IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] WG interest in Multicast performance monitoring drafts

<Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de> Wed, 25 August 2010 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924333A67F7 for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:45:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4WutABE+BCuV for <ippm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E883A6407 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2010 08:46:20 +0200
Received: from S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.12]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:46:19 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:46:16 +0200
Message-ID: <151C164FE2E066418D8D44D0801543A50490E31E@S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <4C516B9A.1080502@ripe.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ippm] WG interest in Multicast performance monitoring drafts
thread-index: AcsvFKZffATBuM9qTeO/Nu7VmeY58wVCv7cA
References: <9FCB2ACF14591E4DAF4180D4010E3618A777ECCD07@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local><9FCB2ACF14591E4DAF4180D4010E3618A7786D7685@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local><4C4FF248.1020109@ripe.net> <4C516B9A.1080502@ripe.net>
From: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de
To: henk@ripe.net, alberto.tempiabonda@telecomitalia.it
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2010 06:46:19.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[3963EA50:01CB4421]
Cc: matt@internet2.edu, ippm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] WG interest in Multicast performance monitoring drafts
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Aug 2010 06:45:55 -0000

Henk, 

I just had a look at

> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-mboned-multicast-realstream-monitor-02

The draft proposes to apply Y.1731 methodology to monitor multicast groups. While the loss measurement is active/passive, the delay measurement is clearly active. I'd suggest the authors to read RFC5644. I didn't compare details but would expect the following:
- differences in packet loss measurement between draft-liu and RFC5644.
- no serious difference in delay measurement methodology between draft-liu 
  and RFC5644 (meaning that the draft-liu delay measurement method is 
  identical with or a subset of RFC5644). 

Regards

Ruediger

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email