Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

Ok, I thought you were referring to other proposals which
were discussed, and the suggestion of combining what makes sense,
but apparently not.

My comment below on the tendency toward placing Control in
the Test Session in this proposal is still worth a look, I think.

Al

At 03:26 PM 4/7/2011, Steve Baillargeon wrote:
>Hi Al
>I was referring to the train size, not the packet size.
>All test packets using the value-added octets (forward and reverse 
>test packets) belonging to a specific test session MUST have the 
>same IP packet size. This indicated in the draft as well.
>We are not recommending to change the requirement on the packet size 
>because it will make reporting and capacity measurements very 
>difficult to do. If a different packet size is needed, a 
>new/different test session SHALL be established.
>
>-Steve
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
>Of Al Morton
>Sent: April-07-11 2:38 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets
>
>At 10:53 AM 4/7/2011, Steve Baillargeon wrote:
> >...One aspect we discussed briefly is the possibility to add a new
> >field in the TWAMP value-added padding octets that will allow for a
> >different train size in the reverse direction.
>
>Well, this separate proposal was to allow different test packet 
>sizes to be used in the forward and reverse directions, that's right.
>
>But the session request would convey this information in a new 
>Request-TW-Session command, since it would likely be static for the 
>entire session. This is the more usual way to operate TWAMP:
>telling the Server/Session-Reflector everything needed in advance of 
>Starting the test session.
>
>It's good that the value-added-octets proposal incorporates the 
>TWAMP-Control protocol in the latest version (01).
>
>So now, I wonder if the *many* new test session packet formats found 
>in the value-added-octets proposal could be simplified by moving 
>some information currently conveyed in the Test session (via 
>flags/fields) to the Control session?  In other words, this proposal 
>asks the Session-Reflector to perform many new operations, and 
>perhaps adoption will be wider if less processing is expected during 
>the test session. Of course, Request-TW-Session variables are static 
>for the life of the test session, if accepted.
>
>regards,
>Al
>
>_______________________________________________
>ippm mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>_______________________________________________
>ippm mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm