Re: [bmwg] draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth
Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Sun, 12 March 2023 20:04 UTC
Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 DFB13C151551 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 13:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oCIOYvjA5KK9 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 13:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9166C14CE33 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 13:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.123.6] (szefw.sze.hu [193.224.128.20]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 32CK4Y0C043479 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 21:04:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host szefw.sze.hu [193.224.128.20] claimed to be [192.168.123.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------IdNd0w1dEzYzRF0ipnn3c6sl"
Message-ID: <52873fc9-5f5f-121b-2519-d8bda561efc9@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 21:04:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: bmwg@ietf.org
References: <27483_1676370724_63EB6323_27483_3_1_AS2PR02MB883972A9BB353BC36DE67EFFF0A29@AS2PR02MB8839.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <56f69824793b465ab1de8e987a8837de@huawei.com> <64625_1676455118_63ECACCD_64625_405_1_AS2PR02MB883955792CE38B01C9622142F0A39@AS2PR02MB8839.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <27b4ea188d014f96aeda40569999d028@huawei.com>
From: Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
In-Reply-To: <27b4ea188d014f96aeda40569999d028@huawei.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.7 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=193.224.128.20; helo=[192.168.123.6]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.11;
X-DCC-debian-Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/sNQM3NgZ0PqZmLnjcteANcrce-E>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 20:04:50 -0000
Dear Authors, 2/27/2023 12:59 PM keltezéssel, Giuseppe Fioccola írta: > Dear All, > We just submitted the new revisions of the benchmarking methodology drafts on SR-MPLS and SRv6. In particular, we addressed the comments received by Bruno Decraene. I have re-read https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth > Your comments and suggestions are welcome. A have a few minor comments. In the Introduction: devices. This document aims to extend the efforts of [RFC1242] and [RFC2544] to SR network. As this document is about IPv6 segment routing, I think this section should mention [RFC5180] besides (or instead of) the previous RFCs. (Later I have seen that [RFC5180] is mentioned on the next page.) This document is limited to Headend encapsulations (H.Encaps.xxx) and segment Endpoints (End, End.X). It is expected that future documents may cover the benchmarking of SRv6 applications with decapsulation (End.Dxxx), Binding (End.Bxxx), Fast ReRoute [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], etc. Could you please elaborate the considerations behind the above scope selection? It seems to me that the decapsulation is the other side of encapsulation, thus they are probably equally important. But I am not familiar with segment routing, so may be I miss some important difference of the two. 3.2. Locator and Endpoint behaviors methods A routing protocol (OSPF or IS-IS) SHOULD be used for the construction of the simplest SRH with 1 SID. I wonder why BGP is not included here, but it is included in "3.5. Trial Duration". (I am sorry, I have no idea, if SR is used only within an AS or also over multiple AS-es.) 3.4. Protocol Addresses IANA reserved an IPv6 address block 2001:0200::/48 for use with IPv6 benchmark testing (see section 8 of [RFC5180]). This is a typo in RFC 5180, please see the Errata. The correct text is: IANA reserved an IPv6 address block 2001:0002::/48 for use with IPv6 benchmark testing (see section 8 of [RFC5180]). 3.7. Buffer tests Back-to-back test I recommend to rephrase (in all cases): Back-to-back frame test 4. Reporting Format * Port media type may be reported only one time for all tests if only Ethernet media would be tested I recommend: * Port media type may be reported only one time for all tests if only Ethernet media is tested. All-in-all, I think that the document is in a good shape. What about a WG adoption call? Best regards, Gábor Lencse
- [bmwg] draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth bruno.decraene
- Re: [bmwg] draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth bruno.decraene
- Re: [bmwg] draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [bmwg] draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [bmwg] draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth Gábor LENCSE
- Re: [bmwg] draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth Vasilenko Eduard