Re: [ippm] draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

At 10:53 AM 4/7/2011, Steve Baillargeon wrote:
>...One aspect we discussed briefly is the possibility to add a new 
>field in the TWAMP value-added padding octets that will allow for a 
>different train size in the reverse direction.

Well, this separate proposal was to allow different test packet sizes
to be used in the forward and reverse directions, that's right.

But the session request would convey this information in a new
Request-TW-Session command, since it would likely be static for
the entire session. This is the more usual way to operate TWAMP:
telling the Server/Session-Reflector everything needed in advance
of Starting the test session.

It's good that the value-added-octets proposal incorporates the
TWAMP-Control protocol in the latest version (01).

So now, I wonder if the *many* new test session packet formats
found in the value-added-octets proposal could be simplified by
moving some information currently conveyed in the
Test session (via flags/fields) to the Control session?  In other words,
this proposal asks the Session-Reflector to perform many new
operations, and perhaps adoption will be wider if less processing
is expected during the test session. Of course, Request-TW-Session
variables are static for the life of the test session, if accepted.

regards,
Al