Subject: bulk transfer capacity

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:51:40 -0400

Folks-

Will and Matt asked me to drop a quick note to everyone briefly
describing what I have been working on with regards to the bulk
transfer capacity metric.  I wasn't at the last meeting, but from
the notes it looks like Matt and Will informed folks that I have
been writing a BTC tool called 'cap'.  The tool is a little
different from Matt Mathis' cool treno tool that has been talked
about in this group for some time.  The key difference is that cap
has both a sending and receiving tool, whereby treno depends on ICMP
packets for the "ACK stream".  Both approaches have their good and
bad points.  Recently I have started running some preliminary tests
across the NIMI mesh of cap, treno and stock BSD TCP.  The plan is
to have some findings about the performance of both cap and treno in
comparison to a real TCP implementation to present at the Pittsburgh
meeting.  The hope is that this will shed some light on whether or
not we can come up with a good tool to measure BTC.  In addition,
this exercise may shed some light on some aspect of the BTC
framework document that needs work.  I look forward to discussing
this with folks at the IETF meeting.  Any input/comments would
certainly be appreciated.  

(Will, Matt- Please fill in any holes that I have left in the
above.) 

allman

---
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

---

From: "Will E. Leland" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:22:12 -0400 (EDT)

Mark,
Thanks for the note to the list. From Matt's and my perspective,
we're especially pleased to see empirical validation of a potential
metric. Assuming your tests work out well, we expect to get an I-D
defining 'cap' as a BTC metric. There is substantial need for a
vendor-neutral consistent metric for bulk transport, and your work
can break the logjam.
-- Will

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:40:42 -0400

> we expect to get an I-D defining 'cap' as a BTC metric.

Ah, right.  I missed that point.  But, as I have discussed with you
privately, that is the (post Pittsburgh) plan.

allman