Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:54:55 -0400

Now we have evolved to the request to make a BCP for measuring network
convergence.  I have to ask a question first asked last April regarding this
work - Why is the IPPM not the best place to discuss this work?  In
addition, for the benefit of the BMWG could you please clearly explain what
is being benchmarked, how it is being benchmarked, and why you think this is
appropriate for the BMWG.  Please note that at this time I am neither "for"
or "against" this becoming a work item.  However, I would like to read
answers to these basic questions so I can make an informed personal
decision.  We eagerly await your answers to these basic questions.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ White [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

Okay, the outline of the current network benchmarking considerations draft 
is:

-- Definitions, various definitions possible for each term, and how they 
might be used differently in different contexts. This is important in 
something of this type, since it would help to unify a lot of the issues we 
have over these sorts of definitions within the WG.

-- Various Techniques for Measuring Convergence. This includes a section on 
polling, and passing traffic through a network to measure convergence. Good 
topics, could probably be expanded.

Any other suggestions? What would you add?

Again, thoughts are welcome--what does anyone else in the WG think? Should 
we start a BP doc for testing network convergence? What are other areas we 
should include? I think it's an excellent idea, it would broaden the 
usefulness of the output of the WG tremendously.

So far:

Russ: in favor
Jim: ??, but appears to be in favor
Scott: ??, but appears to not be in favor

:-)

Russ

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 [email-masked] wrote:

> I think that before selecting the core document of a BCP effort we would
> need to scope and outline the BCP effort.  Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ White [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:24 AM
> To: Jim McQuaid
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch
>
>
>
>> Isn't there a "best practices" genre of RFC which might pertain?
>
> Actually, you've hit the nail on the head. What would hte WG think of
> taking on creating a BCP for testing, and using this doc as the core of
> that effort? That fits what this doc is driving at better than an
> informational, and it certainly doesn't fit into the concept of an actual
> set of tests, defined, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> :-)
>
> Russ
>
>
> __________________________________
> [email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone
>

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

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

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:04:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> convergence.  I have to ask a question first asked last April regarding 
> this work - Why is the IPPM not the best place to discuss this work?

IPPM deals with testing real world networks, correct? While BMWG deals with 
lab networks, correct? If that's so, there's necessarily going to be some 
overlap in testing methodologies between the two.

> In addition, for the benefit of the BMWG could you please clearly explain 
> what is being benchmarked, how it is being benchmarked, and why you think 
> this is appropriate for the BMWG.

Why does testing have only to do with specific benchmarks performable only 
on specific devices by a given manufacturer? Is this working group really 
that narrow minded? Just as each draft we pass has an "applicability" 
section, at least, and an applicaability draft at best, we should also 
endeavor to show how to use testing in a larger sense. For instance, the 
types of things this draft outlines--what are the things a tester really 
needs to think about when developing a test, beyond specific techniques? 
What are the things a user of testing information must look for when 
examining results, beyond: "I put a packet in here, and out it came over 
there?"

There's a lot more to testing than specific tests, as just the existence of 
applicability tests shows. This type of document would be an extension of 
these applicability documents, to provide a set of best practices for all 
testers and users of tests of network systems.

> Please note that at this time I am neither "for" or "against" this 
> becoming a work item.  However, I would like to read answers to these 
> basic questions so I can make an informed personal decision.  We eagerly 
> await your answers to these basic questions.

I hope this WG decides to actually pursue work beyond point tests, and 
start to deal with all the issues in benchmarking network systems. I 
realize the WG is mostly made up of vendors of testing equipment, but there 
are some of us here who are concerned, as well

Russ