RE: [ippm] Network Benchmarking Considerations Draft
"Robert Holley" <rholley@cisco.com> Tue, 17 February 2004 15:54 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08807 for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:54:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7Xs-0004ba-Rd; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:54:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7X4-0004Y3-Az for ippm@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:53:10 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08680 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:53:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7X1-0003lA-00 for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:53:07 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At7W7-0003gT-00 for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:52:12 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7VD-0003Rq-00 for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:51:18 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2004 07:50:43 -0800
Received: from mcfeely.cisco.com (mcfeely.cisco.com [161.44.11.34]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i1HFoghu027361 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:50:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from RHOLLEYW2K1 (rtp-vpn1-190.cisco.com [10.82.224.190]) by mcfeely.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17190)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id KAA08578 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:50:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Holley <rholley@cisco.com>
To: ippm@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [ippm] Network Benchmarking Considerations Draft
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:50:42 -0500
Message-ID: <AOEEKIJDFDEJBIPPDENFMEFOFJAA.rholley@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.53.0402120848230.3460@russpc.Whitehouse.intra>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ippm-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org ?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org >
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Russ, You draft is very interesting. I haven't seen much response on this list unless you've recieved some direct response. There is some work being done on building measurement methodologies that combine multiple parts. For example, the IPPM group is working on a "IP part". It sounds like you are working on an "OSPF part". And there are others working on other parts (e.g. "SS7 parts" etc.) I haven't found a group yet that is officially working on how the parts fit together. There is recent movement in the industry by the FCC to start "investigating" how IP networks fit into the national telecommuncations picture from a regulatory perspective. So, I expect that an understanding of multiple "parts" will be required to get the full picture. regards Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Russ > White > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:53 AM > To: ippm@ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] Network Benchmarking Considerations Draft > > > Y'all: > > A while back, I posted Considerations in Benchmarking Routing Protocol > Network Convergence, draft-white-network-benchmark-01.txt, to > BMWG. This is > slated to be an individual contribution/informational RFC, since > it doesn't > appear to fit within BMWG's purview, nor any other WG. I've > recently posted > the -01 version of this draft, but it's probably stuck in a queue > someplace, and it's identical to the -00 version, other than date changes, > anyway. > > So, I'd like to get any comments on this I can. I've asked Alex (the > Routing AD) to place it into last call as an individual > submission/informational at this point. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-white-network-benchmark-00.txt > > Thanks! > > :-) > > Russ > > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
- [ippm] Network Benchmarking Considerations Draft Russ White
- RE: [ippm] Network Benchmarking Considerations Dr… Robert Holley