Subject: draft-ietf-bmwg-mswitch-01a Available

From: Jerry Perser <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:36:31 -0800

A new version of the Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices
draft is available at the following link.  I missed the cut-off for
Internet-Draft submissions by 7 minutes.  I can not post it until after
November 7.  Until then, here is a link for your review:

http://www.netcomsystems.com/perser/draft-ietf-bmwg-mswitch-01a.txt

I have made several changes to the draft.  Here is the status:

Changes from Internal Review:

  1.  Added sections "5.1.4.1 Throughput" and "5.1.4.2 Forwarding
      rate".  The text is the same.  Titles help clarify.

  2.  Reviewed the use of MUST, SHOULD, and MAY per RFC2119.

  3.  Changed several port references to refer to the DUT/SUT and
      not the tester.

  4.  Removed more comments about interpreting the results.

  5.  Added text "A burst size of 1 will simulate constant load"
      in the setup sections for Burst Size.

  6.  Added a reference section.

  7.  Changed text to specify either Test Frame or Learning Frame.

  8.  Changed "Load per port" in the setup section to Iload
      (Intended Load).

  9.  Corrected pseudo code in section 5.9 (Address learning).

 10.  Corrected various grammar errors.

Changes from the reflector:

 11.  Section 4, last paragraph changed.  Reworded to remind the
      reader that tagged frames can exceed the 1518 byte limit
      and therefore will have a different rate at maximum frame
      size than the untagged frames.

 12.  Sections 5.9.3 and 5.10.3 were reworded to allow just one
      monitoring port per broadcast domain when expanding the
      number of ports under test.

 13.  Added sections 5.6.5 and 5.7.5.  Text copied from other
      sections.

 14.  Set the Test Duration to 30 seconds as agreed at the 45th
      IETF meeting.

 15.  Split section 5.3.5 into HOLB and Back Pressure.  No text
      change.

Considered, but not changed:

 16.  With respect to address learning, the group seemed to
      to think that zero-missed mark was an acceptable target.
      If it wasn't lossless type of metric, what could
      be offered as an alternative.  No change of wording is 
      anticipated.

      The draft complies with RFC2285 section 3.8.1 and 3.8.2
      definitions.  Both state "without flooding or dropping
      frames."
      
 17.  On the mailing list there was a question as to the 4 port
      requirement in the Head of Line blocking (sec 5.3.3) 
      methodology.  Jerry indicated that 4 ports were mandated by
      RFC 2285.

      A minimum of 4 is required.  Adding extra ports for
      transmitting to the congested port may test the DUT/SUT
      switching ability and NOT the HOLB.

 18.  On the mailing list, alternate wording with respect to
      half and full duplex testing was offered.  Jerry indicated
      he would have to review the thread on the mailing list
      archive.

      The alternate wording did not solve both problems.

Open Issues:

 19.  The author attempted to use Iload as a percentage.  The
      issue is a percentage of what?  The definition used was
      the maximum load that the median can handle under bi-
      directional traffic.  This does not work well for section
      5.5 Multiple streams of unidirectional traffic.

 20.  Check section 7 References for proper syntax.
___________________________________________________________ 
Jerry Perser               Phone: 818.676.2320 
SmartLab Manager           Lab:   818.676.2336 
Netcom Systems Inc.        Fax:   818.880.9165     
26750 Agoura Road          Corp:  818.676.2300 
Calabasas, CA, 91302       Pager: [email-masked]