Subject: [ippm] draft-hedayat-two-way-active-measurement protocol-01.txt TWAMP Light

From: "sharee mcnab" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:50:50 +1300

Further comments/questions on the TWAMP draft -

1.  In the TWAMP draft the format of the send packet is not explictly stated.  Should we assume
a) the send packet is the same as the OWAMP send packet (ie 14 octets unauthenticated, 32 authenticated/encrypted) which then leaves the send and reflected packets with a different size (undesirable) unless the payload is adjusted by the reflector.
OR
b) the send packet is the same format as that of the reflected packet (ie 40 octets unauthenticated, 80 authenticated/encrypted), here both packets are the same size (desirable) with a larger bandwidth requirement.

I assume b) but think clarification should be in the draft.

2.  An explicit packet record is not defined for TWAMP.  Is this considered within the scope of the TWAMP draft to provide a packet record for this protocol?
Given the excessive number of time stamps for a two-way measurement I would propose that a single time reference be used and then offsets to reduce the size of the packet record.

Cheers
Sharee

NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the addressee
named above. If you are not the intended recipient of
this message you are hereby notified that you must not
disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it.
If you have received this message in error please
notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender has the
authority to issue and specifically states them to
be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.

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