Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets
Xiangsong Cui <Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com> Tue, 03 May 2011 03:45 UTC
Return-Path: <Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.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 C4669E068C for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2011 20:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.344
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.255, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44yfodQ6hjRN for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2011 20:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7618AE0659 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2011 20:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKL00LYJP04AP@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 03 May 2011 11:43:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from c00111037 ([10.111.16.79]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LKL00H43P03XK@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 03 May 2011 11:43:16 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 11:43:14 +0800
From: Xiangsong Cui <Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4D9D7225.6080506@uijterwaal.nl>
To: 'Henk Uijterwaal' <henk@uijterwaal.nl>, ippm@ietf.org
Message-id: <00e201cc0944$3c598e70$b50cab50$%cui@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: zh-cn
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acv0+75834dEnQOmRfmxSCKQk56+owURALxQ
References: <4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF0DEC351277@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4D9D7225.6080506@uijterwaal.nl>
Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 03 May 2011 03:45:14 -0000
Hi Henk, Sorry for the late comments. I take a quick look on this draft and have some comments. First, this draft seems like about capacity, e.g. path capacity, This memo describes the optional extensions to the standard TWAMP test protocol for identifying test sessions and packet trains, and for measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP throughput in the forward and reverse path directions. (copied from abstract) But, we all know that path is a unidirectional concept, so I don't understand, why we need the two-way test to measure the "path capacity"? Why not the one-way test? For example, in the ADSL/3G/4G/etc. network, the upstream path and downstream path provide different "capacity", how can the two-way test be applied? And what is the expected "path capacity" metric result in this approach? Second, the motivation of this draft, the first challenge is "The different trains within a session cannot be differentiated" (copied from minutes), and the draft reads "The controller (or the Session-Sender) requires a method for demultiplexing the received test packets to the correct test session especially when it manages multiple active test sessions. " where is the requirement from? Why the controller cannot set up multiple control sessions to manage the multiple test sessions separately? Third, section 3 reads, The packet interval between consecutive packets for each train sent by the Session-Sender and reflected by the Session-Reflector MUST be calculated and determined by the controller or an application or entity communicating with the controller. [...] The transmission time tt to send one packet (i.e. determined by the interface speed and the IP packet size) is also shown in the picture. Observe that the packet interval MUST be larger than or equal to tt. Why we need the two "MUST"? Section 3.6 of RFC5357 tells us: The send schedule for test packets defined in Section 3.6 of OWAMP [RFC4656] is not used in TWAMP. The Control-Client and Session- Sender MAY autonomously decide the send schedule. The Session- Reflector SHOULD return each test packet to the Session-Sender as quickly as possible. As a conclusion, I DISAGREE with it BEFORE I was told the answers. Best regards, Xiangsong > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Henk Uijterwaal > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 4:13 PM > To: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets > > IPPM group, > > In Prague, Steve and colleagues presented > draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets and asked if this can become > a > WG document. If you support > this idea or disagree with it, please speak up on the list before April 21. > > Henk (as WG chair) > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl > RIPE NCC > http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku > Phone: +31.6.55861746 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. > (John Glanfield, on an engineering > project) > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-o… Henk Uijterwaal
- [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-o… Steve Baillargeon
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Barry Constantine
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Al Morton
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Steve Baillargeon
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Al Morton
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Steve Baillargeon
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Al Morton
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Steve Baillargeon
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Al Morton
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… steve.baillargeon
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Steve Baillargeon
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Christofer Flinta
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Svante Ekelin
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Andreas Johnsson A
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-add… Christofer Flinta