Re: [ippm] Questions on draft-morton-ippm-capacity-metric-protocol-01

can desem <cdesem@gmail.com> Thu, 21 October 2021 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <cdesem@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54A73A1067 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 98LxzYc-Atje for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C29D73A1065 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id r6so1481140ljg.6 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aEzGbE+2uDW21jc/uN5wvAUtmUVAg/HOFY4RcNPy0vI=; b=KnpkKUCrPQRSMmLIsBB9rzoCFtqsqyVY1I9F6dMsH55Cda5RMgE+yhEL6AVaPkoczx c84jGWx3Sr2jhO0pR3e6dqDBFMq99hrCZgvBvd75BZp1H73L/P6JMc4JtouK+ixvItlP 4ZVS7S7g9orDZJGp+l4HjNZ0UrIvjOp9ndUFoKP76g/6mILgEE+k8vJhE87+RbIztfft oAVFgYiYjhTDa+6myHg5JGx/+cC1rxwnV3lEop+kTwUcufT2yDIRQzGb0GlZz4Xv1jeQ 2V5MmqIp0CAqoayvJ1ylWSr7ct+9NKGmlqidgrV0MuWHRXyOJnezFsPbzsNIfBgBazck LUJw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aEzGbE+2uDW21jc/uN5wvAUtmUVAg/HOFY4RcNPy0vI=; b=gsuXYswd2tAHJ2GAUBKOLxY8rgoMl0dugpGR9xaAP9YKtIWQhPQZGXiIfbk23XvR9p TaUBk0tLq5Pd+BWQXbaIxIbbxDXLi00xnfdu3n0oMIYLgBy5gRc1oM3I+C8ujIR64tJd q+3yhNLa6XFst8Gak26M1rlpfF+oWham+AQqdViNVq0v0mhXQnEGvLkbsE/tfyq42OOv 8jqjQY5NDenoUfEvm+VKRcg2tWJmyTkjXAOrqlC1ziXO9+aT+NltdzLuvbFRyQYUkp7U MzlI0/6G0EHDKmi1CHSB2aN6caMqzfBcDQsDbVGmJc5F9fkwFQD+ILcvJLp5S0O2DNLt F/yQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oOLhAHGu48X7pFoiC7/bp3nVFD+m1++pmYYgzNYyKfKzPW2H6 pV7lnLTLZaVte0C+H4s2XF5wnnPJK9+09k395aU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwH9emKhO5rJnS4/ujELM5yjhpqTbs2rU0+rjPCgT5ndx8NVRQWGczctV5JHu6dCsRwFOSBNdzA+hGvcMfQiOg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:283:: with SMTP id b3mr4142176ljo.459.1634801353505; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SJ0PR02MB78533269DB297F70106A8FE1D3BD9@SJ0PR02MB7853.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR02MB78533269DB297F70106A8FE1D3BD9@SJ0PR02MB7853.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: can desem <cdesem@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:29:02 +1100
Message-ID: <CAKCBE7w9qLfMhFpXo47TuvJ5uV11GxpZ20vD4Hs3bFL2FjGJVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MORTON JR., AL" <acmorton@att.com>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f442f905ced7d935"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/7Js5qJY-_B_HOfsUm-QPTg1IMmE>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Questions on draft-morton-ippm-capacity-metric-protocol-01
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:29:23 -0000

Hi Al, IPPM group,

I believe this will potentially be a really useful tool for measuring
speeds, especially if we can incorporate it in network terminating devices
such as customer gateways etc.

With regards the various options for the modes of operation, I think
encrypting the payload will add additional cpu load without adding much
benefit even though it may be valuable to defeat compression on links.
Instead, having an option to randomize the payload may be less process
intensive and achieve the same goal.

Another suggestion that would be extremely useful, if this measurement tool
were to be employed in a gateway like device, would be to take into
consideration the existing traffic that may be present while running such a
test. For example, monitoring the total traffic (which could be as simple
as counting the bytes on a WAN interface on a gateway) as the test is run
and including this as part of the measurement process would result in more
accurate measurements of the line speed. This could be added as an option
in the protocol which can be used when required in the described scenario.

Regards,
Can Desem