Subject: Re: Duration

From: "Debby and Gene Stopp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 21:30:11 -0700

I think that 30 seconds is probably a good compromise from the original
suggestion of 10 seconds.  We also need to remember that the duration is a
SHOULD, not a MUST, thereby allowing each DUT/SUT vendor a little bit of
flexibility when running their tests.

Sorry, David - I just don't think 1 second is long enough to get good,
repeatable and reliable measurements.  We've seen in the field a number of
devices that appear to behave very nicely for durations of 10 seconds; when
we up the durations to 30 or 60 seconds these devices sometimes just fall
over.

Anyone for a good compromise?  ;)

Debby Stopp
Ixia Communications
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Duration

>
>Fowarded from David Newman ([email-masked]):
>
>There was a duration thread on this list some time back, I think in
>spring '98.
>
>If memory serves the consensus was that test runs of 30 seconds were
>considered
>OK. One post in particular I remember was from Scott Bradner, coauthor
>of RFC
>2544, saying he used 30 seconds in all testing. I just checked RFC 2285
>and I
>don't see anything there, but Bob Mandeville's comment at the time was
>that he
>too uses 30 seconds (before midnight).
>
>Seriously, even 30 seconds might be way too long on high-speed networks.
>At
>gigabit speeds a device would need nearly 1 Gbyte of buffering *per
>port* to
>hold 10 seconds' worth of traffic. And that's a best-case calculation,
>assuming
>64-byte frames and half-duplex traffic. The amount of memory needed
>would be
>higher with longer frames and full-duplex settings.
>
>Anyone for a 1-second duration?
>
>;-)
>
>dn
>