Re: [lmap] LMAP framework issue #1 User-initiated Measurement Tasks

marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Wed, 04 September 2013 07:30 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 1CC0511E817D for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 00:30:13 -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 BsRs5IX3B6Kb for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 00:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15EFC11E8183 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 00:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EDAACD07E1 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:30:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from dummyhost34.it.uc3m.es (dummyhost25.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcelo@smtp01.uc3m.es) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35772CB7811 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:30:05 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5226E17E.5060009@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:30:06 +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/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lmap@ietf.org
References: <A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D3FF9411B9D@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D3FF9411B9D@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelistedACL 138 matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (smtp01.uc3m.es); Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:30:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-20126.005
Subject: Re: [lmap] LMAP framework issue #1 User-initiated Measurement Tasks
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, 04 Sep 2013 07:30:13 -0000

So, my concern here is that in the first option, it seems that the user 
initiated tests can be controlled by the ISP and the ISP could be aware 
fo what tests the user is trying to do and react accordingly (suppose 
the ISP usually caps some type of traffic and when it realizes the user 
is trying to test for the capacity, it opens the cap).

The second option, i think it is the way to go, but as you wrote it it 
reads a bit weak. I woudl rather a stronger wording, like a MUST or at 
least a SHOULD (i mean, the user initiated measurement function MUST be 
availabel in the MA)

regards, marcelo


El 03/09/13 18:58, philip.eardley@bt.com escribió:
>
> We’ve now started creating an LMAP framework doc that merges 3 I-Ds 
> (terminology and the 2 framework docs) – hoping it could be the basis 
> for a WG doc – as mentioned in Berlin.
>
> One section will be about proposed constraints /assumptions – 
> extending 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eardley-lmap-framework-02#section-3
>
> I’m going to send a series of emails to try and capture where I think 
> the discussion got to in Berlin &/or propose text for the I-D &/or 
> generate discussion on open issues.
>
> Constraint: User-initiated Measurement Tasks out of scope of LMAP WG
>
> We expect LMAP & IPPM functionality to be used for user-initiated 
> Measurement Tasks, but the WG will not define how. There are at least 
> two ways user-initiation could happen, in outline
>
> * a user could somehow (perhaps via a webpage) request the ISP- (or 
> regulator-) run measurement system to test his/her line. The ISP (or 
> regulator) Controller would then send an Instruction to the MA in the 
> usual LMAP way. The Measurement Results could be returned back via the 
> webpage. Note that a user can’t directly initiate a Measurement Task 
> on an ISP- (or regulator-) controlled MA in their home
>
> * a user could deploy their own measurement system, with their own MA, 
> Controller and Collector (possibly with all three functions in the 
> same box). The user may also want to report Measurement Results to a 
> third party. One possible situation is that the home contains a 
> user-controlled MA and an ISP-controlled MA; then the test traffic of 
> one MA is treated by the other MA just like any other user traffic. 
> Note that a single MA is instructed by a single Controller and is only 
> in one measurement system.
>
> For further details see 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap/current/msg00714.html and 
> related messages.
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks
>
> phil
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> lmap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap