[bmwg] Objections to Applicability statement draft: OSPF convergence ben chmarking
"Manral, Vishwas" <VishwasM@netplane.com> Sat, 15 February 2003 08:43 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA28848 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:43:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1F8l4p10369; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:47:04 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1F8kQp10325 for <bmwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:46:27 -0500
Received: from xover.netplane.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA28759 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:41:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: by XOVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1RXVN7XW>; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:45:35 -0500
Message-ID: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A328791F04@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com>
From: "Manral, Vishwas" <VishwasM@netplane.com>
To: 'Scott Poretsky' <sporetsky@avici.com>, bmwg@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:47:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2D4CE.DB474DF0"
Subject: [bmwg] Objections to Applicability statement draft: OSPF convergence ben chmarking
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
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>
Hi Scott, You have stated the same points of white-box benchmarks again for the methodology draft, which i have replied in the other mail. The factors we rely on have been stated clearly in the OSPF RFC2328. I guess you are talking about section 6 for all the "implementation" related information. Also measurements were taken on the CIsco box, using the same methodology, please check the document I have been relating to in the last two mails. The new point you have stated is the abscence of traffic. Our draft does not prevent anyone from using data traffic to get more measurements(just that those measuremnts wil have the effect of data traffic, if we can have similar data traffic for all measurements we can easily get comparative measurements(though absolute measurements would be a bit wrong). We can always use data traffic, check bullet 2, Section 5, of the applicability draft for that. Actually thinking of it, i guess we can refine the applicability statement with your help.;-) Any further comments will be helpful. Thanks, Vishwas -----Original Message----- From: Scott Poretsky [mailto:sporetsky@avici.com] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:28 PM To: bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [bmwg] WG Last Call: OSPF convergence benchmarking Folks, While I think that IGP Convergence testing is very worthwhile work for the BMWG to undertake, these drafts do not address IGP Convergence. These proposed drafts focus on LSA propagation benchmarking. Due to the extreme interest in industry for IGP convergence measurements, I was working on IGP Convergence terminology and benchmarking methodology drafts when these proposed drafts were submitted. I have provided the IGP Convergence drafts to Kevin and they should soon be posted. My comments to the proposed LSA Propagation benchmarking drafts are below. Scott ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Terminology Internal Measurements and External Measurements are already defined as White Box and Black Box. Point-to-Point, Broadcast, SPF, Hello Interval, and Router Dead Interval are already defined in IETF RFCs Incremental-SPF is a vendor-specific feature. Convergence is stated as " A network is termed to be converged when all of the devices within the network have a loop free path to each possible destination. " The definition is then modified for a single DUT as follow "Since we are not testing network convergence, but performance for a particular device within a network, however, this definition needs to be narrowed somewhat to fit within a single device view. In this case, convergence will mean the point in time when the DUT has performed all actions needed to react to the change in topology represented by the test condition ". This must include updating the FIB and hardware as externally verified with data traffic. This draft contradicts its own definition by verifying convergence through measurement of only LSA propagation. In fact, updating the FIB is explicitly excluded from measurement. Methodology Section 5. Overview and Scope Control Plane measurements are not convergence measurements. Convergence is benchmarked by time to reroute traffic. Section 6. Test Conditions Bullet 2 It cannot be assumed that there is zero delay to execute the SPF or LSA processing. Reference [5] actually _recommends_ router vendors implement zero delay to achieve low convergence. The benchmarking methodology should allow convergence measurements to be made regardless of implementation. Bullet 3 Data traffic is actually required to make a deterministic measurement of route convergence. Unlisted: Number of IGP routes is a critical parameter for convergence time. Sections 7. through 9. The biggest problem with the methodology is that not all components for convergence time are measured. Focus is on LSA Processing, which is only 1 of 4 major components. Route change due to cost or next-hop change is not considered. This is the most common reason for route convergence. Well -defined Convergence methodology can be applied to ISIS or OSPF. The Link-State IGP does not matter. In fact the methodology should be able for use to benchmark one IGP against the other given the same DUT. All procedures meet one or more of the following flaws: White box measurements are part of the procedure. Time to install route (update FIB), update hardware, and reroute traffic are not considered. Test case is Implementation-specific. Test case has nothing to do with convergence - more OSPF performance test. Applicability The applicability document explains that convergence testing is needed using 1. White box benchmarks 2. DUT intrusive measurements 3. Knowledge of DUT implementation 4. Absence of traffic results in impractical benchmarks. Convergence time is benchmarked by traffic loss. 1 through 3 violate basic test methodology requirements. 4 makes invalid convergence tests. This work is less about convergence benchmarking and more about LSA propagation benchmarking. At 08:42 PM 2/7/03 -0500, you wrote: BMWG'ers: A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Drafts regarding OSPF convergence benchmarking terminology, methodology, and benchmark applicability: <draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-term-02.txt>, <draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-intraarea-03.txt>, <draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-01.txt> will be open from 7 February 2003 until 28 February 2003. Please weigh in on whether or not you feel each individual draft should not be given to the Area Directors for consideration in progressing the draft to an Informational RFC. Send your comments to this list or kdubray@juniper.net. URLs for the Internet-Drafts are: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-term-02.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-term-02.txt> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-intraarea-03.tx t <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-intraarea-03.t xt> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-0 1.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability- 01.txt> -Kevin
- [bmwg] Objections to Applicability statement draf… Manral, Vishwas