IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lmap] Which performance metrics for LMAP?

"Bugenhagen, Michael K" <Michael.K.Bugenhagen@centurylink.com> Thu, 07 March 2013 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.K.Bugenhagen@centurylink.com>
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 C80AD21F8C7C for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:16:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_26=0.6]
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 e1CQEQQgYQrA for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:16:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from suomp64i.qwest.com (suomp64i.qwest.com [155.70.16.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0BD21F8C55 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:16:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lxomavmpc030.qintra.com (lxomavmpc030.qintra.com [151.117.207.30]) by suomp64i.qwest.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r27MGNHI028966 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:16:23 -0600 (CST)
Received: from lxomavmpc030.qintra.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDED1E0049; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:16:18 -0600 (CST)
Received: from suomp61i.qintra.com (unknown [10.6.10.61]) by lxomavmpc030.qintra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5328F1E0060; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:16:18 -0600 (CST)
Received: from suomp61i.qintra.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by suomp61i.qintra.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r27MGH0h022746; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:16:18 -0600 (CST)
Received: from vodcwhubex502.ctl.intranet (vodcwhubex502.qintra.com [151.117.206.28]) by suomp61i.qintra.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r27MGH34022742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:16:17 -0600 (CST)
Received: from PODCWMBXEX505.ctl.intranet ([fe80::f87e:fe44:ad72:b610]) by vodcwhubex502.ctl.intranet ([2002:9775:ce1c::9775:ce1c]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:16:17 -0600
From: "Bugenhagen, Michael K" <Michael.K.Bugenhagen@centurylink.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [lmap] Which performance metrics for LMAP?
Thread-Index: AQHOGybaVh0e7cNwrUuMBtZyDyvaL5iazHk4
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:16:17 +0000
Message-ID: <FB3C2704-00A1-4584-9717-DB464555AEAF@centurylink.com>
References: <513879B5.8030609@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <513879B5.8030609@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FB3C270400A145849717DB464555AEAFcenturylinkcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lmap] Which performance metrics for LMAP?
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: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:16:25 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email