draft - Also for the GR event, we added a line in test case referring to event in RFC4098 Thanks Sarah
- [bmwg] Comments/review on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-bas… Banks, Sarah
- Re: [bmwg] Comments/review on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp… Bhavani Parise