Subject: [bmwg] performance measurements in the routing domain

From: Padma Krishnaswamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:35:32 -0400

This  is in  response to Nick Ambrose's e-mails on the BMWG mail-
ing list about the work proposed by Ixia, which appears to encom-
pass  the  entire spectrum of prior suggested work in the routing
performance measurements area  as put forward by other BMWG  par-
ticipants.

APPROACHES
--------------

There is a philosophical difference in
approach in the work we first spoke about at the last IETF,  from
that  of  the Ixia team as per the postings to the email list over
the last week.

We'd like to restate the position we  presented  at  Minneapolis.
There  exist  inherent complexities that stem  from both  the im-
plementation-dependent details in routing protocols and architec-
tures,  as well as the associated measurement-taking.

For  this reason we believe that undertaking the scientific stan-
dardization of measurements requires an initial  split  of   the
control  plane,  data  plane,  EGP and IGP  efforts into separate
categories .  In selecting this approach,  we  are  in  agreement
with  the example set in network characterization by Paxson, Ahu-
ja, Labovitz.

Only by clearly defining the terms,  objectives  and  methods  in
each separate category can we get to a point at which it is pos-
sible to  specify measurements on operations which combine
forwarding  and convergence. Even so, we will likely have to then
allow some margin for  implementation  specifics  and  additional
functionality.  There  have been many admirable ad hoc efforts to
attempt the combined approach.  It is  after  careful  review  of
these, and the other work cited above, that we settled on ours.

This  kind  of work is best done by tightly knit teams focused on
completing separate portions of the overall task, whilst accept-
ing input from the working group at large.  Indeed, if
multiple  teams  work  in  parallel on the separate efforts, the
overall goal could be more rapidly  acheived.  There  is  plenty
that needs doing, and we believe that synergies will move things
even faster.

At the Minneapolis meeting, there seemed to be consensus that our
first  draft  should  be split into terminology and methodology
documents. This was confirmed by e-mail.

We welcome specific comments/critiques  on  our  work,  and  will
gladly  consider  all  relevant  changes or modification to the
first cut, while we work on our own changes in preparation  for
the  next  IETF.  With regard to collaboration, we've been hoping
for the same  since our talk in Minneapolis, but  have  received
no specific comments as to our work from Ixia.

Re COLLABORATION
 --------------------

We have called  Ixia, and asked to setup a conference call to discuss
the issue of collaboration, as we are all interested in a common
goal.  We thought we would also, since the discussion is already
on the mailing list, keep the community apprised of status on thi
s.

We  are at a loss to explain why Ambrose states the issue of col-
laboration had been brought up and not received a  positive  re-
sponse,  as  there  had not been any email or telephone exchange
with Ambrose/Stopp  as to the work we had  underway,  or  related
matters,  until the message of  a few days ago to the list,  pre-
senting the Ixia position and terminology document  attempting to span
considerable  amounts of work already begun. The email grinch may
be to blame, so we hope we've defeated it  for  the  present,  at
least.

The  Ixia  work  plan  proposal for Routing Protocol Testing that
went out on Monday June 18th mentions the intent to define termi-
nology  and  methodology  documents for purposes along the lines
set forth by us at the last IETF.

We are not sure what benefit there is in the BMWG duplicating the
work  we  have  already put in, to replace it with something that
does not substantially differ from its content  and  stated  in-
tent,  except  in  its  aim to combine metrics, terminologies and
methodologies for both forwarding and protocol convergence, and,
in addition,  internal and external routing protocols as well.

POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO WORK PLAN

1.  Complete  draft-ietf-bmwg-fib-term-01.txt last call and publish. (Trotter)

2.   Consider  using  the Trotter document as the base for an ex-
tended document containing protocol-independent RIB terminology.
(Team TBD)

3.   Continue  the  BGP convergence performance terminology docu-
ment. (BGP team)

4.  Continue the basic BGP test methodology document  and publish
the next draft (BGP team)

5.  Begin a first draft of link state (OSPF/ISIS) IGP terminology
document (Ambrose/Stopp?)

6.Begin first draft for  distance-vector  (RIP)  IGP  terminology
document (Ambrose/Stopp?)

7.   Begin a first draft of link state IGP test methodology docu-
ment (TBD)

8. Begin a first draft of distance vector  IGP  test  methodology
document  (TBD)

9.Going Forward-

After completion of any technology-specific document, use it as a
specific reference for subsequent  documents,  and  explore  the
practicality of combining some, consolidating
documents  where possible. For example, evolve the BGP document,
where the second edition includes policy or flap tests  as  well
as the basic tests.

Howard  Berkowitz, Sue Hares, Padma  Krishnaswamy, Marianne Lepp, Alvaro Retana

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg