RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt - availability
"Fardid, Reza" <RFardid@Covad.COM> Tue, 02 May 2006 19:28 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb0YB-0001XY-UG; Tue, 02 May 2006 15:28:47 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb0YA-0001VB-Ok for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 15:28:46 -0400
Received: from panorama.covad.com ([66.134.72.15]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb0Y9-0002cM-An for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 15:28:46 -0400
Received: from zanxmb00a.cc-ntd1.covad.com (zanxmb00a.corp.covad.com [172.16.2.75]) by panorama.Covad.COM (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA06429; Tue, 2 May 2006 12:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZANEVS03.cc-ntd1.covad.com ([172.16.2.84]) by zanxmb00a.cc-ntd1.covad.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 May 2006 12:27:17 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt - availability
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:28:00 -0700
Message-ID: <DE218759AAF51B45B534A59F5166425405A2B734@ZANEVS03.cc-ntd1.covad.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt - availability
Thread-Index: AcZuA+yDBe8JyXGdSPyOtKUDEEPJrQADiruA
From: "Fardid, Reza" <RFardid@Covad.COM>
To: stanislav shalunov <shalunov@internet2.edu>, "Schmoll, Carsten" <Carsten.Schmoll@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2006 19:27:17.0800 (UTC) FILETIME=[6CAD2A80:01C66E1E]
X-Immunity-Tally: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1
Cc: ippm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org >
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org >
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org
Carsten, Stanislav, ITU-T Y.1540 has defined "loss ratio > X%" as its IP service availability metric, with X being service-specific, per Y.1541. I think deriving connecitivity from one or more IPPM metrics will leave gaps that you identified. However, service availability lends itself to a less ambiguous defintion based on one metric, if we cross-reference the above. Regards, Reza -----Original Message----- From: stanislav shalunov [mailto:shalunov@internet2.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 9:17 AM To: Schmoll, Carsten Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt - availability "Schmoll, Carsten" <Carsten.Schmoll@fokus.fraunhofer.de> writes: > Technically there is not much of a difference between > "delay to X < inf" and "connectivity with X exists" With current definitions, delay < +infinity is equivalent to loss < 50% The only connectivity metric I see as compatible with the connectivity RFC is loss < 100%. How could we square loss < 50% with RFC2678? > I would suggest to talk about *connectivity*, since *availability* > to my ears sounds much like 'service availability' which is an > application-level metric, and on this level there is no clear > relation like the above. ``Connectivity'' is consistent with RFC2678, so, if there are no arguments against it, it should probably be the default. > Still I think connectivity deserves an extra report entry, > since it might be "FALSE" for different reasons which cannot > be derived from delay etc. For a user the reasons are of interest. I don't understand. If, as you seem to be proposing, we make ``no connectivity'' == ``delay < +infinity'', it's derived from delay. If we make it ``loss < 100%'', it's derived from loss. When would connectivity *not* be derived from the five metrics already in there? > Think about connectivity *to the Internet* as a desired metric; Any measurement is tied to specific endpoints. I don't expect connectivity to the Internet can be meaningfully defined in a way that will endure. > this can be FALSE due to a lot of things, e.g. > the 1st L2 link being down, DHCP, DNS, routing, firewall, or > gateway failure. > > Could the metric "connectivity to the Internet" be something more > than binary and could it give a user a value stating either > "OK", or some value indicating ''how far'' connectivity is from being > OK? Such a metric would essentially require an entire troubleshooting algorithm. This is way beyond the very limited summarization of measurement results I'm trying to do with this draft... > If connectivity is just a binary metric then I think it could be > derived from the other reported metrics (if we just talk about > Layer3 connectivity) as long as the destination parameter is the > same. Is there any need to report it separately, then? The argument against doing so is: Presence of derivative metrics enlarges the set of metrics needlessly and violates metric orthogonality. > What do you think about a finer granularity for connectivity? I think if it's defined, it should be a separate effort. (It would probably also be a larger effort than anything IPPM has done so far...) -- Stanislav Shalunov http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/ Al your Qaeda are belong to US. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Al Morton
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… stanislav shalunov
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Schmoll, Carsten
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… stanislav shalunov
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Schmoll, Carsten
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Fardid, Reza
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Al Morton
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… stanislav shalunov
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… stanislav shalunov
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… stanislav shalunov
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Schmoll, Carsten
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting - availa… Al Morton
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting - availa… stanislav shalunov
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… stanislav shalunov
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… stanislav shalunov
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… stanislav shalunov
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Al Morton
- Re: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… stanislav shalunov
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Schmoll, Carsten
- RE: [ippm] draft-shalunov-ippm-reporting-00.txt -… Geib, Ruediger