Subject: RE: [bmwg] WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-07.txt>

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:43:43 -0700

Kevin,

Could we finish two sections before giving the draft to the Area Directors?
The two sections that need more work are section 8 (Forwarding Burdened
Tests) and appendix A (Determining an even distribution).

If we could add a little more methodology to the Forwarding Burdened
Multicast Latency and Forwarding Burdened Group Join Delay tests, it would
be great.  Sections 8.1 and 8.2 are very terse and it is difficult to
understand how to run these tests.  More specifically:

1. The style in sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 (and so forth) should be applied to
sections 8.1 and 8.2.

2. Details on how to configure ports in setup A versus ports in setup B.
Where does setup A join?  Is setup A transmitting multicast packets?  Is
setup B transmitting multicast packets?  Is the traffic homogeneous or
nonhomogeneous?  When does setup B join?  Does the statement "then setup B
traffic will join multicast group addresses not joined by the ports in this
setup", refer to setup A or only setup B ports "not joined"?  Does setup B
ever send multicast packets?

3. Measurements? Are we only concerned with setup A multicast packets?  Do
we measure every packet's latency or just one packet in the middle (per
RFC2544)?

4. Reporting format? Any guidelines or suggestions on what to report when
the test completes?  Should things like OLOAD, traffic mix, # of groups be
reported along with the latency number?  Do we run 20 times and report the
average latency as stated in RFC2544?

Quote "It is important to understand and fully define the distribution of
frames among all multicast and unicast destinations."  The draft does not do
this.  Appendix A says it is important. Where is the difficulty in defining
the distribution?

My concern is that there are currently two implementations of this draft
that will produce different results for the same DUT/SUT.  I am not looking
for interoperability.  Just common, unambiguous reporting of benchmarking
results.

Jerry.

___________________________________________________________ 
Jerry Perser                         SmartBits Division 
Director of Test Methodology         26750 Agoura Road 
Phone: 818.676.2320                  Calabasas, CA, 91302
Lab:   818.676.2337                  Corp:  818.676.2300 
Pager: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Dubray [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 3:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [bmwg] WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-07.txt>
> 
> 
> BMWG'ers:
> 
> A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft:      
> 
>    <draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-07.txt>
> 
> will be open from 21 September 2001 until 12 October 2001.
> 
> If you feel that this draft should not be given to the Area Directors
> for consideration in progressing the draft to an Informational RFC, 
> please cite your basis to this list or [email-masked].  This must
> be done prior to close of the last call period. Of course, notes of 
> support are always welcome.
> 
> A URL for the Internet-Draft is:
> 
>  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> 

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 17:41:10 -0400

"Perser, Jerry" wrote:
> be great.  

What would be greater is to propose actual wording to be introduced
in the document that would address the good points that you make! ;-) 
;-)