IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests

Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr> Thu, 05 December 2019 07:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
X-Original-To: etosat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: etosat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD53E120096 for <etosat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 23:07:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hHuv0BHFmBmB for <etosat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 23:07:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.cnes.fr (mx1.cnes.fr [194.199.174.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69FB5120059 for <etosat@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 23:07:19 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.69,280,1571702400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="12655523"
X-IPAS-Result: A2FuAACRq+hd/wIBeAplDgsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAREBAQEBAQEBAQEBAYF+gRyBXROBMQqVRIU6jWiICwkBAQEBAQEBAQEtCgEBhEACgjY4EwIQAQEBBAEBAQEBBQIBAQIChVRMDIYoAgEDLUwQAgEIDRUkMiUBAQQBDQUIgxuBeYENrUsaNYInGootBoE2gWWMTIERR4JMPoEEAYFfAoFlDIM0giwEjR6IToEEiEePEweBPXSCOYRmjlZ3jWQDi0iOSohBk3NNgS4zGieDOFARkG2KGDt0jykrgQSBEAEB
X-URL-LookUp-ScanningError: 1
From: Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
To: 'Christian Huitema' <huitema@huitema.net>, "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
CC: "etosat@ietf.org" <etosat@ietf.org>, "Border, John" <John.Border@hughes.com>
Thread-Topic: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests
Thread-Index: AdWqBRbnHNZDGTkjTLC74vSG03YOMQAG2O2AABXJ1MAABJHdAAAWAroAABYX4NA=
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 07:06:16 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 07:07:15 +0000
Message-ID: <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ED1F2E7@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
References: <BL0PR11MB33949C8A6A226271B7FF9FAF90420@BL0PR11MB3394.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3c472def-050d-f44b-16f3-12e6a7eb44b4@huitema.net> <F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ED1E59B@TW-MBX-P03.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr> <5DE7923A.3000307@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4d3e23fd-7117-9a59-e0fe-d018019fb93b@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <4d3e23fd-7117-9a59-e0fe-d018019fb93b@huitema.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.4255-8.100.1062-25084.005
x-tm-as-result: No--24.615300-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F3B0A07CFD358240926B78A680E166FF1ED1F2E7TWMBXP03cnesnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/etosat/6ejFnfDG7DAhBWp3GfUNez61iLI>
Subject: Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests
X-BeenThere: etosat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The EToSat list is a non-WG mailing list used to discuss performance implications of running encrypted transports such as QUIC over satellite." <etosat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/etosat>, <mailto:etosat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/etosat/>
List-Post: <mailto:etosat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:etosat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/etosat>, <mailto:etosat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 07:07:21 -0000

De : EToSat <etosat-bounces@ietf.org> De la part de Christian Huitema
Envoyé : mercredi 4 décembre 2019 22:33
À : gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Kuhn Nicolas <Nicolas.Kuhn@cnes.fr>
Cc : etosat@ietf.org; Border, John <John.Border@hughes.com>
Objet : Re: [EToSat] Download Regression Tests



On 12/4/2019 7:02 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
On 04/12/2019, 08:14, Kuhn Nicolas wrote:


Hi,

We had initiated a regression test description in the QUIC 4 SATCOM document.

https://github.com/NicoKos/QUIC_HIGH_BDP/tree/master/ietf-document/draft-quic-4-sat

An updated version in a more readable format than XML is attached and in the GITHUB repo.

The scenario that you propose in more challenging than the ones we had discussed with Gorry at Singapore.

I have added your scenario in the document - but you may not want to keep them all.

What do you think ?

I guess we can at least remove the 10 Mbps one.
[GF] I'd keep this for the moment. It's a simple enough test, and if you can fill 10 Mbps with a single stream, then that's pretty good.


However, keeping the 50 Mbps / 10 Mbps shows a different asymmetry and it may be interesting to keep it.

More comments inline.

Looking at the draft, I see that "the test should report ... The downloading time of 100 MB on the download, The downloading time of 100 MB on the upload". I am a bit puzzled by the last sentence. Do you mean "The uploading time of 100 MB on the upload"? And if you mean that, is it really worth it measuring 100 MB there?

The 100MB upload certainly makes sense as a system validation test, but it does not have a huge value as a non regression test. I mean, if we can measure download on a 10/2 link, what do you believe will be learned by measuring upload on a 50/10 link?

[NK] You are right - this is not really useful for a regression test. It was more a place holder in case we want to go more into the details of return link accesses in SATCOM that may impact end-to-end protocols. But I will keep that in my mind and remove it in the next version of the draft.

-- Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email