Re: [mpls-tp] draft-boutros-mpls-tp-performance

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 05 April 2010 03:34 UTC

Return-Path: <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0E83A67AC for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 20:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.616, BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hc-CM9yYM-0B for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 20:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f202.google.com (mail-yx0-f202.google.com [209.85.210.202]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAFC3A67A6 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 20:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxe40 with SMTP id 40so465898yxe.31 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Z1M7ErKTGgJgcB/4+EnS5q/HjjS7/9YY2xwJRz/gAKo=; b=Js69pZ4pgwsPWBZ1Ifg4CqObWJRFT3cF4SmHBP6pWrmcOcM13OWFvIncnf/tozt/O5 SZUASFtPEkPc4zYGQELcvbRuOkLtbb6RHX11l9YjOo1+DdhDkKWvekUIOT2MGgKArhP/ +Hirl6J1yVaUYk9TUNbVmF3HJZ5sjQ64CdEiA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=xYBI1FHuq+UTpnSD39S2drBEDLkv1rcNjEAbH6Ixy+n4PSCd+9lOzwkxo7Sb7pdAXN mlaD3qmP2Nz+TSkF3xPyabtr0JKp05IwzSzQsKW4yGtM/KkiFi/Ba+R61tSUWyPn8o6r HVe4XXUBW/b0/2HQhFsYXtssatQyI2iEdelvw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.147.9 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 20:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <k2i77ead0ec1004042032p4b229211s5c04155cf600102b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <k2i77ead0ec1004042032p4b229211s5c04155cf600102b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:34:50 -0700
Received: by 10.150.120.25 with SMTP id s25mr6061433ybc.27.1270438491071; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <p2z77ead0ec1004042034qb454824k90c81c1399cffd6@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: msiva@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] draft-boutros-mpls-tp-performance
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 03:34:56 -0000

Resending as DWards Cisco address was used.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed some interesting things in the performance monitoring draft.
> The most interesting thing is point 4 I have noted.
>
> 1. The draft may be trying to measure packet loss but it assumes the
> performance messages cannot be lost. This seems like a very
> interesting assmption.
>
> 2. On the same lines if we assume the above not true, we may need to
> define retransmits from senders and no/ ACK NACK retransmits.
>
> 3. We also need to define how to identify duplicate messages and how
> duplicate packets are to be treated.
>
> 4. I also notice to measure packet loss we use the sequence number in
> the packets themselves:
>
> To measure packet loss I guess the receiver looks at the gaps in the
> sequence numbers. However there are basic issues with this.
>
> Sender sends packet 1 to 100. Receiver receives packet 1 to 80.
> Receiver does not know 100 packets are going to be sent, so it says
> packet loss is 0 even though there are 20 packets that are lost.
>
> 5. I assume it would be good to state that the sequence number of the
> first packet is 1. Also if there are wrap arounds what needs to be
> done. In my view we should use 64 bit values for sequence numbers, it
> is like a packet counter.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
>