IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology

marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Wed, 24 July 2013 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A3021F9A51 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7rR34-IjKNBP for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A95321F91B7 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id B65FA894D5C for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:22:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [163.117.203.132] (unknown [163.117.203.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcelo@smtp02.uc3m.es) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C441894D56 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:22:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51F0297A.7040407@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:22:34 +0200
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lmap@ietf.org
References: <51ED59B3.3040701@cisco.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA1287FC5D@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <51EFEC2A.9010701@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51EFEC2A.9010701@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelistedACL 131 matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (smtp02.uc3m.es); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:22:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-20036.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--13.695-7.0-31-1
X-imss-scan-details: No--13.695-7.0-31-1
Subject: Re: [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:22:59 -0000

El 24/07/13 17:00, Paul Aitken escribió:
> Dan,
>
>> The single controller (for a given MA) key assumption is not 
>> mentioned by draft-akhter-lmap-framework. Why?
>
> The only key assumption (in the LMAP WG charter) is "that the 
> measurement system is under the control of a single organization".
>
> Given that assumption, we don't see the necessity of restricting an MA 
> to a single controller.
> This allows for redundant / backup controllers, or a controller cloud 
> (thinking of rserpool, eg).


Right, i would express that each MA is under one controller at any point 
in time. It can change controller (i.e. backup) but i think having more 
than one controller controlling simoultaneously one MA introduces a lot 
of complexity and i am not sure it is worth it.

MAkes sense?

Regards, marcelo

>
> P.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> lmap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email