Re: [pm-dir] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt

"LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" <marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 30 May 2014 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pm-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E50F1A6EF8; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tv46FPfiksT7; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoemail2.alcatel.com (hoemail2.alcatel.com [192.160.6.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9711C1A026D; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by hoemail2.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s4U8Kg4Q005853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 30 May 2014 03:20:43 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s4U8KgEQ000582 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 May 2014 10:20:42 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.131]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:20:42 +0200
From: "LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" <marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt
Thread-Index: Ac96dCxQ7OAlmfDXT02hcVeTz06jFwBZ4Plg
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:20:42 +0000
Message-ID: <B30152B129674240ADF67727A967301408C6A1@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA5C7F328F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B30152B129674240ADF67727A967301408C6A1FR711WXCHMBA03zeu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pm-dir/jyrEPYl0o0-b_aSOFjtLczzVams
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 30 May 2014 04:39:44 -0700
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "pm-dir@ietf.org" <pm-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pm-dir] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt
X-BeenThere: pm-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate Discussion list <pm-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pm-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:pm-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir>, <mailto:pm-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:20:57 -0000

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your feedback.
See my comments below.

Marc

________________________________
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:56 PM
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Cc: Benoit Claise; pm-dir@ietf.org
Subject: [nvo3] PM-DIR Review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt

This is the PM-DIR review for draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt. I am the assigned PM-DIR reviewer for this I-D. This review refers only to performance metrics aspects

This I-D defines a framework for Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) and a reference model along with logical components required to design a NVO3 solution.


The I-D does not define performance metrics, so a RFC 6390 review does not apply.

Performance metrics are mentioned in one place in the document, in section 5.2.6 which deals with the interaction between overlays and underlays and the need to exchange information about performance in order to ensure that the overlays requirements can be met by the underlay paths. The metrics that are mentioned as examples belong to the IP metrics category (throughput, delay, loss, jitter). Mentioning the IPPM framework and even the relevant RFCs would have helped, especially as there is a need for standard and stable definitions and methods of measurement in order to allow for an exchange of information between layers.
Agreed. I suggest adding a reference to RFC2330 in the last sentence of section 4.2.6:

 "such as defined in [RFC2330]."



'Performance' is mentioned a few more times in the document, with no reference to performance metrics. For example in section 3.3 there is talk about 'adequate performance to VM applications'.  It is not clear what this exactly means - what are the metrics for measuring performance of VM applications and how are they determined as 'adequate' (or not).

Would "the expected Quality of Service" instead of "adequate performance" be acceptable?

A further reference to RFC6390 could also be provided.



In the other instances, the word 'performance"  is used in its general meaning.



Clarifying these issues would be very useful IMO, because the overall functionality of the overlays networks depends among other on the sufficient allocation of resources in the underlays. The metrics and methods of measuring performance need to be clearly articulated for this purpose.



Regards,



Dan