Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 10 July 2019 23:01 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 7C0241201C9; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 DpFixtk4LwgD; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (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 27A961200C7; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id b17so2708914lff.7; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LLiOkSRrYb4ERnybPw7RV0OZ2isCDXkQqpWF49tcFfY=; b=A22x/9s741g5Lx57zKs3NwZZzGpjyYf5pRV0bcH/tH0jpTJOya1n9rWgpsN+6gYKxn M4n1qPzxNfKO+Zy+uI4KQ9vxAyGCgen1rETu6J9a421qgkIDIbXkAFuhMrl5XExOkYme VMIl8rD+K85lsvt/VVk/8mDUDbSU/sRKz+vMHa9+KyeveYhi+8sKcobBJCJaDtQtYePo hfb0N1cshncM0DyBnqb1Bfx5deM0MBrmWHpuq4UQIbv7+9IHXN8j8FHFEgSh9dBwYrWm mF3fICw/32GvVZ/Q48bgOvAnS6G8SMkPiEigK2q0v8VMTf1MpuOdyduWdiObCOWuOYx9 +dNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LLiOkSRrYb4ERnybPw7RV0OZ2isCDXkQqpWF49tcFfY=; b=LPHILGLETAVTJhag/b1njPqlazCvji7vvdJ6aP8pSFje+q0EDUACJK/qns2F5vZBOG jpCiOtG4QGenO02mn1nlRgH5HYDlaBrQsL9S18fyXHa8cqFX8HUTyhrtwcERhd6ZkT61 renrtnNuKEt6asgoUS2cfJSiJDBGgayKhUeYSpQoiF7CjFIY2kckgPfHFGy61dMlq1JP SczWtYy0IzuHIshnMq8LnSdEhO1X9gTcfq3ipzcsQrYPE7xqQ7Ez1rLitWBplaeE401l waQiQgn67N0ZdGe/9lCKaYNj6jxqsNqRAyRNwqH9fcQy99m+vimfhm4oDsZInYun2CT0 /eMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV4GjYTsrp5TnDbJOehNVv2NggAAMAFMNwoUPRO9yzp06WMhNq3 2pBDCgZcVWkRekj4XICMTxiWER/7pUX+QPXAgZE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwW4m9ixbLA+RxDSMRhpp/kcZVCvy6K7+DqUb3pbtS3u40Lf7nGlpV7hiEu+Zqp7Cx4125I9bwNml8iY7TLcRk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:48f:: with SMTP id v15mr82101lfq.37.1562799671230; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B617B303-6EBE-4E3B-AE5C-1438FF1C5D7F@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmVEmKQu=LGp9eVT+x5e01LCSk_A4tQD=RE8Ett-R35BVg@mail.gmail.com> <11938018-8A65-483B-8176-A6E1C2A265A3@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmX=Jx2yXrMXu4Y2VKX36iKphymb1Hkyfy0XhPGFmsUGzQ@mail.gmail.com> <B8047CA0-2F5E-48F8-9BE4-3FA41D742F12@kuehlewind.net> <CA+RyBmXPCe7TZQqPgsKsVnifZDG8O8wGafDn-nzYfGpx2OiaXQ@mail.gmail.com> <F167C330-76F4-48FC-B720-415CA190239C@broadcom.com> <CA+RyBmVtfXcwqu1RH-1JXnhpCZcbGgm30ubKGctUPnLNJCgVZQ@mail.gmail.com> <F7F3E842-01B1-4DFD-BFA3-D9DDBCED7D79@broadcom.com> <CA+RyBmUcMEjOwCt_DjsbYbB1zSTx9d5_Va2kcmxpFUQmXQ7gvA@mail.gmail.com> <A8DD6099-2473-4DBD-B592-57B2B1C67FCA@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A8DD6099-2473-4DBD-B592-57B2B1C67FCA@cisco.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:00:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmX=GizBEpQmscTPZp1bFGfZDRLTLTSvGpaG1YMmW3suSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>
Cc: Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000424726058d5ba77d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/YPUl696v0BHn2pJLhZVACNiax38>
Subject: Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 23:01:17 -0000
Hi Rakesh, yes, you're right. I've responded to your thoughtful questions but was late to upload the updated version of the draft. Will do that as soon as I can. Regards, Greg On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:57 AM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > I do not see the procedure you mentioned below in the draft. There is only > one sentence for TLV in the draft as below. > > > > And if any of TLV-based STAMP extensions are used, the TWAMP Light > Session-Reflector will view them as Packet Padding field. > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > Thanks, > > Rakesh > > > > > > *From: *ippm <ippm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Mirsky < > gregimirsky@gmail.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:17 PM > *To: *Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com> > *Cc: *"draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org>, > IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, > IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp > > > > Hi Shahram, > > excellent question, thank you! > > When using STAMP extensions, STAMP Session-Sender must use the basic STAMP > test packet followed by a TLV. A STAMP Session-Reflector is expected to > compare the value in the Length field of the UDP header with the length of > the basic STAMP test packet (44 octets). If the difference is larger than > the length of the UDP header, then the Session-Reflector should process > STAMP TLVs following the basic STAMP test packet. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com> > wrote: > > Thanks Greg, > > > > How does the receiver distinguish between TWAMP and STAMP if they use the > same UDP Port number? > > > > Thx > > Shahram > > > > On Jul 8, 2019, at 4:14 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail..com > <gregimirsky@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi Shahram, > > thank you for the review and questions. Please find my answers below > tagged GIM>>. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:02 PM Shahram Davari <shahram.davari@broadcom.com> > wrote: > > HI Greg > > > > I read your draft and have the following questions: > > > > 1) Does it require any UDP/TCP port number or it reuses the one from > TWAMP? if it reuses from TWAMP then how does the receiver differentiate > between TWAMP and STAMP? > > GIM>> STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the > OWAMP-Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port (RFC 8545) as the default destination > UDP port number. STAMP may use destination UDP port number from the Dynamic > and/or Private Ports range 49152-65535. > > 2) What is the benefit of STAMO compared to TWAMP? > > GIM>> The work was driven by several observations, among them: > > - challenges in achieving interoperability among implementations of > TWAMP-Light; > - industry interest in standardizing performance monitoring in IP > broadband access networks (TR-390); > - improve extensibility of IP performance monitoring tool to support > measurements, testing of new metrics and parameters, e.g., consistency of > CoS in the network. > > 3) Why is there so much MBZ byte? > > GIM>> It was agreed to make the symmetrical size of STAMP test packets the > default. RFC 6038 defined it for TWAMP and TR-390 requires it to be > supported by TWAMP-Light implementations. > > > > Thx > > Shahram > > > > On Jul 8, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Mirja, > > thank you for the suggested text. The new paragraph now reads as: > > Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully > estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST > be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session. > [RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load > for UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of test traffic > depends on the test objective, it is highly recommended to stay in > the limits as provided in [RFC8085]. > > > > If it is acceptable, I'd like to upload the updated version of > draft-ieff-ippm-stamp before the cut-off deadline. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:58 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> > wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > See below. > > > On 8. Jul 2019, at 16:54, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Mirja, > > thank you for the reference to RFC 8085. I agree that the document is > very much relevant and a reference to RFC 8085 in STAMP is useful. While > reading Section 3.1.3 I came to think that the discussion and guidance in > other sections of RFC 8085, particularly, Section 3.1.5 Implications of RTT > and Loss Measurements on Congestion Control. Would adding the reference to > that section in the new text proposed for the Security Considerations > section work? I'll put RFC 8085 as Informational reference as it is BCP. > > NEW TEXT: > > Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully > > estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST > > be thoroughly analyzed using [RFC8085] and its Section 3.1.5 in > > particular before launching the test session... > > > Not sure if “using” is the right word but otherwise fine for me. Or you > could have a separate sentence like: > > “RFC8085 section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling network load for > UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of test traffic depends on the > test objective, it is highly recommended to say in the limits as provided > in RFC8085.” > > Or something similar… > > BCP is the same maturity level as PS. So it wouldn’t be a downref. > However, I think having this as informational ref is fine. > > Mirja > > > > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:37 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> > wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > Thanks a lot for you reply. Changes are good. I wonder if it would be > useful to provide a reference to RFC8085 because it has a lot of > information about congestion control of UDP based traffic? It recommends to > send not more than 1 packet per 3 seconds (if RTT is unknown). I guess it > doesn’t make sense to require this for testing traffic, however, it could > maybe still be a good recommendation? What do you think? > > > > Also I’ve just resend my review to the IPPM list, as I unfortunately > cc’ed only the IPPM chairs instead of the whole list. Can you resend you > proposed changes to the list, so other people are aware of these changes. > Sorry for the unconvience. > > > > Mirja > > > > > > > On 6. Jul 2019, at 17:46, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mirja, > > > thank you for your thorough review, very pointed and helpful comments. > Please find my responses in-lined and tagged GIM>>. Attached the diff. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Greg > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> > wrote: > > > Hi authors, hi all, > > > > > > Thanks for this well-written document and very good shepherd write-up! > I would like discuss one point before I start IETF last call. > > > > > > I believe this document should say something about network load and > congestion (control). OWAMP and TWAMP discuss quite a bit sender > scheduling, however, as this is a simplified version, so I think it could > at least be good to put a waring in this document that packet sending > should be somehow rate limited. I know it might be hard to provide more > concrete guidance but at least having some discussion or warning in this > document could be good. > > > GIM>> Thank you for your suggestion. Security Considerations section > points to the fact that STAMP does not include control and management > components: > > > Because of the control > > > and management of a STAMP test being outside the scope of this > > > specification only the more general requirement is set: > > > adding the new text here: > > > Load of STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be carefully > > > estimated, and the possible impact on the existing services MUST > > > be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test session. > > > > > > > > > Another comment: You only say at the very end that a certain UDP port > is used, which implies that STAMP runs over UDP. However, I think you > should mention at the very beginning that this is a UDP-based protocol. > Just to make things crystal clear. > > > GIM>> Adding the reference to "UDP transport" into the first sentence > of Theory of Operations section: > > > STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport > toward STAMP Session-Reflector. > > > > > > Mirja > > > > > > P.S.: > > > Nit: s/This document defines active performance measurement test > protocol/ This document defines an active performance measurement test > protocol/ > > > -> “an” missing > > > GIM>> Thank you. Done. > > > <Diff_ draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-06.txt - > draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-07...txt.html> > > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > > > > > >
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Shahram Davari
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Shahram Davari
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Shahram Davari
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [ippm] AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-… Civil, Ruth
- Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-… Civil, Ruth
- Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-… Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-… Henrik Nydell
- Re: [ippm] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-… Rakesh Gandhi