Re: [v6ops] [ippm] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-pdm-dest-option-04.txt

Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com> Mon, 28 October 2013 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFE811E8293 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.136
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.138, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=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 Z08lIUVmkTV2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm13-vm7.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm13-vm7.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.63.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F3311E828D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [216.39.60.165] by nm13.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2013 17:18:34 -0000
Received: from [216.39.60.232] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2013 17:18:34 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1003.access.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2013 17:18:34 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 573782.81346.bm@omp1003.access.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 33934 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Oct 2013 17:18:33 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1382980713; bh=rXSK8sW+3/5tdnyY0Sc8auV9s0yAGCkwsuBtqJmFW/A=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SM4NOdNvVxNHda879K2Amj/aMc01mozea4IvVNWrqYJ06m/lAM+O57tupP91OFQ0Dr3Hb5/2X5KIhq6qvRKfOlxUXV2TWREjtUov2wCnlcFmMycrTCTH/CoFKiA3/dpyYCLXQCjoK1HSDiKd4CDBqAAMCYvLK4gB+EYA/AePKqA=
X-YMail-OSG: USF1x1wVM1lqW_gBckIC_LJIXQA4iP2lj3vtUpC5f.TD5Cv WGZYTTSFbmhu_ifAK2fO6IR3gclr8ESV4X05Z5JsRCOyKYswGVAFJprWvEVo PDZaqsftfM9V_Bf.tN8HDOok51CkgqkpX3WuNC5ENZck3VxRpTBiTEeKaN3I d0fxvLK9nR9nJ6SWrBX.SXbSkudpu63hG3nQTVnoP5IxOot5aIsz_TrOPGJ. qdDES5Qkf1F0qE2vw6mQEnsESYo0wtmPqsfmMRsZNaXArY3S4sxTC.dqN6xw CoAL4.8ERCXWflpMQ2Imd3c.agkJQDbrrh0qL31ARHcCXoqOs0DxZybDNJEH NJjZD3FN1wFGKv_fnicu9XfKI2Nab_QV7mN45QRXMKACed0DmXzDK8azfArw y7oUYFs36TYzJbslMFwgvKY7CN_oMEK_L.YfC2.KQS0BvS2fYmOYTYLMpeba 0HFiy9baTLNqcxxpOIeJ8IDksfpYnfR8RqVqIlrbRlJ0ZWdAMQWchs6bjFdj qiLhKZ2R_020HnmmnM5TjE0qVpFprMhG1v9AZYkQl95qdkfKYI2ybgHywSNF 9PApXtRRXTXIjuRJ3sGYYYPN0Mf02RKDPcH3U3_WgvA7bQGZzN5MlNvtQsaF ed5gThAd35Dql2blZvUu0W0slHsMkgUB04G_59f_swTr7iLyeF0ikiv_3ivh lX8iN
Received: from [24.130.37.147] by web2805.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:18:33 PDT
X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, Sm9hY2hpbSwKwqAKVGhhbmtzIHZlcnkgbXVjaC4gwqBXZSB3aWxsIHRha2UgYSBsb29rIGFuZCByZXZpc2UgdGhlIGRyYWZ0cyBhY2NvcmRpbmdseS4KCk5hbGluaSBFbGtpbnMKSW5zaWRlIFByb2R1Y3RzLCBJbmMuCig4MzEpIDY1OS04MzYwCnd3dy5pbnNpZGV0aGVzdGFjay5jb20KCgoKX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KIEZyb206IEpvYWNoaW0gRmFiaW5pIDxKb2FjaGltLkZhYmluaUB0dXdpZW4uYWMuYXQ.ClRvOiAiQWNrZXJtYW5uLCBNaWNoYWVsIiA8TUFja2VybWFubkBiY2IBMAEBAQE-
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.160.587
References: <20131017032024.5051.20799.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1381980305.36254.YahooMailNeo@web2803.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5263C783.1080001@globis.net> <1382396300.22968.YahooMailNeo@web2801.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <526616C4.40304@globis.net> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CA88734@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <52695E3A.9090406@globis.net> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CA8A36F@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <526AAC81.3050402@globis.net> <4FC37E442D05A748896589E468752CAA0CA8B1CD@PWN401EA160.ent.corp.bcbsm.com> <526E936D.1000404@tuwien.ac.at>
Message-ID: <1382980713.24463.YahooMailNeo@web2805.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
To: Joachim Fabini <Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at>, "Ackermann, Michael" <MAckermann@bcbsm.com>, Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
In-Reply-To: <526E936D.1000404@tuwien.ac.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1619178251-1261008546-1382980713=:24463"
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [ippm] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-pdm-dest-option-04.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:18:43 -0000

Joachim,
 
Thanks very much.  We will take a look and revise the drafts accordingly.

Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
(831) 659-8360
www.insidethestack.com



________________________________
 From: Joachim Fabini <Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at>
To: "Ackermann, Michael" <MAckermann@bcbsm.com>om>; Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> 
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>rg>; 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>rg>; "bill.jouris@insidethestack.com" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>om>; "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org> 
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ippm] [v6ops] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-pdm-dest-option-04.txt
 

Mike, Nalini,

please have a look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2330#section-10 
and/or http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5905 for a detailed technical 
discussion on time issues/NTP. With respect to these parameters, the 
term "in sync" which you use is _purely_ theoretical and must be 
consolidated to a technical specification in terms of RFC2330 clock 
parameters (accuracy, resolution, etc.) to be usable in practice. I 
think this is what Ray meant. Stratum per se (in the NTP sense) is imho 
misleading/useless as a quality indicator.

regards
Joachim


Am 28.10.2013 17:13, schrieb Ackermann, Michael:
> Hey Ray
>
> It appears your experiences with Time Synch and Stratum levels are different than mine.   In the older Telecom and Voice World Stratum was a great indicator of clocking accuracy.   Still is as far as I know.   This was always true with or without NTP in the picture.
> And whenever we had two Stratum 0's or 1's, be they the same or different masters, they WOULD be in synch.   We never had a situation that was an exception to that, with or without NTP.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Hunter [mailto:v6ops@globis.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 1:38 PM
> To: Ackermann, Michael
> Cc: Nalini Elkins; v6ops WG; 6man WG; ippm@ietf.org; bill.jouris@insidethestack.com; keven.haining@usbank.com
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-pdm-dest-option-04.txt
>
>> Ackermann, Michael <mailto:MAckermann@bcbsm.com>
>> 25 October 2013 01:44
>> Ray
>>
>> Your Comment:
>> No. I think what I said was that the level of certainty in your measurements is dependent on the level of synchronisation of the 2 clock sources if you are calculating a delta of timestamp of clock 1 - timestamp clock 2.
>> My Response:
>> Then it sounds like we are in agreement.   Given the appropriate stratum level at both nodes, the desired level of time synchronization is achieved.
>>
> No. We are not in agreement.
>
> Stratum is an indication of how far down you are in the hierarchy from any NTP Stratum 0 clock.
>
> It says nothing about whether your stratum 0 and my stratum 0 are synchronised.
>
> We could both be running caesium clocks, and there could still be an offset if I don't set my reference time of my caesium clock the same as your reference time. When talking about microsecond or picosecond timing that will almost certainly be significant.
>
> You really need to know that the true provenance of the clock source is identical in order to make PDM 1 calculations, not just the stratum.
>
> Hence my comment to couple some sort of "clock ID" to the timestamp.
>> Your Comment:
>> I think it might be instructive to go back and look at high school physics books on making measurements, precision, accuracy, and error estimations, especially when taking the difference of two measurements, or making other calculations on top of raw observations
>> My Response:  Not sure exactly what this means but I can say that this sounds like theoretical doubt that time synchronization will not work properly in geographically dispersed environments?    I can tell you that it does in our experiences and that the surrounding protocols/implementations are crafted to account for such vicissitudes.
>> I will say that I have no field experience with DCF-77 sources, only GPS and Cesium.
>>
>>
>> Your Comment:
>> Equally a stratum 0 clock can be free running if it loses it's radio signal.
>> My Response:
>> This comment sort of confused me as well, but suffice to say, if any component is broken, results will be impaired.   Obviously this is not limited to the time synch subject.
>>
>>
>> Finally, your comment about "Middleboxes".    I hope it can be as simple to accommodate as you describe.   My concern is that if there are numerous middleboxes, the fields may get repetitively overlaid, or there will need to be so many separate fields, we could incur excessive complexity or overhead.    Given that we can accomplish this with a workable solution, I am certainly all for it.
>> The more information I can have to manage networks and solve problems, the better!
>>
>> Thanks again for your thoughts, inputs and questions!
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies.
>
>   Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm