Subject: [bmwg] Comments for draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-00.txt

From: "Silvija Andrijic Dry \(sdry\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:11:45 -0400

Hi BMWG folks,
 
I reveiwed draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-00.txt and have couple of
comments to the authors. Overall I thought draft looks good so far and
going in the right direction:
 
1) Specify that this draft is applicable only to unicast traffic
2)  In all test cases specify throughput units to be used
3) Section 4.1.1 IGP Support:
  I haven't seen any tests related to control plane in the doc so not
sure why are you imposing requirement for IGP to be used....perhaps MUST
should be replaced with weaker word?
  Or is it that these type of test just haven't been added to the draft
yet but are planned and hence MUST for OSPF and ISIS ?
4) Unidirectional imposition/disposition (sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2):
  Your draft says in "Reporting format" subsection that max throughput
should be measured as in RFC2432. However RFC2432 is  MC perf bench
draft and there are multiple throughput types defined so you need to be
more specific here. Or this was a typo and different RFC should of been
quoted here ?
5) Section 6.4 " MPLS FW Negative Characterization"
  There needs to be more defintion on what is measured here or what pass
criteria is or how to compare platfroms...i.e. there needs to be more
description of what sentence ".......ensure that the DUT behaves
appropriately" means.
Actually when I think about this one more I'm not even sure whether you
should have some of these tests in this particular draft as they seem
more of functional tests ? It is definately great set of tests that
should normally be done but I'm just not sure whether they fit into this
particular draft. I would be interested to see what wider audience
thinks ?

Cheers,
 
Silvija

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