[ippm] Availability metrics in the IETF Network Slice
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 04 April 2022 14:04 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 1C2AA3A0A73; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 MCxhtmqt84u7; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 B0B533A0AD9; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id h11so13057936ljb.2; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 07:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3DgZvJcWFGP5gG1sm8L+7LWV/qC0p23PCySH9hUvWNg=; b=fmDHrJS/fxKvlOkkjtvT/uQJBvzhm6JMK4SoovpsW1+YVRbaC40vMZFnYZQmRcPl8R L0PSjab6wACIRQKb/BCO8MkL3WiqfXcQqt834ccnk4kvFshUJPOa2zXe0ISotLxaPq/N snAQ70CwhprhTudB6gkdcXSTw5V+ZZOI7/gibETj+4j+JSzojNEv1PLBHdTmov4E44kM Sv2qNlJLpE3o+TRgb977huNsU8oImi1QtpT0azd3ANVlz4IO6Av7+k1VLRRZbLYyfQwv uHQrSwd7sQv0tFHtPHQNuvJYsdF1czuGRhZAM41EFl/ks/87lpsMIlreoWYBnup7wgPl tXTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3DgZvJcWFGP5gG1sm8L+7LWV/qC0p23PCySH9hUvWNg=; b=MZO03DlR5xsUGRJ/Lc0QshsMNhbKsEUIrGt4iWIukw137S0DROQVN9jizbJJvBd29c WVeSVy0En1EzHLDcWiFbLE6rZCU0opouEOEljXNyW67REcrmvdK+MZTNe0xc1uEtFP/o w7Mlxe5YBIM8axZtvGoH2msOpTM5TS/iw9R9OYRo6YI/L6Z0PoXKHfFsBZmF+PHWLfTc xSnZ2F2UgAtZlIPB5Msjb494kQ0U/s0QEvxALIWD385tJsvQgrP1RUNbJcB1wh44AYvT zHMhUr+eidZZwMcqTNLUAE1sSryL+5dHUxolBxL/RlMAyTjVZeWtTy51mzvbqc3ZjZNa avuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533CUT+iWHfTI1d8A+NJ/ZKzavM/QgJC8LPf4Gy29BQyfi9iZNQc l5OOgikY8O9NC4J7cVHGhrI/0c2khQMqp9dy2bE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwWwXB/YHHpMBDwa5a+ivrDyCLMjDojy+iVrZ8LZ7tE8IjzIN0uQFvBoRl8ZS5p90BhnJWFDHaPIfu8fnCE9+c=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b94b:0:b0:249:6181:468a with SMTP id 11-20020a2eb94b000000b002496181468amr21761267ljs.113.1649081041477; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 07:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 07:03:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVAnW3vviEL53feo8Hx573W7sMkx+MK0_v+aWjeF2HZEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000aef8c105dbd4999d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/lxLxprThsyeWRcg0iX5Fnwvt63s>
Subject: [ippm] Availability metrics in the IETF Network Slice
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: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 14:04:08 -0000
Hi Adrian, et al, I've got a question about the relationship of performance metrics like packet loss ratio, packet delay, packet delay variation of an IETF Network Slice service (NSS), on one hand, and IETF NSS availability. I think that Section 4.1.1.1 considers all these metrics as Directly Measurable SLOs. I agree with such characterization in regard to loss and delay while I am not sure that that applies to the availability. The issue I have is that, as far as I know, there's no formal definition of the availability metric in the document and it seems that we've been using it in a colloquial way. A group of us started to work on a definition of the availability as a performance metric for a multi-SLO service <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mhmcsfh-ippm-pam/>. We had discussed this work at the IPPM WG meeting at IETF-113. I think that this work is relevant to the discussion of the IETF NSS availability. If that is the case, perhaps the characterization of the availability in Section 4.1.1.1 can be further enhanced with the reference to the draft-mhmcsfh-ippm-pam. I greatly appreciate your comments, questions, and suggestions on our work on Precision Availability Metrics. Regards, Greg PS. Attached, please find the presentation slides from the IPPM WG meeting.
- [ippm] Availability metrics in the IETF Network S… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Availability metrics in the IETF Netwo… John E Drake
- Re: [ippm] [Teas] Availability metrics in the IET… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] [Teas] Availability metrics in the IET… song.xueyan2
- Re: [ippm] Availability metrics in the IETF Netwo… Gyan Mishra