Re: [lmap] Which performance metrics for LMAP?

agree with this,

also, i think the work of lmap is on the Controller-MA and MA-Collector interface (MA = MEasurement Agent)
for instance, Controller tells MA "Run test X to MA-2 every hour and report results to Collector-5 once per day"
"test X" is defined in a registry. IPPM will hopefully be re-chartered to define a registry of IPPM tests.
but I can see sometimes you might want "test X" to refer to some non-IPPM test - possibly another stds organisation could define such a registry?

phil
________________________________
From: lmap-bounces@ietf.org [lmap-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bugenhagen, Michael K [Michael.K.Bugenhagen@centurylink.com]
Sent: 07 March 2013 22:16
To: Benoit Claise
Cc: lmap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lmap] Which performance metrics for LMAP?

Benoit,

       I think that the requirement to"future proof" the test framework in order to ensure it will support any future test we throw at it requires that the test framework be able to support both service commissioning (Throughput) type tests, as well as other SLA like tracking tests such as Twamp and the Ethernet OAM, and even service level testing.    So essentially they should all fit inside the framework

M

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:28 AM, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com<mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:

Dear all,

Another clarifying question: I'm not too sure which performance metric types LMAP targets.
draft-linsner-lmap-use-cases-00 mentions:

   It is assumed that measurement
   tests run by OTT providers would only include the metrics associated
   with layer 3 and up

The different drafts use different terms: service, end user experience, quality of experience.
Does Quality of Experience imply performance metrics per application, per 5 tuple (IP addresses, ports, protocol), per DCSP?
Or do we want to stay at layer 3 performance metrics, typically IPPM type of metrics?
If the latter, then LMAP is about large scale deployment of IPPM, right?

While I fully understand the business needs for "and up" in "include the metrics associated with layer 3 and up", let's not boil the ocean.
Performance Metrics at Other Layer (PMOL<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pmol/charter/>), a concluded WG, tried and it proved to be difficult.

Some more discussions, on the mailing list or during the BoF, on this topic would be appreciated.

Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
lmap mailing list
lmap@ietf.org<mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap