From cct-tq-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  1 06:49:57 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA04086
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 06:49:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA1BqLiV025408
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 06:52:21 -0500
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:52:21 -0500
Message-ID: <20021101115221.24324.51218.Mailman@mailhost.advanced.org>
Subject: advanced.org mailing list memberships reminder
From: mailman-owner@advanced.org
To: ippm-archive@ietf.org
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Multiple lists at advanced.org
X-Ack: no
Sender: cct-tq-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: cct-tq-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: cct-tq@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk

This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your advanced.org
mailing list memberships.  It includes your subscription info and how
to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list.

You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery
or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such
changes.  For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of
the list (for example, ippm-request@advanced.org) containing just the
word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to
you with instructions.

If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to
mailman-owner@advanced.org.  Thanks!

Passwords for ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org:

List                                     Password // URL
----                                     --------  
ippm@advanced.org                        jTPE      
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/options/ippm/ippm-archive%40lists.ietf.org


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Mon Nov  4 16:59:31 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09291
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:59:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA4Lx3iV000543;
	Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:59:03 -0500
Received: from motgate4.mot.com (motgate4.mot.com [144.189.100.102])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA4DrviV019067
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:53:58 -0500
Received: from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101])
	by motgate4.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate4) with ESMTP id gA4Dru0T028558
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 06:53:57 -0700 (MST)
Received: [from ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com (ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com [10.14.8.10]) by mothost.mot.com (MOT-pobox 2.0) with ESMTP id GAA22137 for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 06:53:56 -0700 (MST)]
Received: by ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52)
	id <STS0PSDF>; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:53:55 -0500
Message-ID: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238144B478@ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com>
From: Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 <jcrb@motorola.com>
To: "'ippm@advanced.org'" <ippm@advanced.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [ippm] draft-bennett-ippm-ipmp-00.txt
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:53:46 -0500


This didn't get finished by the first draft deadline so I put it out here so
people would be able to get it.

ftp://151.203.97.123/incoming/draft-bennett-ippm-ipmp-00.txt

Abstract 
    
   The practice and need for active network measurement is well 
   established, however current tools are not well suited to this task, 
   mostly because the protocols which they employ have not been designed 
   for measurement of the modern Internet. 
    
   The IP Measurement Protocol (IPMP) is based on packet-probes, and is 
   designed to allow routers to participate in measurements by the 
   insertion of path information as the probe passes between a pair of 
   hosts.   




Jon C. R. Bennett
Chief Engineer and
Distinguished Member of Technical Staff
Motorola Broadband Communications Sector
3 Highwood Drive
Tewksbury, MA  01876
978.858.2300/2361 (direct)
978.858.2399 (Fax)



   -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL

#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Wed Nov  6 11:53:08 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01315
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:53:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA6Gq3iV009858;
	Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:52:03 -0500
Received: from mail.ee.gatech.edu (mail.ee.gatech.edu [130.207.225.105])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA6GpxiV009679;
	Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:52:00 -0500
Received: from escada.ece.gatech.edu (escada.ece.gatech.edu [199.77.155.39])
	by mail.ee.gatech.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA6GprS0027681;
	Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:51:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (tricha@localhost)
	by escada.ece.gatech.edu (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0.Beta19/Submit) with ESMTP id gA6GpVGo010529;
	Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:51:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
To: Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com>, Matthew Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>
cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211061146090.10286-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:51:31 -0500 (EST)


Hello Merike, Matt,

Recently I submitted a draft draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt.
If you consider this work of interest to the IPPM WG, I would like to
request a speaking slot at the Atlanta meeting.

Thanks,
Tricha

------


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.


	Title		: Available Bandwidth Measurement in IP Networks
	Author(s)	: T. Anjali et al.
	Filename	: draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
	Pages		: 8
	Date		: 2002-10-28

Available bandwidth along a path is an important metric that can be
useful to provide insight into the state and performance of the
network. Some methods have been proposed in literature for
measurement of available bandwidth but they face the problems of
scalability and high intrusiveness.  In this draft, we propose a
method to measure path available bandwidth using an active approach
that probes the path. The probing mechanism used is based on TCP
New Reno. Once the samples for the available bandwidth measurement
are obtained, more accurate results are calculated using a
prediction filter.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt".

NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.


Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.



_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Thu Nov  7 06:31:38 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA11806
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:31:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA7BS3iV007554;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:28:03 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA7BRgiV007364
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:27:43 -0500
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10847;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:25:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200211071125.GAA10847@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: ippm@advanced.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-01.txt
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 06:25:11 -0500

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: IPPM reporting MIB
	Author(s)	: E. Stephan, J. Jewitt
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-01.txt
	Pages		: 64
	Date		: 2002-11-6
	
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) 
designed for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based 
internets. 
In particular, this MIB specifies the objects used for managing the 
results of the IPPM metrics measures, for pushing alarms, and for 
reporting the measures results.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-01.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.
		
		
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	access-type="mail-server";
	server="mailserv@ietf.org"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<2002-11-6174838.I-D@ietf.org>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-01.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-01.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<2002-11-6174838.I-D@ietf.org>

--OtherAccess--

--NextPart--


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Thu Nov  7 11:12:55 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00286
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:12:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA7GDGiV024109;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:13:16 -0500
Received: from BMW (mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA7GCpiZ022832;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:12:53 -0500
From: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>
To: Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 <jcrb@motorola.com>
cc: "'ippm@advanced.org'" <ippm@advanced.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-bennett-ippm-ipmp-00.txt
Message-ID: <223114381.1036667491@localhost>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:11:31 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This made it through the Internet-Drafts publication process.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bennett-ippm-ipmp-00.txt

Would you say a bit about what's new with your draft and how
it differs from the previous IPMP draft?

--Matt

--On Monday, November 04, 2002 8:53 AM -0500 Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 
<jcrb@motorola.com> wrote:

>
> This didn't get finished by the first draft deadline so I put it out here
> so people would be able to get it.
>
> ftp://151.203.97.123/incoming/draft-bennett-ippm-ipmp-00.txt
>
> Abstract
>
>    The practice and need for active network measurement is well
>    established, however current tools are not well suited to this task,
>    mostly because the protocols which they employ have not been designed
>    for measurement of the modern Internet.
>
>    The IP Measurement Protocol (IPMP) is based on packet-probes, and is
>    designed to allow routers to participate in measurements by the
>    insertion of path information as the probe passes between a pair of
>    hosts.
>
>
>
>
> Jon C. R. Bennett
> Chief Engineer and
> Distinguished Member of Technical Staff
> Motorola Broadband Communications Sector
> 3 Highwood Drive
> Tewksbury, MA  01876
> 978.858.2300/2361 (direct)
> 978.858.2399 (Fax)
>
>
>
>    -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL
>
># !/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
> $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
> lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
>

 
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Thu Nov  7 11:13:00 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00300
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:13:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA7GD3iV023290;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:13:03 -0500
Received: from BMW (mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA7GCpiX022832;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:12:52 -0500
From: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>
To: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
cc: Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com>, Matthew Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>,
        ippm@advanced.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] Request for speaking
 slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
Message-ID: <223056958.1036667434@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211061146090.10286-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
References:  <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211061146090.10286-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:10:34 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Actually, I'd like to see if we could start a discussion
here first.

[chair hat off]

caveat: I've only had time to skim the draft.

It seems to me this draft doesn't have a good definition for
"available bandwidth"; it compares pathchar-like tests with
SNMP measurements (that seems fair) but then to end-to-end
user perceived measurements (doesn't seem fair -- you're
comparing link capacity with TCP throughput).

It seems that what you really are trying to create is a
"improved" 'bulk transfer capacity' measurement -- what
a TCP connection will provide a user. (Although, by the
end I'm confused again... it's not clear to me if you
are looking for the steady state, as BTC is, or some other
mix, or really truly are looking to know the "raw" bandwidth
on the bottleneck link.)

It's also not clear to me that the method is ready to be
standardized; The whole link capacity area is an area of active
research with (in my opinion) no clear "best" technique.

In addition, I see a number of claims made without
proof here (one that caught my eye: "it is accurate as
it obtains measurement from the network using a TCP session").
I have not followed reference [6] to see what is stated
there.

Do other group members have comments?

--Matt

--On Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:51 AM -0500 Tricha Anjali 
<tricha@ece.gatech.edu> wrote:

>
> Hello Merike, Matt,
>
> Recently I submitted a draft
> draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt. If you consider this
> work of interest to the IPPM WG, I would like to request a speaking slot
> at the Atlanta meeting.
>
> Thanks,
> Tricha
>
> ------
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
> 	Title		: Available Bandwidth Measurement in IP Networks
> 	Author(s)	: T. Anjali et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 8
> 	Date		: 2002-10-28
>
> Available bandwidth along a path is an important metric that can be
> useful to provide insight into the state and performance of the
> network. Some methods have been proposed in literature for
> measurement of available bandwidth but they face the problems of
> scalability and high intrusiveness.  In this draft, we propose a
> method to measure path available bandwidth using an active approach
> that probes the path. The probing mechanism used is based on TCP
> New Reno. Once the samples for the available bandwidth measurement
> are obtained, more accurate results are calculated using a
> prediction filter.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurem
> ent-00.txt
>
> To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to
> ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the
> message.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
> username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging
> in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
> 	"get draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt".
>
> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>
> Send a message to:
> 	mailserv@ietf.org.
> In the body type:
> 	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt".
>
> NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
> 	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
> 	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
> 	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
> 	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
> 	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
> 	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
> 	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> 	how to manipulate these messages.
>
>
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Thu Nov  7 18:20:26 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17704
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:20:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA7NL4iV010443;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:21:04 -0500
Received: from motgate.mot.com (motgate.mot.com [129.188.136.100])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA7NKUiV010116;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:20:31 -0500
Received: from pobox.mot.com (pobox.mot.com [129.188.137.100])
	by motgate.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate) with ESMTP id gA7NKUal026886;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:20:30 -0700 (MST)
Received: [from ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com (ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com [10.14.8.10]) by pobox.mot.com (MOT-pobox 2.0) with ESMTP id QAA07607; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:20:30 -0700 (MST)]
Received: by ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52)
	id <STS0P8N1>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:19:40 -0500
Message-ID: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238101422C50@ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com>
From: Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 <jcrb@motorola.com>
To: "'Matthew J Zekauskas'" <matt@advanced.org>,
        Tricha Anjali
	 <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
Cc: Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com>, ippm@advanced.org
Subject: RE: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band
	-measurement-00.txt
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:19:38 -0500





> In addition, I see a number of claims made without
> proof here (one that caught my eye: "it is accurate as
> it obtains measurement from the network using a TCP session").
> I have not followed reference [6] to see what is stated
> there.
> 
> Do other group members have comments?

what happens when multiple people perform the test at the same time? is the
available bandwidth = the available bandwidth? or = avail bw / number of
testers?

one part that I was particularly scared by was


>It has to be noted that our scheme will have difficulty in
>   measuring bandwidth for paths with high capacity links. This is
>   because of the limitations in TCP operation like buffer size,
>   segment size etc. For paths with high capacity links, our method
>   can be extended to include multiple TCP sessions to be initiated in
>   parallel. These multiple sessions can probe the network and obtain
>   fair share estimates of the path available bandwidth. These
>   sub-estimates can then be added to obtain proper estimates for the
>   path.

this strikes me as standardizing a DDOS mechanism :)

jon
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 02:41:19 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09376
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 02:41:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA87eKiV012058;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 02:40:20 -0500
Received: from web13808.mail.yahoo.com (web13808.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.18])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with SMTP id gA84tCiV018797
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:55:13 -0500
Message-ID: <20021108045511.11399.qmail@web13808.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [64.2.141.53] by web13808.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:55:11 PST
From: jon b <jcrb@yahoo.com>
Subject: [ippm] re: draft-bennett-ippm-ipmp-00.txt 
To: ippm@advanced.org
Cc: matt@advanced.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:55:11 -0800 (PST)


>Would you say a bit about what's new with your draft and how
>it differs from the previous IPMP draft?
>
>--Matt


The differences between draft-bennett-ipmp-00.txt and
draft-mcgregor-ipmp-00.txt can be grouped into a number of different
areas. This isn't a complete list, but it covers most of the
differences I think.

1) Modifications to make it easier to implement in hardware in a
   router fast path, as well as make it easier for routers to perform
   filtering on IPMP packets.

   a) rearranged the header to make it easier to process in hardware

   b) added extra fields to allow it to be filtered as if it was a
   TCP/UDP packet so that the path taken by individual flows can be
   measured. 

   c) reduced the timestamp from 64 to 40 bits (16 bits of seconds, 24
   bits of fractional seconds) to save space in the timestamp, and
   reduce the expectation that routers are going to have 64 bit real
   time clocks.


2) Modifications to make the protocol more "industrial strength", in
   terms of its handling of various of conditions.

   a) added error return codes and mechanism

   b) added flags and ranges (on the TTL) to allow measuring of paths
   that are too long to be measured with one packet, either because
   the path is long, or because a small packet is being used.

   c) added ability to give a 'proxy' address so that the router does
   not have to respond to "Information Request" packets, but can
   indicate someone who will respond in the routers place. this allows
   ISPs to support IPMP without having to let people talk to their
   routers in order to do so.



3) Modifications to make the results returned by the "Echo" portion of
   the protocol capable of being used without requiring the use of the
   "Information Request" portion of the protocol.

   a) added flags to the timestamp to give details about its accuracy,
   clock source, stamping location, etc, so that for some applications
   it will not be required to have to make an "Information Request" to
   be able to use the timestamp.

   b) added the TTL to the timestamp so it can be seen which hops on
   the path are IPMP aware


4) Addition of a "redirection" function to allow measurement of a
   path beginning at a host other than the one which originally sent
the
   packet. 

   a) includes security options to limit/authenticate its use.


5) Added ability to have the Information Request packet ask to have
   specific timestamp values converted to real time values, instead of
   just having the router give conversion point of its own choosing.

   a) includes error return for case where router restarts and can't
   convert and old timestamp.


6) Misc other changes

   a) added option to request measurement only in the "fast path"
   (i.e. if you can't give an accurate measurement leave the packet
   alone) 

   b) added option to request only address stamps, instead of
   timestamps, i.e. gives a replacement for 'traceroute' that is less
   abusive on the routers.

   c) added option to request "extra information" with the
   timestamp, such as MTU, link speed, etc (i.e. lets the router tell
   you about properties of the path so you don't have to, figure them
   out, or infer them from observed behavior.

   d) added general TLV "extensions" to the timestamp to support c)
   above and any other additional that might be useful.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 02:41:20 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09377
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 02:41:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA87eBiV011634;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 02:40:11 -0500
Received: from postal.sdsc.edu (postal.sdsc.edu [132.249.20.114])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA81swiV014562
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:54:59 -0500
Received: from multivac.sdsc.edu (IDENT:XXh5w97fLMgvwWio53SCcEDytFG/J1y/@multivac.sdsc.edu [132.249.20.57])
	by postal.sdsc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6/server/49) with ESMTP id gA81ss619836;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:54:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost by multivac (8.11.6+Sun/1.11-SolarisClient) with ESMTP
	id gA81sqB11837; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:54:52 -0800 (PST)
From: "Maureen C. Curran" <mcurran@sdsc.edu>
Reply-To: "Maureen C. Curran" <mcurran@nlanr.net>
To: <itc@i-teletraffic.org>, <ippm@advanced.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0211071746530.780-100000@multivac.sdsc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: [ippm] CFP - PAM2003
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:54:41 -0800 (PST)



               *************** Call for Papers: PAM2003 ****************

               PAM2003 - A workshop on Passive and Active Measurements

               La Jolla, California, April 6-8, 2003

               Hosted by NLANR Measurement and Network Analysis Group

               *********************************************************


As the Internet has grown over the last decade, the need for precise
measurement of the network and its traffic load have become steadily more
apparent. Most of today's Internet Service Providers and many of their
large network customers are collecting and analyzing measurement data for
the purposes of performance monitoring, network engineering, and cost
recovery, but the engineering quality of these measurements vary.

A steadily growing number of research groups have been working in the
areas of:

  * Active Measurements - sending test packets and observing their
progress through the Internet,
  * Passive Measurements - observing actual traffic on 'live' networks,
  * Performance Metrics - developing measures or indicators which can be
used to characterize traffic behavior,
  * Traffic Statistics - attempting to understand and develop models of
'real' Internet traffic, and
  * Visualization - finding effective ways to display what is happening in
a network.

PAM2003 is a three-day event focusing on research and practical
applications of passive and active measurement and analysis techniques.
NLANR/MNA will be hosting this fourth PAM workshop April 6-8, 2003 in La
Jolla, California, USA. This follows successful workshops in Hamilton, New
Zealand (2000), Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2001), and Fort Collins,
Colorado USA (2002).

Papers are invited from the research, provider, and other communities on
topics in the areas listed above, or any other area of network traffic
measurement.

Student participation is strongly encouraged. To support students who wish
to participate, sponsorship funding has been offered by Endace Measurement
Systems to offset some costs for students to attend and present. Further
details will be available soon.

Areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
	1. 'Experience' papers, which describe practical uses of
measurements, especially in large networks.
	2. Papers on modelling network traffic, in particular if they are
backed up by measurements of real traffic.
	3. Papers describing network research that can be applied to
existing networks.

Instructions for Authors

Extended abstracts (between 500 words and 5 pages, plain ASCII or pdf)
must be submitted by email to pampapers@nlanr.net by December 1, 2002.
Paper submissions must contain the following:

	* paper title,
	* full name(s) of the author(s),
	* organizational affiliation(s) and
	* one email address where the author(s) can be contacted.

Abstracts will be reviewed and acceptance notified no later than January
3, 2003.

Papers, maximum 15 printed pages, must be submitted electronically by
February 10, 2003. Details of acceptable paper formats will be published
on the Instructions for Authors portion of the conference Web site.

There will be an opportunity for participants to present measurement
equipment and software. Proposals for demonstrations (about 500 words,
plain ASCII) should be sent by email to the conference chair at
pampapers@nlanr.net by February 4, 2003.

The program committee is investigating the possibility of organizing one
or more tutorial sessions in conjunction with the conference. Proposals
for tutorials (up to 5 pages, plain ASCII or pdf) should be sent by email
to the conference chair by December 1, 2002.

Conference Venue

The workshop will be held at the San Diego Supercomputer Center on the
University of California, San Diego campus, La Jolla, California, USA. The
conference fee will be approximately US$200. The exact conference fee and
details on registration will be published on the workshop's Web page late
November. The conference fee will include a printed copy of the papers
selected for presentation at the workshop. Papers selected for publication
will also be published on the Web.

The Doubletree Del Mar Hotel will be the PAM2003 Workshop Hotel.
	* Special reduced room rates will be offered for PAM2003. These
special reduced room rates will also be offered before and after the
workshop dates (April 6-8, 2003) so attendees can easily extend their stay
in San Diego.
	* A PAM2003 Reception will be held at The Doubletree Del Mar Hotel
on the evening of Sunday April 6th.
	* Shuttle service will be provided between The Doubletree Del Mar
Hotel and PAM2003 at UCSD.

Important Dates

	* December 1, 2002:  Deadline for abstracts; Proposals for
tutorials due
	* January 3, 2003:   Notification of acceptance
	* February 10, 2003:  Final papers due; Proposals for
demonstrations for equipment and software due
	* April 6-8, 2003:    Conference

Contact Information

ATTN: R. Ritke (PAM2003)
NLANR/MNA, SDSC at UC San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA 92093-0505  U.S.A.

tel +1-858-822-3648
fax +1-858-534-8380

paminfo@nlanr.net

Web page:  http://www.pam2003.org

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 02:46:12 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09526
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 02:46:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA87e5iV011330;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 02:40:05 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA7KFRiV020469
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:15:27 -0500
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08965
	for <1timer>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:11:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200211072011.PAA08965@ietf.org>
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: All IETF Working Groups: ;
x-msg: NoteWell
Subject: [ippm] Note Well Statement
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:11:40 -0500


From time to time, especially just before a meeting, this statement is to
be sent to each and every IETF working group mailing list.
===========================================================================

				NOTE WELL

All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the
IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which grants
to the IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such
statements.

Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings, as well as
written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are
addressed to

    - the IETF plenary session,
    - any IETF working group or portion thereof,
    - the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
    - the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
    - any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself,
      any working group or design team list, or any other list
      functioning under IETF auspices,
    - the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function

Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function,
that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or
function, are not subject to these provisions.
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 03:10:28 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA10066
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 03:10:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA87x3iV017790;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 02:59:03 -0500
Received: from spinett.bth.se (spinett.bth.se [194.47.129.13])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA87w5iV017504;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 02:58:06 -0500
Received: from Trantor (trantor-dock.its.bth.se [194.47.148.115])
	by spinett.bth.se (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id gA87w3924345;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:58:03 +0100 (MET)
From: "Patrik Carlsson" <Patrik.Carlsson@bth.se>
To: "'Bennett Jon-MGIA0444'" <jcrb@motorola.com>,
        "'Matthew J Zekauskas'" <matt@advanced.org>,
        "'Tricha Anjali'" <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
Cc: "'Merike Kaeo'" <kaeo@merike.com>, <ippm@advanced.org>
Subject: RE: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
Message-ID: <000e01c286fc$8d963ff0$73942fc2@Trantor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C28704.EF5AA7F0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238101422C50@ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:57:58 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C28704.EF5AA7F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This way of measuring, couldn't it cause the "link" to fluctuate? 
TCP can be seen as greedy/friendly with regards to link capacity (LC),
some streams get good deal of the LC whereas others starve. This could
cause a link to look good from some streams whereas "bad" to others,
depending of view point. 
 
What happens when the distance between the sender and receiver is so
large, that there is more than one way to get there? For how long will
test run? Until all possible routes have been tried and estimated? Or
should the estimation be on a "virtual" point-to-point connection
between sender and receiver, since this is what the user perceives. On
the other hand, if there is only a small number of possible routes
in-between sender and receiver, preferably only one, I think it could
work. As long as there is only one test going on (on all of the links
that the stream passes).
 
Regards,
 
Patrik Carlsson
 
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Dept. Telecommunications and Signal Processing
371 79  KARLSKRONA
SWEDEN
 
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm-admin@advanced.org [mailto:ippm-admin@advanced.org] On
Behalf
> Of Bennett Jon-MGIA0444
> Sent: den 8 november 2002 00:20
> To: 'Matthew J Zekauskas'; Tricha Anjali
> Cc: Merike Kaeo; ippm@advanced.org
> Subject: RE: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-
> band-measurement-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > In addition, I see a number of claims made without
> > proof here (one that caught my eye: "it is accurate as
> > it obtains measurement from the network using a TCP session").
> > I have not followed reference [6] to see what is stated
> > there.
> >
> > Do other group members have comments?
> 
> what happens when multiple people perform the test at the same time?
is
> the
> available bandwidth = the available bandwidth? or = avail bw / number
of
> testers?
> 
> one part that I was particularly scared by was
> 
> 
> >It has to be noted that our scheme will have difficulty in
> >   measuring bandwidth for paths with high capacity links. This is
> >   because of the limitations in TCP operation like buffer size,
> >   segment size etc. For paths with high capacity links, our method
> >   can be extended to include multiple TCP sessions to be initiated
in
> >   parallel. These multiple sessions can probe the network and obtain
> >   fair share estimates of the path available bandwidth. These
> >   sub-estimates can then be added to obtain proper estimates for the
> >   path.
> 
> this strikes me as standardizing a DDOS mechanism :)
> 
> jon
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C28704.EF5AA7F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">


<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<link rel=3DFile-List href=3D"cid:filelist.xml@01C28704.EE95AA40">
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"place"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"time"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"date"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"PersonName"/>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
  <o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
 </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <w:WordDocument>
  <w:View>Normal</w:View>
  <w:SpellingState>Clean</w:SpellingState>
  <w:GrammarState>Clean</w:GrammarState>
  <w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
  <w:EnvelopeVis/>
  <w:Compatibility>
   <w:BreakWrappedTables/>
   <w:SnapToGridInCell/>
   <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
   <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
  </w:Compatibility>
  <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
 </w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{mso-style-parent:"";
	margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.SpellE
	{mso-style-name:"";
	mso-spl-e:yes;}
span.GramE
	{mso-style-name:"";
	mso-gram-e:yes;}
@page Section1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 77.95pt 72.0pt 77.95pt;
	mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
	mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
	mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
 /* Style Definitions */=20
 table.MsoNormalTable
	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-parent:"";
	mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
	mso-para-margin:0cm;
	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple =
style=3D'tab-interval:36.0pt'>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>This way of measuring, couldn't it cause the &quot;link&quot; to
fluctuate? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>TCP can be seen as greedy/friendly with regards to link capacity =
(LC),
some streams get good deal of the LC whereas others starve. This could =
cause a
link to look good from some streams whereas &#8220;bad&#8221; to others,
depending of view point. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>What happens when the distance between the sender and receiver =
is so
large, that there is more than one way to get there? For how long will =
test
run? Until all possible routes have been tried and estimated? Or should =
the
estimation be on a &#8220;virtual&#8221; point-to-point connection =
between
sender and receiver, since this is what the user perceives. On the other =
hand,
if there is only a small number of possible routes in-between sender and
receiver, preferably only one, I think it could work. As long as there =
is only
one test going on (on all of the links that the stream passes)<span
class=3DGramE>.</span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><st1:PersonName><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
 style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Patrik =
Carlsson</span></font></st1:PersonName><o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><font
size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>Blekinge Institute of =
Technology<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><font
size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>Dept. Telecommunications and =
Signal
Processing<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><font
size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>371 <span class=3DGramE>79<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; =
</span>KARLSKRONA</span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><st1:country-reg=
ion><st1:place><font
  size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
  font-family:"Courier =
New";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>SWEDEN</span></font></st1:place></st1:count=
ry-region><font
size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
lang=3DEN-US
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN-US'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></spa=
n></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>-----Original
Message-----</span></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>From:
ippm-admin@advanced.org [mailto:ippm-admin@advanced.org] On =
Behalf</span></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>Of Bennett
Jon-MGIA0444</span></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>Sent:
den </span><st1:date Month=3D"11" Day=3D"8" Year=3D"2002"><span =
lang=3DEN-US
 style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>8 november =
2002</span></st1:date><span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> </span><st1:time =
Hour=3D"0"
Minute=3D"20"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>00:20</span></st1:time></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>To:
'Matthew J Zekauskas'; Tricha Anjali</span></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>Cc:
Merike Kaeo; ippm@advanced.org</span></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>Subject:
RE: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-</span></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>band-measurement-00.txt</span></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; In addition, I see a number of claims made =
without</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; proof here (one that caught my eye: &quot;it is =
accurate as</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; it obtains measurement from the network using a TCP
session&quot;).</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; I have not followed reference [6] to see what is =
stated</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; there.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; Do other group members have =
comments?</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; what happens when multiple people perform the test at the =
same
time? is</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; the</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; available bandwidth =3D the available bandwidth? or =3D =
avail bw /
number of</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; testers?</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; one part that I was particularly scared by =
was</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;It has to be noted that our scheme will have difficulty =
in</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
</span>measuring
bandwidth for paths with high capacity links. This is</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
</span>because of
the limitations in TCP operation like buffer size,</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
</span>segment
size etc. For paths with high capacity links, our =
method</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
</span>can be
extended to include multiple TCP sessions to be initiated =
in</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
</span>parallel.
These multiple sessions can probe the network and =
obtain</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
</span>fair share
estimates of the path available bandwidth. These</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp;
</span>sub-estimates can then be added to obtain proper estimates for =
the</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;<span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
</span>path.</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; this strikes me as standardizing a DDOS mechanism =
:)</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; jon</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; =
_______________________________________________</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; ippm mailing list</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; ippm@advanced.org</span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; =
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm</span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C28704.EF5AA7F0--

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 07:36:08 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15898
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:36:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8Cb7iV001010;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:37:07 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8CauiV000635
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:36:57 -0500
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15510;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:34:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200211081234.HAA15510@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: ippm@advanced.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ippm-owmetric-as-01.txt
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:34:24 -0500

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: One-Way Metric Applicability Statement
	Author(s)	: H. Uijterwaal, M. Kaeo
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ippm-owmetric-as-01.txt
	Pages		: 8
	Date		: 2002-11-7
	
Active traffic measurements are starting to become more widely used to
ascertain network performance characteristics.  All active measurement
systems have the capability to measure one-way delay and one-way loss
metrics, as defined in RFC2679 [1] A One- way Delay Metric for IPPM and
RFC 2680 [2] A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM, respectively.  To
ensure that the resulting numbers have some meaning, we attempt to
characterize how the measurements are taken and what would ensure that
the end numbers are indeed meaningful.  This document describes an
applicability statement (formerly known as best current practices) for
measuring the one-way delay and one-way loss metrics in operational
networks.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owmetric-as-01.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ippm-owmetric-as-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owmetric-as-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.
		
		
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	access-type="mail-server";
	server="mailserv@ietf.org"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<2002-11-7160035.I-D@ietf.org>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owmetric-as-01.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-ippm-owmetric-as-01.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<2002-11-7160035.I-D@ietf.org>

--OtherAccess--

--NextPart--


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 07:36:24 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16003
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:36:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8Cc3iV001894;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:38:03 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8Cb0iV000818
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:37:03 -0500
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15524;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:34:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200211081234.HAA15524@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: ippm@advanced.org
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-01.txt
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 07:34:28 -0500

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM
	Author(s)	: A. Morton et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-01.txt
	Pages		: 18
	Date		: 2002-11-7
	
This memo defines a simple metric to determine if a network has
maintained packet order. It provides motivations for the new metric,
suggests a metric definition, and discusses the issues associated
with measurement. The memo includes sample metrics to quantify the
extent of reordering in several useful dimensions. Some examples of
evaluation using the various sample metrics are included.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-01.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.
		
		
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	access-type="mail-server";
	server="mailserv@ietf.org"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<2002-11-7160047.I-D@ietf.org>

ENCODING mime
FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-01.txt

--OtherAccess
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-01.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<2002-11-7160047.I-D@ietf.org>

--OtherAccess--

--NextPart--


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 11:32:38 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26017
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:32:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8GW5iV029336;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:32:05 -0500
Received: from mail.ee.gatech.edu (mail.ee.gatech.edu [130.207.225.105])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8GVbiV028519;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:31:37 -0500
Received: from escada.ece.gatech.edu (escada.ece.gatech.edu [199.77.155.39])
	by mail.ee.gatech.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA8GVWS0019472;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:31:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (tricha@localhost)
	by escada.ece.gatech.edu (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0.Beta19/Submit) with ESMTP id gA8GVVRG015957;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:31:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
To: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>
cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <223056958.1036667434@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211081040240.15807-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:31:31 -0500 (EST)


Answers inline.

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:

> Actually, I'd like to see if we could start a discussion
> here first.
>
> [chair hat off]
>
> caveat: I've only had time to skim the draft.
>
> It seems to me this draft doesn't have a good definition for
> "available bandwidth"; it compares pathchar-like tests with
> SNMP measurements (that seems fair) but then to end-to-end
> user perceived measurements (doesn't seem fair -- you're
> comparing link capacity with TCP throughput).

In the first paragraph of Section 1.2 (Available tools) we mention the
pathchar and packetpair based methods for measurement of the total
capacity in the links of a path; while pathload, iperf and our own method
measure the available bandwidth of the path.

The available bandwidth is different from
the capacity in a link. The capacity of a link is the speed at which the
link transfers data. The available bandwidth of a link is the unused
portion of this link capacity. To illustrate, if the link is a
FastEthernet link, it can transfer 100 Mb of data within a second. Thus,
its capacity is 100 Mbps. If in an interval of 1 sec duration, the link is
not transmitting continuously, it implies that there is some "available
capacity" on the link.  Assume that the link was transmitting only for
2/10th of the second. Then, the link available bandwidth is given as
(1 - 2/10)*100 = 80 Mbps.

>
> It seems that what you really are trying to create is a
> "improved" 'bulk transfer capacity' measurement -- what
> a TCP connection will provide a user. (Although, by the
> end I'm confused again... it's not clear to me if you
> are looking for the steady state, as BTC is, or some other
> mix, or really truly are looking to know the "raw" bandwidth
> on the bottleneck link.)

Our method measures the current "raw" available bandwidth of the path. It
does not measure the steady-state.


> It's also not clear to me that the method is ready to be
> standardized; The whole link capacity area is an area of active
> research with (in my opinion) no clear "best" technique.
>
> In addition, I see a number of claims made without
> proof here (one that caught my eye: "it is accurate as
> it obtains measurement from the network using a TCP session").
> I have not followed reference [6] to see what is stated
> there.
>

Our method for available bandwidth measurement is accurate because it
enhances the TCP measurements with a prediction and estimation filter that
processes the raw TCP measurements into a more accurate, refined value for
the available bandwidth. While this is explained in Section 2.2, maybe
it was not clearly repeated in Section 3 about the accuracy of our
method.

> Do other group members have comments?
>
> --Matt
>

Regards,
Tricha

-------------------------------
Tricha Anjali
Broadband & Wireless Networking Lab
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~tricha/



_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 12:30:33 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00259
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:30:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8HP4iV022765;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:25:04 -0500
Received: from mail.ee.gatech.edu (mail.ee.gatech.edu [130.207.225.105])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8HOWiV022577
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:24:33 -0500
Received: from escada.ece.gatech.edu (escada.ece.gatech.edu [199.77.155.39])
	by mail.ee.gatech.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA8HOUS0000583;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:24:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (tricha@localhost)
	by escada.ece.gatech.edu (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0.Beta19/Submit) with ESMTP id gA8HOUhi016067;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:24:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
To: Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 <jcrb@motorola.com>
cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: RE: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band
 -measurement-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238101422C50@ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211081133310.15807-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:24:29 -0500 (EST)



On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 wrote:

>
>
> what happens when multiple people perform the test at the same time? is the
> available bandwidth = the available bandwidth? or = avail bw / number
> of testers?
>

In a big network, the probability of two identical simultaneous events
decreases with size. In other words, the probability of multiple users
desiring path available bandwidth measurement simultaneously is low.
However, in the rare case that this happens, it is desirable to have a
conservative estimation of the path available bandwidth. If the users are
measuring the available bandwidth at an instant, it is foreseeable that
they will send traffic to use that measured value of bandwidth. Thus, it
is efficient to give to them a partial visibility of the total path
available bandwidth.

> one part that I was particularly scared by was
>
>
> >It has to be noted that our scheme will have difficulty in
> >   measuring bandwidth for paths with high capacity links. This is
> >   because of the limitations in TCP operation like buffer size,
> >   segment size etc. For paths with high capacity links, our method
> >   can be extended to include multiple TCP sessions to be initiated in
> >   parallel. These multiple sessions can probe the network and obtain
> >   fair share estimates of the path available bandwidth. These
> >   sub-estimates can then be added to obtain proper estimates for the
> >   path.
>
> this strikes me as standardizing a DDOS mechanism :)
>

Since there are no special features added by our method to a simple TCP
transfer, we are not adding any security concern. Sending a TCP flow is a
task that does not need any special privileges.

> jon
>

Regards,
Tricha

-------------------------------
Tricha Anjali
Broadband & Wireless Networking Lab
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~tricha/


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 12:46:38 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01878
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:46:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8Hl4iV030098;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:47:04 -0500
Received: from mail.ee.gatech.edu (mail.ee.gatech.edu [130.207.225.105])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8Hk2iV029993
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:46:03 -0500
Received: from escada.ece.gatech.edu (escada.ece.gatech.edu [199.77.155.39])
	by mail.ee.gatech.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA8Hk0S0004199;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:46:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (tricha@localhost)
	by escada.ece.gatech.edu (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0.Beta19/Submit) with ESMTP id gA8Hk0dG016131;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:46:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
To: Patrik Carlsson <Patrik.Carlsson@bth.se>
cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: RE: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <000e01c286fc$8d963ff0$73942fc2@Trantor>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211081224580.15807-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:45:59 -0500 (EST)


On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Patrik Carlsson wrote:

> This way of measuring, couldn't it cause the "link" to fluctuate?
> TCP can be seen as greedy/friendly with regards to link capacity (LC),
> some streams get good deal of the LC whereas others starve. This could
> cause a link to look good from some streams whereas "bad" to others,
> depending of view point.
>

This is an inherent TCP drawback. TCP issues have been extensively studied
and many versions have been proposed to handle these drawbacks in
different environments, such as TCP Peach for handling large RTT scenarios
and TCP NewReno for terrestrial networks. Depending on the path
characteristics, suitable version of TCP can be applied to our method to
provide an objective viewpoint of the path to all flows.

> What happens when the distance between the sender and receiver is so
> large, that there is more than one way to get there? For how long will
> test run? Until all possible routes have been tried and estimated? Or
> should the estimation be on a "virtual" point-to-point connection
> between sender and receiver, since this is what the user perceives. On
> the other hand, if there is only a small number of possible routes
> in-between sender and receiver, preferably only one, I think it could
> work. As long as there is only one test going on (on all of the links
> that the stream passes).
>

Our method measures the available bandwidth on the path that is the
current IP-selected path between the source and the destination. Thus, in
the scenario when there are multiple paths between the sender and the
receiver, the measurement will be obtained for the path that is obtained
by IP lookups in the successive routers in the path. Our method is
designed for IP-based application users.

> Regards,
>
> Patrik Carlsson
>
> Blekinge Institute of Technology
> Dept. Telecommunications and Signal Processing
> 371 79  KARLSKRONA
> SWEDEN
>
>

Regards,
Tricha

-------------------------------
Tricha Anjali
Broadband & Wireless Networking Lab
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~tricha/


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov  8 12:58:46 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02900
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:58:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8Hw4iV001412;
	Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:58:04 -0500
Received: from motgate.mot.com (motgate.mot.com [129.188.136.100])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gA8HvfiV001310
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:57:41 -0500
Received: from pobox3.mot.com (pobox3.mot.com [10.64.251.242])
	by motgate.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate) with ESMTP id gA8HvZ8l000672
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:57:35 -0700 (MST)
Received: [from ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com (ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com [10.14.8.10]) by pobox3.mot.com (MOT-pobox3 2.0) with ESMTP id KAA15767 for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:53:39 -0700 (MST)]
Received: by ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52)
	id <STS0P0LZ>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:57:34 -0500
Message-ID: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238101422C53@ma19exm01.e2.bcs.mot.com>
From: Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 <jcrb@motorola.com>
To: "'Tricha Anjali'" <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
Cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: RE: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band
	 -measurement-00.txt
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:57:33 -0500


> > what happens when multiple people perform the test at the 
> same time? is the
> > available bandwidth = the available bandwidth? or = avail 
> bw / number
> > of testers?
> >
> 
> In a big network, the probability of two identical simultaneous events
> decreases with size. In other words, the probability of multiple users
> desiring path available bandwidth measurement simultaneously is low.

What do you base that statement on other then the fact that you would like
it to be true? What do you think the odds of more than one person probing
the bandwidth of the link to www.yahoo.com is? I would guess the probability
is ~1.0 


> However, in the rare case that this happens, it is desirable to have a
> conservative estimation of the path available bandwidth. If 
> the users are measuring the available bandwidth at an instant, it is 
> foreseeable that they will send traffic to use that measured value of 
> bandwidth. Thus, it is efficient to give to them a partial visibility
> of the total path available bandwidth.

its also probable that they were just performing a measurement, or that if
they transmit that it will not use the whole free capacity in which case
such an estimate will be wildly conservative.



> > one part that I was particularly scared by was
> >
> >
> > >It has to be noted that our scheme will have difficulty in
> > >   measuring bandwidth for paths with high capacity links. This is
>...
> > this strikes me as standardizing a DDOS mechanism :)
> >
> 
> Since there are no special features added by our method to a 
> simple TCP transfer, we are not adding any security concern. Sending a 
> TCP flow is a task that does not need any special privileges.

Well either you or someone is going to go and produce a "mechanism" to
perform this measurement in which case my statement holds, or no one is
going to make a mechanism to perform this measurement...... in which case
there is not much point in discussing it is there?

jon
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Mon Nov 11 05:30:16 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14910
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 05:30:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gABAS4Ln001285;
	Mon, 11 Nov 2002 05:28:05 -0500
Received: from spinett.bth.se (spinett.bth.se [194.47.129.13])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gABAROLn001261
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 05:27:25 -0500
Received: from Trantor (trantor-dock.its.bth.se [194.47.148.115])
	by spinett.bth.se (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id gABARMU00706;
	Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:27:22 +0100 (MET)
From: "Patrik Carlsson" <Patrik.Carlsson@bth.se>
To: "'Tricha Anjali'" <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
Cc: <ippm@advanced.org>
Subject: RE: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
Message-ID: <000001c2896c$e80bdcc0$73942fc2@Trantor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C28975.49D044C0"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:27:15 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C28975.49D044C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > What happens when the distance between the sender and receiver is so
> > large, that there is more than one way to get there? For how long
will
> > test run? Until all possible routes have been tried and estimated?
Or
> > should the estimation be on a "virtual" point-to-point connection
> > between sender and receiver, since this is what the user perceives.
On
> > the other hand, if there is only a small number of possible routes
> > in-between sender and receiver, preferably only one, I think it
could
> > work. As long as there is only one test going on (on all of the
links
> > that the stream passes).
> >
> 
> Our method measures the available bandwidth on the path that is the
> current IP-selected path between the source and the destination. Thus,
in
> the scenario when there are multiple paths between the sender and the
> receiver, the measurement will be obtained for the path that is
obtained
> by IP lookups in the successive routers in the path. Our method is
> designed for IP-based application users.
 
Current IP-selected path? Is there such a thing unless
strict-source-routing is activated? 
 
On what time scales do these measurements take place? Seconds, minutes,
hours? 
 
/Patrik
 
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Dept. Telecommunications and Signal Processing
371 79  KARLSKRONA
SWEDEN
 
 

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C28975.49D044C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">


<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<link rel=3DFile-List href=3D"cid:filelist.xml@01C28975.48C1E200">
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"place"/>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
  <o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
 </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <w:WordDocument>
  <w:SpellingState>Clean</w:SpellingState>
  <w:GrammarState>Clean</w:GrammarState>
  <w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
  <w:EnvelopeVis/>
  <w:Compatibility>
   <w:BreakWrappedTables/>
   <w:SnapToGridInCell/>
   <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
   <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
  </w:Compatibility>
  <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
 </w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{mso-style-parent:"";
	margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
	mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
	mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:Arial;
	mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
	mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
	mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
	color:windowtext;}
span.GramE
	{mso-style-name:"";
	mso-gram-e:yes;}
@page Section1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
	mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
	mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
	mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
 /* Style Definitions */=20
 table.MsoNormalTable
	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-parent:"";
	mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
	mso-para-margin:0cm;
	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple =
style=3D'tab-interval:36.0pt'>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; What happens when the distance between the sender and
receiver is so<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; large, that there is more than one way to get there? =
For how
long will<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; test run? Until all possible routes have been tried =
and
estimated? Or<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; should the estimation be on a &quot;virtual&quot;
point-to-point connection<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><span class=3DGramE><font size=3D2 =
face=3D"Courier New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; between sender and receiver, since =
this is
what the user perceives.</span></font></span> On<o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; the other hand, if there is only a small number of =
possible
routes<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; in-between sender and receiver, preferably only one, I =
think
it could<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><span class=3DGramE><font size=3D2 =
face=3D"Courier New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; work.</span></font></span> As long =
as there
is only one test going on (on all of the <span =
class=3DGramE>links</span><o:p></o:p></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt; that the stream passes).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; &gt;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; Our method measures the available bandwidth on the path =
that is
the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; <span class=3DGramE>current</span> IP-selected path between =
the
source and the destination. Thus, in<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; <span class=3DGramE>the</span> scenario when there are =
multiple
paths between the sender and the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; <span class=3DGramE>receiver</span>, the measurement will =
be
obtained for the path that is obtained<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; <span class=3DGramE>by</span> IP lookups in the successive =
routers
in the path. Our method is<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&gt; designed for IP-based application =
users.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><span class=3DGramE><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack
face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Current
IP-selected path?</span></font></span><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:
black'> Is there such a thing unless strict-source-routing is activated? =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p=
>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>On what time scales do these =
measurements
take place? Seconds, minutes, hours? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p=
>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>/Patrik<o:p></o:p></span></font></=
p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p=
>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-layout-grid-align:none'><font size=3D2
face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>Blekinge Institute of =
Technology<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-layout-grid-align:none'><font size=3D2
face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>Dept. Telecommunications and Signal =
Processing<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-layout-grid-align:none'><font size=3D2
face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>371 <span class=3DGramE>79<span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>&nbsp; =
</span>KARLSKRONA</span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'mso-layout-grid-align:none'><st1:country-region><st1:place><font=

  size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
  font-family:"Courier =
New";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'>SWEDEN</span></font></st1:place></st1:count=
ry-region><font
size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New";mso-ansi-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p=
>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C28975.49D044C0--

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Tue Nov 12 07:51:23 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29146
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:51:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gACCk5Ln028591;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:46:05 -0500
Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gACCjiLn028564
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:45:48 -0500
Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49])
	by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACCjhJc026083;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:45:43 +0100
Received: from localhost (henk@localhost)
	by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACCjhg14314;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:45:43 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs
From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net>
To: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
cc: Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 <jcrb@motorola.com>, <ippm@advanced.org>
Subject: RE: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band
 -measurement-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211081133310.15807-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211121336480.12076-100000@x49.ripe.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-RIPE-Spam-Status: NONE ; -1016
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:45:43 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Tricha Anjali wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Bennett Jon-MGIA0444 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > what happens when multiple people perform the test at the same time? is the
> > available bandwidth = the available bandwidth? or = avail bw / number
> > of testers?
> >
>
> In a big network, the probability of two identical simultaneous events
> decreases with size. In other words, the probability of multiple users
> desiring path available bandwidth measurement simultaneously is low.
> However, in the rare case that this happens, it is desirable to have a
> conservative estimation of the path available bandwidth. If the users are
> measuring the available bandwidth at an instant, it is foreseeable that
> they will send traffic to use that measured value of bandwidth. Thus, it
> is efficient to give to them a partial visibility of the total path
> available bandwidth.

I think that you are mixing 2 things here: (1) the result when >1 user
uses this tool to estimate available bandwidth and (2) what to do with the
result.

For (1) the result should be "measured available BW = available BW - BW
used by other measurement sessions".  Since the latter should be small,
multiple users at the same time should measure the same result.  This has
to be verified, obviously.

(2) is a completely different question.  It would be very nice if the
system could somehow detect that >1 user is measureing available BW and
tell it that each user can use only 1/N-th of the result, but this is
impossible.  This requires some BW reservation mechanism, but that is
outside the scope of this WG.




> > one part that I was particularly scared by was
> >
> >
> > >It has to be noted that our scheme will have difficulty in
> > >   measuring bandwidth for paths with high capacity links.

It would be nice if the draft could quantify this in terms of network
parameters such as link capacity, time-stamp accuracy, etc, or at least
describe how measure it for a specific link.

Henk



> > This is
> > >   because of the limitations in TCP operation like buffer size,
> > >   segment size etc. For paths with high capacity links, our method
> > >   can be extended to include multiple TCP sessions to be initiated in
> > >   parallel. These multiple sessions can probe the network and obtain
> > >   fair share estimates of the path available bandwidth. These
> > >   sub-estimates can then be added to obtain proper estimates for the
> > >   path.




> >
> > this strikes me as standardizing a DDOS mechanism :)
> >
>
> Since there are no special features added by our method to a simple TCP
> transfer, we are not adding any security concern. Sending a TCP flow is a
> task that does not need any special privileges.
>
> > jon
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tricha
>
> -------------------------------
> Tricha Anjali
> Broadband & Wireless Networking Lab
> School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~tricha/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)



_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Tue Nov 12 07:56:20 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29316
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:56:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gACCw3Ln029374;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:58:03 -0500
Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gACCvBLn029343;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:57:11 -0500
Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49])
	by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACCvAJc028779;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:57:10 +0100
Received: from localhost (henk@localhost)
	by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACCvAQ14322;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:57:10 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs
From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net>
To: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>
cc: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>, Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com>,
        <ippm@advanced.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <223056958.1036667434@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211121356500.12076-100000@x49.ripe.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-RIPE-Spam-Status: NONE ; -1005
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:57:10 +0100 (CET)

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:

> I have not followed reference [6] to see what is stated
> there.

Is this reference online somewhere?

Henk


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Tue Nov 12 08:41:03 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29145
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:51:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gACCo5Ln028855;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:50:05 -0500
Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gACCnBLn028773;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:49:11 -0500
Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49])
	by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACCnAJc027080;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:49:10 +0100
Received: from localhost (henk@localhost)
	by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACCnA214318;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:49:10 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs
From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net>
To: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
cc: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>, <ippm@advanced.org>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211081040240.15807-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211121347350.12076-100000@x49.ripe.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-RIPE-Spam-Status: NONE ; -1010
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:49:10 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Tricha Anjali wrote:

>
> Answers inline.
>
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:
>
> > Actually, I'd like to see if we could start a discussion
> > here first.
> >
> > [chair hat off]
> >
> > caveat: I've only had time to skim the draft.
> >
> > It seems to me this draft doesn't have a good definition for
> > "available bandwidth"; it compares pathchar-like tests with
> > SNMP measurements (that seems fair) but then to end-to-end
> > user perceived measurements (doesn't seem fair -- you're
> > comparing link capacity with TCP throughput).
>
> In the first paragraph of Section 1.2 (Available tools) we mention the
> pathchar and packetpair based methods for measurement of the total
> capacity in the links of a path; while pathload, iperf and our own method
> measure the available bandwidth of the path.
>
> The available bandwidth is different from
> the capacity in a link. The capacity of a link is the speed at which the
> link transfers data. The available bandwidth of a link is the unused
> portion of this link capacity. To illustrate, if the link is a
> FastEthernet link, it can transfer 100 Mb of data within a second. Thus,
> its capacity is 100 Mbps. If in an interval of 1 sec duration, the link is
> not transmitting continuously, it implies that there is some "available
> capacity" on the link.  Assume that the link was transmitting only for
> 2/10th of the second. Then, the link available bandwidth is given as
> (1 - 2/10)*100 = 80 Mbps.
>
> >
> > It seems that what you really are trying to create is a
> > "improved" 'bulk transfer capacity' measurement -- what
> > a TCP connection will provide a user. (Although, by the
> > end I'm confused again... it's not clear to me if you
> > are looking for the steady state, as BTC is, or some other
> > mix, or really truly are looking to know the "raw" bandwidth
> > on the bottleneck link.)
>
> Our method measures the current "raw" available bandwidth of the path. It
> does not measure the steady-state.

I think that you have now used "raw available bandwidth", "link available
bandwidth" and "available bandwidth" in 2 paragraphs, so I second Matt's
request for a clear definition of what you want to measure.


Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Tue Nov 12 13:40:41 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09858
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:40:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gACIX4Ln011369;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:33:09 -0500
Received: from mail.ee.gatech.edu (mail.ee.gatech.edu [130.207.225.105])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gACIWTLn011347
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:32:30 -0500
Received: from escada.ece.gatech.edu (escada.ece.gatech.edu [199.77.155.39])
	by mail.ee.gatech.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gACIWRL8008509;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:32:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (tricha@localhost)
	by escada.ece.gatech.edu (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0.Beta19/Submit) with ESMTP id gACIWRwK026940;
	Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:32:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net>
cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211121356500.12076-100000@x49.ripe.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211121331300.26374-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:32:27 -0500 (EST)


It is on my website: http://www.ece.gatech.edu/~tricha

Regards,
Tricha

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:
>
> > I have not followed reference [6] to see what is stated
> > there.
>
> Is this reference online somewhere?
>
> Henk
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
> RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
> Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
> 1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
> The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
>
>

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Wed Nov 13 04:04:12 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25284
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:04:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAD955cV013588;
	Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:05:05 -0500
Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAD945cV013451
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 04:04:05 -0500
Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49])
	by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAD945Zl025542;
	Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:04:05 +0100
Received: from localhost (henk@localhost)
	by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAD945b28228;
	Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:04:05 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs
From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net>
To: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211121331300.26374-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211131003140.28035-100000@x49.ripe.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:04:05 +0100 (CET)

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Tricha Anjali wrote:

>
> It is on my website: http://www.ece.gatech.edu/~tricha

That just says that it has been accepted, it doesn't give a link to the
pdf.

Henk




>
> Regards,
> Tricha
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:
> >
> > > I have not followed reference [6] to see what is stated
> > > there.
> >
> > Is this reference online somewhere?
> >
> > Henk
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
> > RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
> > Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
> > 1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
> > The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Wed Nov 13 11:31:55 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07327
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:31:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gADGX4cV031082;
	Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:33:05 -0500
Received: from BMW (mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gADGWecV031049;
	Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:32:41 -0500
From: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>
To: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
cc: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net>,
        Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>, ippm@advanced.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] Request for speaking
 slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
Message-ID: <742750318.1037187127@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211121347350.12076-100000@x49.ripe.net>
References:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211121347350.12076-100000@x49.ripe.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:32:07 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think a perusal of the email archives would be worthwhile,
as would a read of the BTC Framework, RFC 3148.  This group
was originally formed to generate a bandwidth metric, and the
fact that it's the last thing to be standardized shows the
inherent difficulty in defining that metric.  (Caveat: I wasn't
around when the group was formed...)

Using a version of TCP to test the bandwidth available to TCP
is the group's best current thinking; obviously it perturbs
the system, but it is no less fair than firing off a TCP
transfer.

The problems with the definitions below are
 - TCP's are different, and you need to understand the differences
    in order to say what any given TCP might obtain (hence the
    ancillary metrics in RFC 3148).

 - What a TCP might obtain is different than what sampling SNMP
    counters over time might tell you is available, and both of
    those are different than the instantaneous "unused bandwidth"
    along a path.

This is another reason why I ask that what you are attempting
to measure is defined well.  "Available bandwidth" has a nice
intuitive appeal, but when you look in detail you find that
there are many different potential meanings.

--Matt

--On Tuesday, November 12, 2002 1:49 PM +0100 "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" 
<henk@ripe.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Tricha Anjali wrote:
>
>>
>> Answers inline.
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, I'd like to see if we could start a discussion
>> > here first.
>> >
>> > [chair hat off]
>> >
>> > caveat: I've only had time to skim the draft.
>> >
>> > It seems to me this draft doesn't have a good definition for
>> > "available bandwidth"; it compares pathchar-like tests with
>> > SNMP measurements (that seems fair) but then to end-to-end
>> > user perceived measurements (doesn't seem fair -- you're
>> > comparing link capacity with TCP throughput).
>>
>> In the first paragraph of Section 1.2 (Available tools) we mention the
>> pathchar and packetpair based methods for measurement of the total
>> capacity in the links of a path; while pathload, iperf and our own method
>> measure the available bandwidth of the path.
>>
>> The available bandwidth is different from
>> the capacity in a link. The capacity of a link is the speed at which the
>> link transfers data. The available bandwidth of a link is the unused
>> portion of this link capacity. To illustrate, if the link is a
>> FastEthernet link, it can transfer 100 Mb of data within a second. Thus,
>> its capacity is 100 Mbps. If in an interval of 1 sec duration, the link
>> is not transmitting continuously, it implies that there is some
>> "available capacity" on the link.  Assume that the link was transmitting
>> only for 2/10th of the second. Then, the link available bandwidth is
>> given as (1 - 2/10)*100 = 80 Mbps.
>>
>> >
>> > It seems that what you really are trying to create is a
>> > "improved" 'bulk transfer capacity' measurement -- what
>> > a TCP connection will provide a user. (Although, by the
>> > end I'm confused again... it's not clear to me if you
>> > are looking for the steady state, as BTC is, or some other
>> > mix, or really truly are looking to know the "raw" bandwidth
>> > on the bottleneck link.)
>>
>> Our method measures the current "raw" available bandwidth of the path. It
>> does not measure the steady-state.
>
> I think that you have now used "raw available bandwidth", "link available
> bandwidth" and "available bandwidth" in 2 paragraphs, so I second Matt's
> request for a clear definition of what you want to measure.
>
>
> Henk
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
> RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
> Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
> 1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
> The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
>
>


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Wed Nov 13 13:05:52 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10824
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:05:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gADI64cV003320;
	Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:06:05 -0500
Received: from mail.ee.gatech.edu (mail.ee.gatech.edu [130.207.225.105])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gADI56cV003147
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:05:07 -0500
Received: from escada.ece.gatech.edu (escada.ece.gatech.edu [199.77.155.39])
	by mail.ee.gatech.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gADI52L8010689;
	Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:05:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (tricha@localhost)
	by escada.ece.gatech.edu (8.12.0.Beta19/8.12.0.Beta19/Submit) with ESMTP id gADI4T7m029640;
	Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:04:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Tricha Anjali <tricha@ece.gatech.edu>
To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net>
cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] Request for speaking slot:draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measurement-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211131003140.28035-100000@x49.ripe.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211131303540.29222-100000@escada.ece.gatech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:04:29 -0500 (EST)


The title of the paper is a link to the pdf.

Regards,
Tricha


On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Tricha Anjali wrote:
>
> >
> > It is on my website: http://www.ece.gatech.edu/~tricha
>
> That just says that it has been accepted, it doesn't give a link to the
> pdf.
>
> Henk
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tricha
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have not followed reference [6] to see what is stated
> > > > there.
> > >
> > > Is this reference online somewhere?
> > >
> > > Henk
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
> > > RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
> > > Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
> > > 1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
> > > The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > ippm@advanced.org
> > http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
> RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
> Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
> 1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
> The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
>
>

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Thu Nov 14 11:27:45 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23439
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:27:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAEGQ4cV023357;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:26:04 -0500
Received: from BMW (mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAEGP5cV023216;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:25:05 -0500
From: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>
To: agenda@ietf.org
cc: ippm@advanced.org
Message-ID: <828695130.1037273072@localhost>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Subject: [ippm] agenda for IPPM in Atlanta
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:24:32 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here's the basic plan:

IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
Tuesday, November 19 at 19:30 - 22:00
====================================
CHAIRS: Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com>, Matt Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>

AGENDA:

1. Agenda bashing
   Working Group Milestones Status (5 min)
   -- Matt Zekauskas, Merike Kaeo

2. Announcements (5-ish minutes)
     IMRG notice
       -- Mark Allman
     Status of the ITU-T Performance Parameters
       -- Al Morton

3. Discussion on Packet Reordering (15 min)
   -- Al Morton

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-00.txt

4. IPPM Reporting MIB and Metrics Registry discussion (30 min)
   -- Emile Stephan

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-01.txt
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-metrics-registry-01.txt

5. Discussion on One-Way Active Measurements Protocol (15 min)
   -- Stanislav Shalunov

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owdp-05.txt


6. One-Way Metric Applicability Statement (10 min)
    -- Henk Uijterwaal

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-owmetric-as-01.txt

7. Potential work: another cut at an "IP Measurement Protocol" (IPMP) (15 
min)
   -- Jon Bennett

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bennett-ippm-ipmp-00.txt

8. Potential work: IPPM spatial metrics measurement  (15 min)
   -- Emile Stephan

 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stephan-ippm-spatial-metrics-00.t
xt

9. Potential work: Available Bandwidth Measurement in IP Networks (15 min)
   -- Tricha Anjali

 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-anjali-ippm-avail-band-measuremen
t-00.txt

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Thu Nov 14 11:52:49 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24206
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:52:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAEGp4cV024916;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:51:05 -0500
Received: from almso2.proxy.att.com (almso2.att.com [192.128.166.71])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAEGokcV024893;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:50:46 -0500
Received: from hogpa.mt.att.com ([135.16.74.2])
	by almso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with SMTP id gAEGoiLm008278;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:50:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from acmortonw.att.com by hogpa.mt.att.com (SMI-8.6/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2)
	id LAA06318; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:50:43 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021114114824.02d3c450@hogpa.mt.att.com>
X-Sender: acm1@hogpa.mt.att.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
To: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>, agenda@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Subject: Re: [ippm] agenda for IPPM in Atlanta
Cc: ippm@advanced.org
In-Reply-To: <828695130.1037273072@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:49:37 -0500

Hi,

At 11:24 AM 11/14/2002 -0500, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:
>3. Discussion on Packet Reordering (15 min)
>   -- Al Morton

the "real" URL is
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-01.txt

sorry for any confusion,
Al



_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Thu Nov 14 14:52:44 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28579
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:52:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAEJr4cV001560;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:53:07 -0500
Received: from auds952.usa.alcatel.com (auds952.usa.alcatel.com [143.209.238.7])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAEJqUcV001531;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:52:31 -0500
Received: from morgoth.pet.usa.alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by auds952.usa.alcatel.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAEJqOcC008745;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:52:25 -0600 (CST)
Received: from alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by morgoth.pet.usa.alcatel.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id gAEJqrG08858;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:52:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3DD3FEF6.72028881@alcatel.com>
From: Mudhafar Hassan-Ali <mudhafar.hassan-ali@alcatel.com>
Organization: Alcatel, USA
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ippm@advanced.org, kaeo@merike.com, matt@advanced.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Subject: [ippm] Agenda
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:52:22 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Any idea what the agenda is for the coming meeting?

Mudhafar

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 15 20:12:15 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25614
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:12:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAG1B4cV005131;
	Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:11:05 -0500
Received: from gamma.isi.edu (gamma.isi.edu [128.9.144.145])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAG1AhcV005108
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:10:44 -0500
Received: from ISI.EDU (jet.isi.edu [128.9.160.87])
	by gamma.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id gAG1AeD03296;
	Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:10:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200211160110.gAG1AeD03296@gamma.isi.edu>
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ippm@advanced.org
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary=NextPart
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Subject: [ippm] RFC 3393 on IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:10:40 -0800


--NextPart


A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.


        RFC 3393

        Title:      IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP
                    Performance Metrics (IPPM)
        Author(s):  C. Demichelis, P. Chimento
        Status:     Standards Track
        Date:       November 2002
        Mailbox:    carlo.demichelis@tilab.com,
                    chimento@torrentnet.com                         
        Pages:      21
        Characters: 47731
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
                         
        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-ippm-ipdv-10.txt

        URL:        ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3393.txt


This document refers to a metric for variation in delay of packets
across Internet paths.  The metric is based on the difference in the
One-Way-Delay of selected packets.  This difference in delay is called
"IP Packet Delay Variation (ipdv)".

The metric is valid for measurements between two hosts both in the
case that they have synchronized clocks and in the case that they are
not synchronized.  We discuss both in this document.

This document is a product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group
of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the
"Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the
standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution
of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG.  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body 
help: ways_to_get_rfcs.  For example:

        To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
        Subject: getting rfcs

        help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.echo 
Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.


Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader 
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version
of the RFCs.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess"

--OtherAccess
Content-Type:  Message/External-body;
        access-type="mail-server";
        server="RFC-INFO@RFC-EDITOR.ORG"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <021115170803.RFC@RFC-EDITOR.ORG>

RETRIEVE: rfc
DOC-ID: rfc3393

--OtherAccess
Content-Type:   Message/External-body;
        name="rfc3393.txt";
        site="ftp.isi.edu";
        access-type="anon-ftp";
        directory="in-notes"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <021115170803.RFC@RFC-EDITOR.ORG>

--OtherAccess--
--NextPart--
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Sun Nov 17 22:23:04 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00826
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:23:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAI3L4cV022397;
	Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:21:04 -0500
Received: from almso2.proxy.att.com (almso2.att.com [192.128.166.71])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAI3KwcV022380;
	Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:20:58 -0500
Received: from hogpa.mt.att.com ([135.16.74.2])
	by almso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with SMTP id gAI3KvLm029665;
	Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:20:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from acmortonw.att.com by hogpa.mt.att.com (SMI-8.6/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2)
	id WAA25468; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:20:56 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021116133758.0342fb90@hogpa.mt.att.com>
X-Sender: acm1@hogpa.mt.att.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
To: Matthew J Zekauskas <matt@advanced.org>
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Subject: Re: [ippm] agenda for IPPM in Atlanta
Cc: ippm@advanced.org
In-Reply-To: <828695130.1037273072@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:20:14 -0500

Hi,
At 11:24 AM 11/14/2002 -0500, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:
>2. Announcements (5-ish minutes)
>     IMRG notice
>       -- Mark Allman
>     Status of the ITU-T Performance Parameters
>       -- Al Morton

To help make the 2b. status item really short, please take a
look at Will Leland's slides from IETF-45,
as this is our most efficient jumping-off point to compare ITU-T
"parameters" with our IPPM metrics:
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/proceedings/99mar/slides/ippm-itu-99mar.pdf

Will nicely summarized the similarities and differences at the time,
("Don't Panic") and there was some discussion whether this comparison
should be expanded and become an RFC.  I offered to help (2 years later),
with the proviso that we avoid trying to compare moving targets
(e.g., Phil Chimento had just substantially re-written the IPDV draft,
now it's RFC 3393).

But now, I think the result of occasional status exchanges
(and other efforts) is there are even *fewer* differences in
the important areas.

So, I'll try to summarize what's new and what has changed
in the latest ITU-T spec (about to begin their Last Call):
  - I.380 is now re-numbered Y.1540, same scope as before, some terms changed.
  - Delay variation is an area where IPPM and ITU-T are now pretty close.
  - ITU-T has a new parameter, IP Severe Loss Block Ratio.
  - There are references to IPPM's BTC framework and Loss Pattern RFCs
  - One reason ITU-T defines parameters is to enable writing performance
objectives (now in Y.1541). Numerical objectives are beyond our scope.

and I'll describe where I think the ITU-T performance work is headed next.

see you in Atlanta,
Al

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Mon Nov 18 11:05:25 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24986
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:05:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAIG63cV017477;
	Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:06:03 -0500
Received: from hotmail.com ([64.4.21.23])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAIG5VcV017436
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:05:32 -0500
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:05:31 -0800
Received: from 148.204.221.184 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:05:30 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [148.204.221.184]
From: "Ebrik Agave" <ebrikagave@hotmail.com>
To: ippm@advanced.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID: <F23IYxDQU56sTGc07Cr00015eca@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2002 16:05:31.0254 (UTC) FILETIME=[51B61960:01C28F1C]
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Subject: [ippm] about MPLS
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:05:30 +0000

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Hi!, My name is Erik, Im studing Telematica in Mexico City, actually we are working in a MPLS proyect, my questions is about&nbsp; which aplication are the best to prove MPLS, im think in a traffic generator, but i want to hear your opinion!</P>
<P>Probably i have to programing softweare pleas help me!!!, is important for this proyect.</P>
<P>Thanks for your help and sorry but my english is not perfet ! 8-)</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Erik Eudave.<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>From: ippm-request@advanced.org 
<DIV></DIV>To: ebrikagave@hotmail.com 
<DIV></DIV>Subject: Welcome to the "ippm" mailing list 
<DIV></DIV>Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:46:02 -0500 
<DIV></DIV>Received: from mailhost.advanced.org ([209.211.239.227]) by mc4-f13.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:46:03 -0800 
<DIV></DIV>Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAHMk2cV012621for <EBRIKAGAVE@HOTMAIL.COM>; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:46:02 -0500 
<DIV></DIV>Message-ID: &lt;20021117224602.12620.14100.Mailman@mailhost.advanced.org&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>X-No-Archive: yes 
<DIV></DIV>X-Ack: no 
<DIV></DIV>Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org 
<DIV></DIV>Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org 
<DIV></DIV>X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org 
<DIV></DIV>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 
<DIV></DIV>Precedence: bulk 
<DIV></DIV>List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
<DIV></DIV>List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
<DIV></DIV>List-Subscribe: <HTTP: ippm listinfo mailman mailhost.advanced.org>,<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe> 
<DIV></DIV>List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <IPPM.ADVANCED.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>List-Unsubscribe: <HTTP: ippm listinfo mailman mailhost.advanced.org>,<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe> 
<DIV></DIV>List-Archive: <HTTP: ippm mailhost.advanced.org archives />
<DIV></DIV>X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface) 
<DIV></DIV>Return-Path: ippm-admin@advanced.org 
<DIV></DIV>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2002 22:46:03.0351 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B8B5670:01C28E8B] 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Welcome to the ippm@advanced.org mailing list! This is the mailing 
<DIV></DIV>list for the IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group. Mail 
<DIV></DIV>archives, as well as other working group documents, are available at 
<DIV></DIV>http://www.advanced.org/IPPM/ . [Alternate archive location at 
<DIV></DIV>IETF.ORG: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ippm/ ] General list 
<DIV></DIV>information is located at 
<DIV></DIV>http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm . In keeping with 
<DIV></DIV>IETF practice, the list is intended to be open, so very little 
<DIV></DIV>filtering is present. There will likely be some spam, although we do 
<DIV></DIV>try to filter egregious postings. There may also be "viruses" 
<DIV></DIV>transmitted over the list. As always, don't open attachments without 
<DIV></DIV>verifying that they were intended to be sent. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Please also refrain from sending (especially non-text) attachments to 
<DIV></DIV>the list; a better way is to place documents on a web server and 
<DIV></DIV>provide a pointer to the document location. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>NOTE WELL: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>All statements of a technical or standards-related nature addressed to 
<DIV></DIV>the IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, 
<DIV></DIV>which grants certain licenses and rights in such statements to the 
<DIV></DIV>IETF and its participants. This includes verbal statements in 
<DIV></DIV>meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any 
<DIV></DIV>time or place, to 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>- the IETF plenary session, 
<DIV></DIV>- any IETF working group or portion thereof, 
<DIV></DIV>- the IESG or any member thereof, 
<DIV></DIV>- the IAB or any member thereof, 
<DIV></DIV>- any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, 
<DIV></DIV>any working group or design team list, or any other list 
<DIV></DIV>functioning under IETF auspices, 
<DIV></DIV>- or as an Internet-Drafts submission 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The above excludes personal communications not intended to be shared 
<DIV></DIV>with any IETF working group, the IESG, the IAB, or any subset thereof. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The current official version of the above NOTE WELL statement is 
<DIV></DIV>available at http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html . 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>To post to this list, send your email to: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>ippm@advanced.org 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>General information about the mailing list is at: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to 
<DIV></DIV>or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your 
<DIV></DIV>subscription page at: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/options/ippm/ebrikagave%40hotmail.com 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>ippm-request@advanced.org 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the 
<DIV></DIV>quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>You must know your password to change your options (including changing 
<DIV></DIV>the password, itself) or to unsubscribe. It is: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>toxoplasmosis 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>If you forget your password, don't worry, you will receive a monthly 
<DIV></DIV>reminder telling you what all your advanced.org mailing list passwords 
<DIV></DIV>are, and how to unsubscribe or change your options. There is also a 
<DIV></DIV>button on your options page that will email your current password to 
<DIV></DIV>you. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>You may also have your password mailed to you automatically from the 
<DIV></DIV>Web page noted above. 
<DIV></DIV></mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe></mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe></mailto:ippm@advanced.org></mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help></div><br clear=all><hr>MSN. M�s �til Cada D�a <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMHES/2018">Haz clic aqu�</a> </html>
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Tue Nov 19 19:06:18 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA21195
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:06:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAK063cV001959;
	Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:06:03 -0500
Received: from d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.235])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAJNGBcV032434
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:16:12 -0500
Received: from d12relay02.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.23])
	by d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAJNG9aK028870
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:16:10 +0100
Received: from d08ml005.at.ibm.com ([9.244.38.73])
	by d12relay02.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id gAJNG8jo073900
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:16:09 +0100
To: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11   July 24, 2002
Message-ID: <OF3AA0C3F4.59802E3A-ONC1256C76.007E619A-C1256C76.007F9CEE@at.ibm.com>
From: "Roman Ernst" <roman_ernst@at.ibm.com>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D08ML005/08/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at
 20/11/2002 00:16:08
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Subject: [ippm] QoS, DiffServ, RSVP, Impl.
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:17:08 +0100

I'm completely new to this kind of network managemnt/measurement... maybe
you can answer a few questions that drew up when reading the RFCs....

1) Won't there be any support for QoS, DiffServ, RSVP?
      => would be great for testing flows in QoS Networks...

2) What about IPv6 Flow IDs,... and how can one configure IPv6 addresses?

ad 1 + 2)
=> in my opinion the current connection parameters "src, dst, src_P,
dst_P,..." should be expanded...?!?!


3) Is there currently any test implementation available or are there any
efforts to build one?


Thanks for answering my questions and excuse me if they were already
answered somewhere else.

Roman ERNST

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Wed Nov 20 09:48:24 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20554
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:48:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAKEhJcV003381;
	Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:43:19 -0500
Received: from kcmso2.proxy.att.com (kcmso2.att.com [192.128.134.71])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAKEgkcV003323
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:42:47 -0500
Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12])
	by kcmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with ESMTP id gAKEATjJ007771
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:42:47 -0600 (CST)
Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (6.5.019)
        id 3D8B56050163E3D6 for ippm@advanced.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:42:46 -0500
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Message-ID: <A66DDF82468CDA44BEC0D63F91E4000B02A6DDEE@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Thread-Topic: some questions on OWDP ver 05
Thread-Index: AcKQQwNIfgeSg/w1EdaB3AACLQmBVQ==
From: "Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO" <rgcole@att.com>
To: <ippm@advanced.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailhost.advanced.org id gAKEgkcV003323
Subject: [ippm] some questions on OWDP ver 05
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:42:39 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

IPPM OWDP Doc ver.05 notes/questions:

Stanislav,

I like the changes made to the version 05 of the draft.
I have just a few questions.

+ I do not understand the required components and the
optional components of the protocol?  

E.g., in section 2.0 on "Goals", it is stated that the encryption
and authentication is optional but this is not mentioned
in the guts of the document.

If I were to implement the OWDP without encrytion, would that
implementation be deemed 'compliant'?

+ Is the section on computing expontially distributed
values for start times complete?  If not, will it be complete
in the next revision and (as you suggested) a C-code description
would be highly desireable.


Thanks,

Bob Cole

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Wed Nov 20 10:42:09 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20555
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:48:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAKEh4cV003346;
	Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:43:04 -0500
Received: from almso2.proxy.att.com (almso2.att.com [192.128.166.71])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAKEgccV003316
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:42:38 -0500
Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12])
	by almso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with ESMTP id gAKBwdc6001998
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:42:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (6.5.019)
        id 3D8B56050163E38C for ippm@advanced.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:42:37 -0500
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Message-ID: <A66DDF82468CDA44BEC0D63F91E4000B02A6DDEC@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Thread-Topic: on metrics to be registered
Thread-Index: AcKQQsQyfgeSfvw1EdaB3AACLQmBVQ==
From: "Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO" <rgcole@att.com>
To: <ippm@advanced.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailhost.advanced.org id gAKEgccV003316
Subject: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:42:36 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

IPPM Metrics Doc ver.01 notes/questions:

Emile,

I think the registry is potentially a useful device.  I have
one set of comments.

E.g., the metrics for one-way delay and round trip contain
reference to delay, delayPoissonStream,
delayPercentile, delayMedian, delayMinimum, 
delay inverse percentile, etc.

These seem to fall into four types of items registered:

singleton-metric, e.g., delay
sample-metric, e.g., delayPoisson
statistical metric, delayMedian
ambiguous metrics, e.g., delayPercentile

Of the MIBs I am familiar with in, e.g., RMONMIB,
they need reference only to singleton-metrics because
the 'sample' is given or defined and 'statistics' are
hard coded.

Also, the first three type require only a single object
to point to the metric, while the ambiguous statistical
metrics require additional information
on the MIB to clarify the ambiguity.

It is not clear to me that you want to register
statistical metrics.  Even if you do, should the 
ambiguous statistical metrics be removed?

Finally, would it make sense to disassociate the
sample-metrics from the registration of the statistic?
This might simplify the registration process.

Thanks,

Bob Cole

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Wed Nov 20 10:43:14 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22449
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:43:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAKFY4cV006088;
	Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:34:04 -0500
Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAKFXacV006063
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:33:37 -0500
Received: from cow.ripe.net (cow.ripe.net [193.0.1.239])
	by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAKFXaZl025973;
	Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:33:36 +0100
Received: from localhost (henk@localhost)
	by cow.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.10.2) with ESMTP id gAKFXZl14040;
	Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:33:36 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: cow.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs
From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net>
To: Roman Ernst <roman_ernst@at.ibm.com>
cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] QoS, DiffServ, RSVP, Impl.
In-Reply-To: <OF3AA0C3F4.59802E3A-ONC1256C76.007E619A-C1256C76.007F9CEE@at.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211201626460.10440-100000@cow.ripe.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:33:35 +0100 (CET)

Roman,

> I'm completely new to this kind of network managemnt/measurement... maybe
> you can answer a few questions that drew up when reading the RFCs....
>
> 1) Won't there be any support for QoS, DiffServ, RSVP?
>       => would be great for testing flows in QoS Networks...

I think that this is partially beyond the scope of the IPPM RFC's and
partially because QoS (etc) didn't really exist when the RFC's were
written.  The RFC's describe how to measure delay (loss, rtt, ...) for
packets sent between hosts.  If the implementor wants to set QoS bits (or
whatever) in the packet, then he can do so, it won't affect the way how
one should measure delay.

> 2) What about IPv6 Flow IDs,... and how can one configure IPv6 addresses?
>
> ad 1 + 2)
> => in my opinion the current connection parameters "src, dst, src_P,
> dst_P,..." should be expanded...?!?!

The text say "IP address of a host", not "IPv4 address of a host", and the
whole discussion is valid regardless whether the packet is v4 or v6.  In
fact, that is what we did when we ported our product to v6, just change
the packet formats and everything worked.

> 3) Is there currently any test implementation available or are there any
> efforts to build one?

2678+ and the IPDV metrics have been implemented in (a.o.) RIPE NCC's TTM,
(www.ripe.net/test-traffic).

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Wed Nov 20 20:53:45 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07895
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:53:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAL1o5cV000736;
	Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:50:06 -0500
Received: from basie.internet2.edu (basie.internet2.edu [207.75.164.22])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAL1nLcV000676
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:49:22 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92D87B487
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:49:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B39A37B470
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:49:20 -0500 (EST)
To: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: Re: [ippm] some questions on OWDP ver 05
References: <A66DDF82468CDA44BEC0D63F91E4000B02A6DDEE@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
From: stanislav shalunov <shalunov@internet2.edu>
In-Reply-To: <A66DDF82468CDA44BEC0D63F91E4000B02A6DDEE@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Message-ID: <87r8dfpu8w.fsf@cain.internet2.edu>
Lines: 35
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12pre8
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: 20 Nov 2002 20:49:19 -0500

"Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO" <rgcole@att.com> writes:

> + I do not understand the required components and the
> optional components of the protocol?  
> 
> E.g., in section 2.0 on "Goals", it is stated that the encryption
> and authentication is optional but this is not mentioned
> in the guts of the document.

You don't need to advertize any particular mode to be `compliant'.
I don't know whether support for encrypted and authenticated mode
should be required.

> If I were to implement the OWDP without encrytion, would that
> implementation be deemed 'compliant'?

AES in counter mode will be used to generate pseudo-random bits
anyway.  A free AES is a few hundred lines of C.  Given this, I'd
actually make it a requirement to support all three modes.

What does everyone else think?

> + Is the section on computing expontially distributed values for
> start times complete?  If not, will it be complete in the next
> revision and (as you suggested) a C-code description would be highly
> desireable.

I don't want the completion of that section to prevent any other
changes from being released.  That said, we're working on it.

-- 
Stanislav Shalunov		http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/

All revolutions are bloody.  The October Revolution was bloodless,
but it was only the beginning.               -- Dmitri Volkogonov
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Wed Nov 20 23:49:02 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11874
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:49:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAL4k4cV007947;
	Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:46:04 -0500
Received: from d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.238])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAK9V4cV023653
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 04:31:05 -0500
Received: from d12relay02.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.23])
	by d12lmsgate-5.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAK9V2kL017302
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:31:02 +0100
Received: from d08ml005.at.ibm.com ([9.244.38.73])
	by d12relay02.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id gAK9Uwxt141348
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:30:59 +0100
To: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11   July 24, 2002
Message-ID: <OF710678A0.18546116-ONC1256C77.0033039B-C1256C77.00341AF5@at.ibm.com>
From: "Roman Ernst" <roman_ernst@at.ibm.com>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D08ML005/08/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at
 20/11/2002 10:31:00
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Subject: [ippm] QoS, DiffServ, RSVP, Impl. - more specific
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:30:52 +0100

Sorry...  forgot to mention that my questions are pointing to the "IPPM
reporting MIB" - DRAFT.

Maybe once again the questions... in a little bit more detail:

1) Won't there be any support for QoS, DiffServ, RSVP, TOS IP field?
      => would be great for testing flows in QoS Networks...
      => should be an extension to the table "ippmNetworkMeasureTable"

2) What about IPv6 Flow IDs,... and how can one configure IPv6 addresses?

      => in my opinion the current connection parameters "src, dst, src_P,
dst_P,..." should be expanded...
      => would also best fit into "ippmNetworkMeasureTable"


3) Is there currently any test implementation available or are there any
efforts to build one (e.g. for Linux)?


Thanks for anybody answering my questions...

Roman ERNST

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Thu Nov 21 10:07:11 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06103
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:07:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gALF24cV029903;
	Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:02:04 -0500
Received: from kcmso2.proxy.att.com (kcmso2.att.com [192.128.134.71])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gALF1WcV029754
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:01:32 -0500
Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12])
	by kcmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with ESMTP id gALExFgY005680
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:01:19 -0600 (CST)
Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (6.5.019)
        id 3D8B5605016F3533; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:01:17 -0500
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Subject: RE: [ippm] some questions on OWDP ver 05
Message-ID: <A66DDF82468CDA44BEC0D63F91E4000B02A9B590@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] some questions on OWDP ver 05
Thread-Index: AcKRAGdbg99EcLxSQU+ekZAJQLjOfgAbmNgg
From: "Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO" <rgcole@att.com>
To: "stanislav shalunov" <shalunov@internet2.edu>, <ippm@advanced.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailhost.advanced.org id gALF1WcV029754
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:01:15 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Stanislav,

Thanks.
Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	stanislav shalunov [SMTP:shalunov@internet2.edu]
> Sent:	Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:49 AM
> To:	ippm@advanced.org
> Subject:	Re: [ippm] some questions on OWDP ver 05
> 
> "Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO" <rgcole@att.com> writes:
> 
> > + I do not understand the required components and the
> > optional components of the protocol?  
> > 
> > E.g., in section 2.0 on "Goals", it is stated that the encryption
> > and authentication is optional but this is not mentioned
> > in the guts of the document.
> 
> You don't need to advertize any particular mode to be `compliant'.
> I don't know whether support for encrypted and authenticated mode
> should be required.
> 
> > If I were to implement the OWDP without encrytion, would that
> > implementation be deemed 'compliant'?
> 
> AES in counter mode will be used to generate pseudo-random bits
> anyway.  A free AES is a few hundred lines of C.  Given this, I'd
> actually make it a requirement to support all three modes.
> 
> What does everyone else think?
> 
> > + Is the section on computing expontially distributed values for
> > start times complete?  If not, will it be complete in the next
> > revision and (as you suggested) a C-code description would be highly
> > desireable.
> 
> I don't want the completion of that section to prevent any other
> changes from being released.  That said, we're working on it.
> 
> -- 
> Stanislav Shalunov		http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/
> 
> All revolutions are bloody.  The October Revolution was bloodless,
> but it was only the beginning.               -- Dmitri Volkogonov
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Thu Nov 21 18:48:34 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26656
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:48:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gALNm5cV021349;
	Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:48:05 -0500
Received: from parsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.com (parsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.com [194.167.105.13])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gALNlEcV021316
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:47:15 -0500
Received: from LANMHS20.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.21.60]) by parsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329);
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:47:09 +0100
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Subject: RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
Message-ID: <F58512ECC1A14B4C92984DC38FFF4B80FE49DB@lanmhs20.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Thread-Topic: on metrics to be registered
Thread-Index: AcKQQsQyfgeSfvw1EdaB3AACLQmBVQBbxAaQ
From: "STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN" <emile.stephan@rd.francetelecom.com>
To: <ippm@advanced.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2002 23:47:09.0234 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E3BB120:01C291B8]
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailhost.advanced.org id gALNlEcV021316
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:47:08 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi,

The RMON WG requested that the IPPM metric registry should be specified
outside the IPPM REPORTING MIB document.

The framework of this administrative task is simple: the registry
provides an identifier for all the metrics standardized. So all
standardized metrics are treated equally.

Bob said "> ambiguous metrics, e.g., delayPercentile":
It is not in the scope of this document to have an opinion on the fact
that a metric is ambiguous metrics or not.


regards
Emile


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO [mailto:rgcole@att.com]
> Envoye : mercredi 20 novembre 2002 15:43
> A : ippm@advanced.org
> Objet : [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> 
> 
> IPPM Metrics Doc ver.01 notes/questions:
> 
> Emile,
> 
> I think the registry is potentially a useful device.  I have
> one set of comments.
> 
> E.g., the metrics for one-way delay and round trip contain
> reference to delay, delayPoissonStream,
> delayPercentile, delayMedian, delayMinimum, 
> delay inverse percentile, etc.
> 
> These seem to fall into four types of items registered:
> 
> singleton-metric, e.g., delay
> sample-metric, e.g., delayPoisson
> statistical metric, delayMedian
> ambiguous metrics, e.g., delayPercentile
> 
> Of the MIBs I am familiar with in, e.g., RMONMIB,
> they need reference only to singleton-metrics because
> the 'sample' is given or defined and 'statistics' are
> hard coded.
> 
> Also, the first three type require only a single object
> to point to the metric, while the ambiguous statistical
> metrics require additional information
> on the MIB to clarify the ambiguity.
> 
> It is not clear to me that you want to register
> statistical metrics.  Even if you do, should the 
> ambiguous statistical metrics be removed?
> 
> Finally, would it make sense to disassociate the
> sample-metrics from the registration of the statistic?
> This might simplify the registration process.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bob Cole
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> 

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:04:56 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26592
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:04:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMEu5cV021617;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:56:06 -0500
Received: from kcmso2.proxy.att.com (kcmso2.att.com [192.128.134.71])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMEtEcV021541
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:55:15 -0500
Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12])
	by kcmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with ESMTP id gAMEWjiH029561
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:55:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (6.5.019)
        id 3DDD63A10004C6DD; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:55:13 -0500
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Subject: RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
Message-ID: <A66DDF82468CDA44BEC0D63F91E4000B02AC2994@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Thread-Topic: on metrics to be registered
Thread-Index: AcKQQsQyfgeSfvw1EdaB3AACLQmBVQBbxAaQACE3DiA=
From: "Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO" <rgcole@att.com>
To: "STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN" <emile.stephan@rd.francetelecom.com>,
        <ippm@advanced.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailhost.advanced.org id gAMEtEcV021541
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:55:13 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Emile,

The whole intent of the metric registry was to
provide a pointer to unambiguously defined metrics.
If a MIB object defined thru the registry points to
percentile, how do I interprete the value?  Is it a 95%,
a 90%, an 87% ....

Thanks,
Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN [SMTP:emile.stephan@rd.francetelecom.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:47 PM
> To:	ippm@advanced.org
> Subject:	RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The RMON WG requested that the IPPM metric registry should be specified
> outside the IPPM REPORTING MIB document.
> 
> The framework of this administrative task is simple: the registry
> provides an identifier for all the metrics standardized. So all
> standardized metrics are treated equally.
> 
> Bob said "> ambiguous metrics, e.g., delayPercentile":
> It is not in the scope of this document to have an opinion on the fact
> that a metric is ambiguous metrics or not.
> 
> 
> regards
> Emile
> 
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO [mailto:rgcole@att.com]
> > Envoye : mercredi 20 novembre 2002 15:43
> > A : ippm@advanced.org
> > Objet : [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> > 
> > 
> > IPPM Metrics Doc ver.01 notes/questions:
> > 
> > Emile,
> > 
> > I think the registry is potentially a useful device.  I have
> > one set of comments.
> > 
> > E.g., the metrics for one-way delay and round trip contain
> > reference to delay, delayPoissonStream,
> > delayPercentile, delayMedian, delayMinimum, 
> > delay inverse percentile, etc.
> > 
> > These seem to fall into four types of items registered:
> > 
> > singleton-metric, e.g., delay
> > sample-metric, e.g., delayPoisson
> > statistical metric, delayMedian
> > ambiguous metrics, e.g., delayPercentile
> > 
> > Of the MIBs I am familiar with in, e.g., RMONMIB,
> > they need reference only to singleton-metrics because
> > the 'sample' is given or defined and 'statistics' are
> > hard coded.
> > 
> > Also, the first three type require only a single object
> > to point to the metric, while the ambiguous statistical
> > metrics require additional information
> > on the MIB to clarify the ambiguity.
> > 
> > It is not clear to me that you want to register
> > statistical metrics.  Even if you do, should the 
> > ambiguous statistical metrics be removed?
> > 
> > Finally, would it make sense to disassociate the
> > sample-metrics from the registration of the statistic?
> > This might simplify the registration process.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Bob Cole
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > ippm@advanced.org
> > http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:06:00 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26632
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF6TcV022557;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:29 -0500
Received: from txsmtp01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.36.229])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF5hcV022326
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:05:44 -0500
Received: from mail.houston.rr.com (mcis-06.texas.rr.com [24.93.36.36])
	by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAMF35uE029901;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:03:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.houston.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:06:14 -0600
Received: from txmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.houston.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:03:06 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
	by txmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g93Evc6S026790
	for <cforsythe@houston.rr.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:57:38 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93EU7C07817;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 07:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g937vR103666
	for end2end-interest-mailman; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 00:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.noos.fr (lafontaine.noos.net [212.198.2.72])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g937vFC03324
	for <end2end-interest@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 00:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21421949 invoked by uid 0); 3 Oct 2002 07:57:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO LIP60MU1PINK59) ([212.198.208.249]) (envelope-sender <salamat@rp.lip6.fr>)
          by 212.198.2.72 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <jshen?cad@yahoo.com.cn>; 3 Oct 2002 07:57:09 -0000
From: "=?gb2312?B?S2F2qKYgU2FsYW1hdGlhbg==?=" <salamat@rp.lip6.fr>
To: "Shen Jing" <jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>, <end2end-interest@postel.org>
Cc: <ippm@advanced.org>
Subject: RE: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path
Message-ID: <EBELLEFJANFIHFPEMGPCCEPOCIAA.salamat@rp.lip6.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20020929022801.52939.qmail@web15101.mail.bjs.yahoo.com>
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
X-e2e-Hold: CFPs must be approved in advance. See our website.
X-BeenThere: end2end-interest@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:56:39 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Shen,

first of all I should mention that MPLS deployment is far from being done (I
don't think that it has been deployed even in a large network operator) and
I largely suspect that it will never be deployed in a large scale to be the
primary backbone technology !!!!

>From the point of view of measurement, LSP networks should not have too much
difference from traditional IP networks as nowadays IP routing performance
is getting very  close to Label switching performance, meaning that the
delay of crossing an LSP network should not be significantly larger than an
IP network. The difference may come from a simpler  traffic engineering in
MPLS. Meaning that we should evaluate the effect of traffic engineeringon
performance, not the particuliar behaviour of MPLS network.

Bests

Kv
-----Message d'origine-----
De?: ippm-admin@advanced.org [mailto:ippm-admin@advanced.org]De la part de
Shen Jing
Envoy��?: dimanche 29 septembre 2002 04:28
��?: end2end-interest@postel.org
Cc?: ippm@advanced.org
Objet?: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path


Hi there,

I've some question on e2e performance analysis of
label switching path.

There has been many research on e2e performance
analysis for IP routing. Nearly all of them take the
model of "network of queue", and under assumpiton of
Possion Arrival, exponential flow size etc. To my
limited knowledge, this is not to the state of
Internet which experiences LRD. On the other hand,
different router archtecture must have different
effect on transmission performance.
As MPLS proceeds to be the primary backbone
technology, I think there must be something new
introduced into the e2e performance in internet.

So, I want to know, whether there is some work with
methematical modeling of LSP networks? and, are there
anyone would do me a favor to recommend some refrence
book, web page, research paper or the like ?

Thank you very much.

Best regards


=====
Jing Shen

State Key Lab of CAD&CG
ZheJiang University(YuQuan)
HangZhou, ZheJiang Province 310027
P.R.China

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
"������Ӯ�ֻ�,�����μ��Ż�������!"
http://cn.ent.yahoo.com/star/midautumn/index.html

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:06:24 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26643
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF6qcV022711;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:52 -0500
Received: from txsmtp01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.36.229])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF5qcV022344
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:05:53 -0500
Received: from mail.houston.rr.com (mcis-06.texas.rr.com [24.93.36.36])
	by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAMF3DuE000055;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:03:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.houston.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:06:23 -0600
Received: from txmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.35.209]) by mail.houston.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:06:34 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
	by txmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g93F10Sf014539
	for <cforsythe@houston.rr.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:01:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93EULC07896;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 07:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g93AO4R05518
	for end2end-interest-mailman; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93AO0C05385
	for <end2end-interest@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com [171.69.24.15])
	by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g93ANdIm021321;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cisco.com (ams-rraszuk2-vpn5.cisco.com [10.61.160.14])
	by mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.66-GA)
	with ESMTP id AAH68678;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3D9C1AA3.70E763B8@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com
Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD   (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kav=C3=A9?= Salamatian <salamat@rp.lip6.fr>
CC: Shen Jing <jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>, end2end-interest@postel.org,
        ippm@advanced.org, MPLS Operations <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
X-e2e-Hold: CFPs must be approved in advance. See our website.
X-BeenThere: end2end-interest@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Subject: [ippm] [e2e] [Fwd: State of MPLS deployments today]
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:23:31 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Kava,

> first of all I should mention that MPLS deployment is far from being done (I
> don't think that it has been deployed even in a large network operator) and
> I largely suspect that it will never be deployed in a large scale to be the
> primary backbone technology !!!!

Would you mind sharing with me your definition of "large network
operator" ? For me operators like ATT, BT, DT, FT, TI, Level3, Worldcom,
JT, KDDI and many many more are of the size I would considered as
"large" on this planet. 

All of them are using MPLS and MPLS applications in their backbones. 

Only a very few IP purists who get high blood pressure when one next to
them says MPLS don't use it and that is also absolutely fine. 

Just one more comment:

MPLS was never intended to boost network performance but to offer a new
paradigm for various applications which benefit from not pure
traditional dst based lookup at each hop. Sure IP can emulate it as well
with tunnels, but it is obvious that in this case, when talking about
production deployements IP is catching up with applications already
offered by MPLS today in a scalable way.

Rgs,
R.



> From: Kavé Salamatian <salamat@rp.lip6.fr>
> To: Shen Jing <jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>, end2end-interest@postel.org
> Cc: ippm@advanced.org
> Subject: RE: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path
> Date: 03 Oct 2002 09:56:39 +0200
> 
> Dear Shen,
> 
> first of all I should mention that MPLS deployment is far from being done (I
> don't think that it has been deployed even in a large network operator) and
> I largely suspect that it will never be deployed in a large scale to be the
> primary backbone technology !!!!
> 
> >From the point of view of measurement, LSP networks should not have too much
> difference from traditional IP networks as nowadays IP routing performance
> is getting very  close to Label switching performance, meaning that the
> delay of crossing an LSP network should not be significantly larger than an
> IP network. The difference may come from a simpler  traffic engineering in
> MPLS. Meaning that we should evaluate the effect of traffic engineeringon
> performance, not the particuliar behaviour of MPLS network.
> 
> Bests
> 
> Kv
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De?: ippm-admin@advanced.org [mailto:ippm-admin@advanced.org]De la part de
> Shen Jing
> Envoyé?: dimanche 29 septembre 2002 04:28
> à?: end2end-interest@postel.org
> Cc?: ippm@advanced.org
> Objet?: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path
> 
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> I've some question on e2e performance analysis of
> label switching path.
> 
> There has been many research on e2e performance
> analysis for IP routing. Nearly all of them take the
> model of "network of queue", and under assumpiton of
> Possion Arrival, exponential flow size etc. To my
> limited knowledge, this is not to the state of
> Internet which experiences LRD. On the other hand,
> different router archtecture must have different
> effect on transmission performance.
> As MPLS proceeds to be the primary backbone
> technology, I think there must be something new
> introduced into the e2e performance in internet.
> 
> So, I want to know, whether there is some work with
> methematical modeling of LSP networks? and, are there
> anyone would do me a favor to recommend some refrence
> book, web page, research paper or the like ?
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> =====
> Jing Shen
> 
> State Key Lab of CAD&CG
> ZheJiang University(YuQuan)
> HangZhou, ZheJiang Province 310027
> P.R.China
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> "发短信赢手机,快来参加雅虎巨星秀!"
> http://cn.ent.yahoo.com/star/midautumn/index.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:07:14 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26647
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:07:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF75cV022815;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:07:05 -0500
Received: from txsmtp01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.36.229])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF5xcV022364
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:05:59 -0500
Received: from mail.houston.rr.com (mcis-06.texas.rr.com [24.93.36.36])
	by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAMF3JuQ000128;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:03:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.houston.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:06:29 -0600
Received: from txmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.houston.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:28:33 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
	by txmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g93KN06S016331
	for <cforsythe@houston.rr.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:23:00 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93K57C09337;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g93K2Rb08078
	for end2end-interest-mailman; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.noos.fr (aragon.noos.net [212.198.2.75])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93K2MC07956
	for <end2end-interest@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16826697 invoked by uid 0); 3 Oct 2002 19:38:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO KAVEMAISON) ([212.198.208.249]) (envelope-sender <salamat@rp.lip6.Fr>)
          by 212.198.2.75 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <raszuk@cisco.com>; 3 Oct 2002 19:38:28 -0000
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kav=E9_Salamatian?= <salamat@rp.lip6.Fr>
To: <raszuk@cisco.com>
Cc: "Shen Jing" <jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>, <end2end-interest@postel.org>,
        <ippm@advanced.org>, "MPLS Operations" <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
Message-ID: <DCEMLIMEACEFNFEDPABIMENPCEAA.salamat@rp.lip6.Fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <3D9C1AA3.70E763B8@cisco.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance: Normal
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
Subject: [e2e] RE: [ippm] [Fwd: State of MPLS deployments today]
X-BeenThere: end2end-interest@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:38:31 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



>> first of all I should mention that MPLS deployment is far from being done
(I
>> don't think that it has been deployed even in a large network operator)
and
>> I largely suspect that it will never be deployed in a large scale to be
the
>> primary backbone technology !!!!

>Would you mind sharing with me your definition of "large network
>operator" ? For me operators like ATT, BT, DT, FT, TI, Level3, Worldcom,
>JT, KDDI and many many more are of the size I would considered as
>"large" on this planet.
I was saying that today we don't have yet (or at least I have not heard of)
a full MPLS large network. I was not meaning that nobody is using MPLS in
portion of his network.

But obviously there are large full IP network that operate well (at least in
their core) and does not seem to believe to an urgent need for MPLS.

>All of them are using MPLS and MPLS applications in their backbones.
Nice for MPLS constructors

>Only a very few IP purists who get high blood pressure when one next to
>them says MPLS don't use it and that is also absolutely fine.
It seems that the search for purity is not restricted to IPist there are
also some MPLS zeloat around :-) sorry to give you high blood pressure.

Bests

Kv
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:06:15 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26638
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF6ecV022635;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:41 -0500
Received: from txsmtp01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.36.229])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF5icV022328
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:05:44 -0500
Received: from mail.houston.rr.com (mcis-06.texas.rr.com [24.93.36.36])
	by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAMF35uG029901;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:03:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.houston.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:06:14 -0600
Received: from txmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.houston.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:00:53 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
	by txmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g93KtK6S003752
	for <cforsythe@houston.rr.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:55:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93KZ9C27498;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g93KW4b25418
	for end2end-interest-mailman; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com [171.70.157.152])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93KW0C25289
	for <end2end-interest@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com [171.69.24.15])
	by sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g93KVeaW003023;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cisco.com (ams-rraszuk-vpn5.cisco.com [10.61.160.6])
	by mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.66-GA)
	with ESMTP id AAI15911;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3D9CA92F.3701C24B@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com
Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD   (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kav=E9?= Salamatian <salamat@rp.lip6.fr>
CC: Shen Jing <jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>, end2end-interest@postel.org,
        ippm@advanced.org, MPLS Operations <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
References: <DCEMLIMEACEFNFEDPABIMENPCEAA.salamat@rp.lip6.Fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
Subject: [e2e] Re: [ippm] [Fwd: State of MPLS deployments today]
X-BeenThere: end2end-interest@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 22:31:43 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Prof. Kav� Salamatian,

> I was saying that today we don't have yet (or at least I have not heard of)
> a full MPLS large network. I was not meaning that nobody is using MPLS in
> portion of his network.

It is quite known that university professors are pretty much out of
touch with real networks and reality. To help you overcome this I guess
we need to step back to MPLS 101 with you and find out what "MPLS"
really means. Let me ask you a basic question - why would anyone run TDP
& LDP only in partion of his network ? That is one of few MPLS
forwarding mechanisms used very widely today across multiple world scale
providers. 

Just as a tiny reference not related to any vendor take a look at the
folowing URL and download "MPLS Unofficial List":
http://cellstream.com/MPLS_List.htm or just click on
http://www.mplsrc.com/faq3.shtml and browse to all MPLS-VPN providers.
Keep in mind that 99% of MPLS-VPN providers use TDP or LDP in their
ENTIRE backbone.

> It seems that the search for purity is not restricted to IPist there are
> also some MPLS zeloat around :-) sorry to give you high blood pressure.

He he he - I am not effected by this at all, I just try to make sure
that the information on the public lists are correct :). 

R.
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:07:51 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26674
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:07:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF8LcV023179;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:08:21 -0500
Received: from txsmtp01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.36.229])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF6EcV022456
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:14 -0500
Received: from mail.houston.rr.com (mcis-06.texas.rr.com [24.93.36.36])
	by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAMF1eud028718;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:03:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.houston.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:05:14 -0600
Received: from txmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.houston.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:31:55 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
	by txmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g93LQL6S015796
	for <cforsythe@houston.rr.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:26:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93LADC28501;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g93L6hk25101
	for end2end-interest-mailman; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93L6bC24981
	for <end2end-interest@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com [171.69.24.15])
	by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g93L6NIm016209;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cisco.com (ams-rraszuk-vpn5.cisco.com [10.61.160.6])
	by mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.66-GA)
	with ESMTP id AAI17485;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3D9CB14A.3ADB96C9@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com
Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD   (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
CC: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kav=E9?= Salamatian <salamat@rp.lip6.fr>,
        Shen Jing 
	<jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>, end2end-interest@postel.org,
        ippm@advanced.org, MPLS Operations <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
Subject: Re: [e2e] Re: [ippm] [Fwd: State of MPLS deployments today]
References: <DCEMLIMEACEFNFEDPABIMENPCEAA.salamat@rp.lip6.Fr>
		<3D9CA92F.3701C24B@cisco.com> <E17xCyK-000I2Y-00@rip.psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
X-BeenThere: end2end-interest@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 23:06:18 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Randy,

As far as the clue part I would recommed to wait for VPRN presentation
to go public at next nanog so everybody can judge who is clufull or
clueless reg MPLS applications especially 2547bin :-).

R.

> Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> >> I was saying that today we don't have yet (or at least I have not heard of)
> >> a full MPLS large network. I was not meaning that nobody is using MPLS in
> >> portion of his network.
> > It is quite known that university professors are pretty much out of
> > touch with real networks and reality.
> 
> as opposed to out of touch with manners or clue?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:07:32 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26656
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:07:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF85cV023061;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:08:05 -0500
Received: from txsmtp01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.36.229])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF6DcV022454
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:14 -0500
Received: from mail.houston.rr.com (mcis-06.texas.rr.com [24.93.36.36])
	by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAMF1euT028718;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:03:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.houston.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:05:02 -0600
Received: from txmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.houston.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Fri, 4 Oct 2002 03:05:35 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
	by txmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g9485W6S004801
	for <cforsythe@houston.rr.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 03:05:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g947j8C09686;
	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g947Mig01705
	for end2end-interest-mailman; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g947MeC01587
	for <end2end-interest@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com [171.69.24.15])
	by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g947MHIm004476;
	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cisco.com (ams-rraszuk-vpn5.cisco.com [10.61.160.6])
	by mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.66-GA)
	with ESMTP id AAI32074;
	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3D9D41A3.75F47473@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
Reply-To: raszuk@cisco.com
Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD   (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>
CC: salamat@rp.lip6.fr, jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn, end2end-interest@postel.org,
        ippm@advanced.org, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
Subject: Re: [e2e] Re: [ippm] [Fwd: State of MPLS deployments today]
References: <200210032311.XAA18588@gra.isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
X-BeenThere: end2end-interest@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 09:22:11 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bob,

I did generalized that statement what is not correct. 

I meant to say that _a_few_ university folks don't relly keep track of
the way large networks worldwide are operated today - yet they issue a
statements which simply don't have any backup in facts. I apologize for
the tone of my mail - I did not intended to insult anyone on this list
including Prof Kave himself. 

In fact I have been looking into his COST works and I do greatly
appreciate his papers there !

I just couldn't resist to address his comments after last few years
dedicated to deploying various MPLS applications around the world to
numerous production networks of large operators.

Sincerely,
R.

> Bob Braden wrote:
> 
>   *>
>   *> It is quite known that university professors are pretty much out of
>   *> touch with real networks and reality
> 
> Then please remove the end2end-interest list from this discussion.
> This list includes quite a number of university professors; if you
> are not interested in their contributions, you are wasting their time
> as well as insulting them.  What company did you say you work for?
> 
> Bob Braden
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:09:33 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26774
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:09:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF65cV022406;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:05 -0500
Received: from txsmtp01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.36.229])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF4xcV022176
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:05:00 -0500
Received: from mail.houston.rr.com (mcis-06.texas.rr.com [24.93.36.36])
	by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAMF2Iue029225;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:02:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.houston.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:05:28 -0600
Received: from txmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.houston.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Fri, 4 Oct 2002 06:45:57 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
	by txmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g94BeO6S011758
	for <cforsythe@houston.rr.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 06:40:24 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g94BF9C27865;
	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 04:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g94Apd217164
	for end2end-interest-mailman; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 03:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rip.psg.com (rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g94ApZC16987
	for <end2end-interest@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 03:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rip.psg.com.psg.com)
	by rip.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 17xQ3S-000OWq-00; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 03:51:34 -0700
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
Cc: Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu>, salamat@rp.lip6.fr, jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn,
        end2end-interest@postel.org, ippm@advanced.org
Subject: Re: [e2e] Re: [ippm] [Fwd: State of MPLS deployments today]
References: <200210032311.XAA18588@gra.isi.edu>
	<3D9D41A3.75F47473@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <E17xQ3S-000OWq-00@rip.psg.com>
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
X-BeenThere: end2end-interest@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 03:51:34 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I just couldn't resist to address his comments after last few years
> dedicated to deploying various MPLS applications around the world to
> numerous production networks of large operators.

it would be more useful to hear from the actual operators
themselves how they have deployed such technologies in the
core of their networks, as opposed to hearing from their
official spokes-company from san jose.

randy
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:09:36 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26777
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:09:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF6HcV022477;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:06:17 -0500
Received: from txsmtp01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.36.229])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF50cV022185
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:05:00 -0500
Received: from mail.houston.rr.com (mcis-06.texas.rr.com [24.93.36.36])
	by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAMF2Ium029225;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:02:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.houston.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:05:28 -0600
Received: from txmx02.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.35.209]) by mail.houston.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:15:21 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
	by txmx02.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g94FFJSf013628
	for <cforsythe@houston.rr.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g94EtWC19204;
	Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g948rTR07737
	for end2end-interest-mailman; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 01:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web15104.mail.bjs.yahoo.com (web15104.mail.bjs.yahoo.com [61.135.128.16])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with SMTP id g948rNC07536
	for <end2end-interest@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 01:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20021004085316.69524.qmail@web15104.mail.bjs.yahoo.com>
Received: from [61.174.154.214] by web15104.mail.bjs.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 16:53:16 CST
From: =?gb2312?q?Jing=20Shen?= <jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>
Subject: RE: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path
To: "Kav��" Salamatian <salamat@rp.lip6.fr>, end2end-interest@postel.org
Cc: ippm@advanced.org
In-Reply-To: <EBELLEFJANFIHFPEMGPCCEPOCIAA.salamat@rp.lip6.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-139865788-1033721596=:69030"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
X-e2e-Hold: HTML discouraged.
X-e2e-Hold: CFPs must be approved in advance. See our website.
X-BeenThere: end2end-interest@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:53:16 +0800 (CST)

--0-139865788-1033721596=:69030
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Thanks for all those response. 
To my limited knowledge on MPLS implementation, many Telecommunication Cooperation
have adopted MPLS in their service network, such as UUnet,  AT&T. In China, ChinaTelecom has built up
a experimental MPLS backbone accross multiple provinces, and China Unicom also built up a backbone alike.
In deed, it seems MPLS network is not put directly to commercial usage in China but some of stuff in ChinaTelecom
told me that they do care the VPN capacity,  TE capacity and high performance promised by MPLS. The problem is 
the operators seem could not catch up with the complex configuration so fast.  So, I don't understand
why MPLS will not be used in large scale networks? 
To the performance difference between MPLS network and IP network, I totally agree with you IP router have achieve
the same performance with MPLS. But, to our experiments with comparation between LSP and IP routing , there do exist
some difference between LSP and IP routing. We've built a very small testbed to compare difference between LSP& IP routing,
and we found that LSP shows lower jitter and packet loss rate under resource reservation scheme and best-effort service under low
load. This is the reason why I asked the question. 
Best regards
 
  Kav�� Salamatian <salamat@rp.lip6.fr> �����ģ� Dear Shen,

first of all I should mention that MPLS deployment is far from being done (I
don't think that it has been deployed even in a large network operator) and
I largely suspect that it will never be deployed in a large scale to be the
primary backbone technology !!!!

>From the point of view of measurement, LSP networks should not have too much
difference from traditional IP networks as nowadays IP routing performance
is getting very close to Label switching performance, meaning that the
delay of crossing an LSP network should not be significantly larger than an
IP network. The difference may come from a simpler traffic engineering in
MPLS. Meaning that we should evaluate the effect of traffic engineeringon
performance, not the particuliar behaviour of MPLS network.

Bests

Kv
-----Message d'origine-----
De?: ippm-admin@advanced.org [mailto:ippm-admin@advanced.org]De la part de
Shen Jing
Envoy��?: dimanche 29 septembre 2002 04:28
��?: end2end-interest@postel.org
Cc?: ippm@advanced.org
Objet?: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path


Hi there,

I've some question on e2e performance analysis of
label switching path.

There has been many research on e2e performance
analysis for IP routing. Nearly all of them take the
model of "network of queue", and under assumpiton of
Possion Arrival, exponential flow size etc. To my
limited knowledge, this is not to the state of
Internet which experiences LRD. On the other hand,
different router archtecture must have different
effect on transmission performance.
As MPLS proceeds to be the primary backbone
technology, I think there must be something new
introduced into the e2e performance in internet.

So, I want to know, whether there is some work with
methematical modeling of LSP networks? and, are there
anyone would do me a favor to recommend some refrence
book, web page, research paper or the like ?

Thank you very much.

Best regards



Jing Shen

State Key Lab of CAD&CG
ZheJiang University(YuQuan)
HangZhou, ZheJiang Province 310027
P.R.China


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
"������Ӯ�ֻ�,�����μ��Ż�������!"
--0-139865788-1033721596=:69030
Content-Type: text/html; charset=gb2312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<P>Thanks for all those response. 
<P>To my limited knowledge on MPLS implementation, many Telecommunication Cooperation
<P>have adopted MPLS in their service network, such as UUnet,&nbsp; AT&amp;T. In China, ChinaTelecom has built up
<P>a experimental MPLS backbone accross multiple provinces, and China Unicom also built up a backbone alike.
<P>In deed, it seems MPLS network is not put directly to commercial usage in China but some of stuff in ChinaTelecom
<P>told me that they do care the VPN capacity,&nbsp; TE capacity and high performance promised by MPLS.&nbsp;The problem is 
<P>the operators seem&nbsp;could not catch up with the complex configuration so fast. &nbsp;So, I don't understand
<P>why MPLS will not be used in large scale networks? 
<P>To the performance difference between MPLS network and IP network, I totally agree with you IP router have achieve
<P>the same performance with MPLS. But, to our experiments with comparation between LSP and IP routing , there do exist
<P>some difference between LSP and IP routing. We've built a very small testbed to compare difference between LSP&amp; IP routing,
<P>and we found that LSP shows lower jitter and packet loss rate under resource reservation scheme and best-effort service under low
<P>load. This is the reason why I asked the question. 
<P>Best regards
<P>&nbsp;
<P>&nbsp; <B>Kav�� Salamatian &lt;salamat@rp.lip6.fr&gt;</B> �����ģ� 
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Dear Shen,<BR><BR>first of all I should mention that MPLS deployment is far from being done (I<BR>don't think that it has been deployed even in a large network operator) and<BR>I largely suspect that it will never be deployed in a large scale to be the<BR>primary backbone technology !!!!<BR><BR>From the point of view of measurement, LSP networks should not have too much<BR>difference from traditional IP networks as nowadays IP routing performance<BR>is getting very close to Label switching performance, meaning that the<BR>delay of crossing an LSP network should not be significantly larger than an<BR>IP network. The difference may come from a simpler traffic engineering in<BR>MPLS. Meaning that we should evaluate the effect of traffic engineeringon<BR>performance, not the particuliar behaviour of MPLS network.<BR><BR>Bests<BR><BR>Kv<BR>-----Message d'origine-----<BR>De?: ippm-admin@advance!
d.org [mailto:ippm-admin@advanced.org]De la part de<BR>Shen Jing<BR>Envoy��?: dimanche 29 septembre 2002 04:28<BR>��?: end2end-interest@postel.org<BR>Cc?: ippm@advanced.org<BR>Objet?: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path<BR><BR><BR>Hi there,<BR><BR>I've some question on e2e performance analysis of<BR>label switching path.<BR><BR>There has been many research on e2e performance<BR>analysis for IP routing. Nearly all of them take the<BR>model of "network of queue", and under assumpiton of<BR>Possion Arrival, exponential flow size etc. To my<BR>limited knowledge, this is not to the state of<BR>Internet which experiences LRD. On the other hand,<BR>different router archtecture must have different<BR>effect on transmission performance.<BR>As MPLS proceeds to be the primary backbone<BR>technology, I think there must be something new<BR>introduced into the e2e performance in internet.<BR><BR>So, I want to know, whether there is some work with<BR>methematical!
 modeling of LSP networks? and, are there<BR>anyone would do me a favor to recommend some refrence<BR>book, web page, research paper or the like ?<BR><BR>Thank you very much.<BR><BR>Best regards<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Jing Shen<br><br>State Key Lab of CAD&amp;CG<br>ZheJiang University(YuQuan)<br>HangZhou, ZheJiang Province 310027<br>P.R.China<p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/?http://cn.ent.yahoo.com/star/midautumn/index.html">"������Ӯ�ֻ�,�����μ��Ż�������!"</a>
--0-139865788-1033721596=:69030--
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 22 10:10:11 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26786
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:10:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF58cV022240;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:05:09 -0500
Received: from txsmtp01.texas.rr.com ([24.93.36.229])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAMF4xcV022174
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:05:00 -0500
Received: from mail.houston.rr.com (mcis-06.texas.rr.com [24.93.36.36])
	by txsmtp01.texas.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gAMF2Iua029225;
	Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:02:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.houston.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:05:28 -0600
Received: from txmx01.mgw.rr.com ([24.93.35.210]) by mail.houston.rr.com  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:23:04 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161])
	by txmx01.mgw.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g93LHU6S007909
	for <cforsythe@houston.rr.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:17:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93KtKC14495;
	Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g93KrcM11580
	for end2end-interest-mailman; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rip.psg.com (rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39])
	by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g93KrYC11462
	for <end2end-interest@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rip.psg.com.psg.com)
	by rip.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 17xCyK-000I2Y-00; Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:53:24 -0700
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kav=E9?= Salamatian <salamat@rp.lip6.fr>,
        Shen Jing <jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>, end2end-interest@postel.org,
        ippm@advanced.org, MPLS Operations <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
Subject: Re: [e2e] Re: [ippm] [Fwd: State of MPLS deployments today]
References: <DCEMLIMEACEFNFEDPABIMENPCEAA.salamat@rp.lip6.Fr>
	<3D9CA92F.3701C24B@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <E17xCyK-000I2Y-00@rip.psg.com>
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
X-BeenThere: end2end-interest@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:53:24 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>> I was saying that today we don't have yet (or at least I have not heard of)
>> a full MPLS large network. I was not meaning that nobody is using MPLS in
>> portion of his network.
> It is quite known that university professors are pretty much out of
> touch with real networks and reality.

as opposed to out of touch with manners or clue?
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Mon Nov 25 03:28:44 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22492
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 03:28:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAP8S9cV009526;
	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 03:28:09 -0500
Received: from parsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.com (parsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.com [194.167.105.13])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAP8R0cV009487
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 03:27:01 -0500
Received: from LANMHS20.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.21.60]) by parsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329);
	 Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:26:59 +0100
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Subject: RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
Message-ID: <F58512ECC1A14B4C92984DC38FFF4B80FE4A81@lanmhs20.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Thread-Topic: on metrics to be registered
Thread-Index: AcKQQsQyfgeSfvw1EdaB3AACLQmBVQBbxAaQACE3DiAAF5igQA==
From: "STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN" <emile.stephan@rd.francetelecom.com>
To: <ippm@advanced.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Nov 2002 08:26:59.0125 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C189E50:01C2945C]
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailhost.advanced.org id gAP8R0cV009487
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:26:58 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Bob,

At large each metric needs pecific parameters. The percentile is only a
parameter of the delayPercentile measure.

regards
Emile


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO [mailto:rgcole@att.com]
> Envoye : vendredi 22 novembre 2002 15:55
> A : STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN; ippm@advanced.org
> Objet : RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> 
> 
> Hi Emile,
> 
> The whole intent of the metric registry was to
> provide a pointer to unambiguously defined metrics.
> If a MIB object defined thru the registry points to
> percentile, how do I interprete the value?  Is it a 95%,
> a 90%, an 87% ....
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN 
> [SMTP:emile.stephan@rd.francetelecom.com]
> > Sent:	Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:47 PM
> > To:	ippm@advanced.org
> > Subject:	RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The RMON WG requested that the IPPM metric registry should 
> be specified
> > outside the IPPM REPORTING MIB document.
> > 
> > The framework of this administrative task is simple: the registry
> > provides an identifier for all the metrics standardized. So all
> > standardized metrics are treated equally.
> > 
> > Bob said "> ambiguous metrics, e.g., delayPercentile":
> > It is not in the scope of this document to have an opinion 
> on the fact
> > that a metric is ambiguous metrics or not.
> > 
> > 
> > regards
> > Emile
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO [mailto:rgcole@att.com]
> > > Envoye : mercredi 20 novembre 2002 15:43
> > > A : ippm@advanced.org
> > > Objet : [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> > > 
> > > 
> > > IPPM Metrics Doc ver.01 notes/questions:
> > > 
> > > Emile,
> > > 
> > > I think the registry is potentially a useful device.  I have
> > > one set of comments.
> > > 
> > > E.g., the metrics for one-way delay and round trip contain
> > > reference to delay, delayPoissonStream,
> > > delayPercentile, delayMedian, delayMinimum, 
> > > delay inverse percentile, etc.
> > > 
> > > These seem to fall into four types of items registered:
> > > 
> > > singleton-metric, e.g., delay
> > > sample-metric, e.g., delayPoisson
> > > statistical metric, delayMedian
> > > ambiguous metrics, e.g., delayPercentile
> > > 
> > > Of the MIBs I am familiar with in, e.g., RMONMIB,
> > > they need reference only to singleton-metrics because
> > > the 'sample' is given or defined and 'statistics' are
> > > hard coded.
> > > 
> > > Also, the first three type require only a single object
> > > to point to the metric, while the ambiguous statistical
> > > metrics require additional information
> > > on the MIB to clarify the ambiguity.
> > > 
> > > It is not clear to me that you want to register
> > > statistical metrics.  Even if you do, should the 
> > > ambiguous statistical metrics be removed?
> > > 
> > > Finally, would it make sense to disassociate the
> > > sample-metrics from the registration of the statistic?
> > > This might simplify the registration process.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Bob Cole
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ippm mailing list
> > > ippm@advanced.org
> > > http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > ippm@advanced.org
> > http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> 

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Mon Nov 25 05:05:28 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23614
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 05:05:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAP9x4cV013135;
	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 04:59:05 -0500
Received: from hotmail.com (f32.sea2.hotmail.com [207.68.165.32])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAP9wkcV013119
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 04:58:47 -0500
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Mon, 25 Nov 2002 01:58:46 -0800
Received: from 193.116.20.220 by sea2fd.sea2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:58:46 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [193.116.20.220]
From: "gab jones" <seun_ewulomi@hotmail.com>
To: salamat@rp.lip6.fr, jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn, end2end-interest@postel.org
Cc: ippm@advanced.org
Subject: RE: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F32KuDz8kf3C2jWkwLV00031ca0@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Nov 2002 09:58:46.0266 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E9BA5A0:01C29469]
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:58:46 +0000


Hi guys,

we are looking into deploying mpls on our network as well. I would have 
thought running mpls in conjuction with a IGP e.g ospf will be the best way 
to deploy mpls.
e.g
ospf as the main primary routing and mpls will be used merely for TE 
purposes

Please advice/correct me if im on the wrong path.

regards,
gab





>From: "Kav�� Salamatian" <salamat@rp.lip6.fr>
>To: "Shen Jing" <jshen_cad@yahoo.com.cn>, <end2end-interest@postel.org>
>CC: <ippm@advanced.org>
>Subject: RE: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path
>Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:56:39 +0200
>
>Dear Shen,
>
>first of all I should mention that MPLS deployment is far from being done 
>(I
>don't think that it has been deployed even in a large network operator) and
>I largely suspect that it will never be deployed in a large scale to be the
>primary backbone technology !!!!
>
> >From the point of view of measurement, LSP networks should not have too 
>much
>difference from traditional IP networks as nowadays IP routing performance
>is getting very  close to Label switching performance, meaning that the
>delay of crossing an LSP network should not be significantly larger than an
>IP network. The difference may come from a simpler  traffic engineering in
>MPLS. Meaning that we should evaluate the effect of traffic engineeringon
>performance, not the particuliar behaviour of MPLS network.
>
>Bests
>
>Kv
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De?: ippm-admin@advanced.org [mailto:ippm-admin@advanced.org]De la part de
>Shen Jing
>Envoy��?: dimanche 29 septembre 2002 04:28
>��?: end2end-interest@postel.org
>Cc?: ippm@advanced.org
>Objet?: [ippm] [e2e] Mathematical analysis of e2e lable switching path
>
>
>Hi there,
>
>I've some question on e2e performance analysis of
>label switching path.
>
>There has been many research on e2e performance
>analysis for IP routing. Nearly all of them take the
>model of "network of queue", and under assumpiton of
>Possion Arrival, exponential flow size etc. To my
>limited knowledge, this is not to the state of
>Internet which experiences LRD. On the other hand,
>different router archtecture must have different
>effect on transmission performance.
>As MPLS proceeds to be the primary backbone
>technology, I think there must be something new
>introduced into the e2e performance in internet.
>
>So, I want to know, whether there is some work with
>methematical modeling of LSP networks? and, are there
>anyone would do me a favor to recommend some refrence
>book, web page, research paper or the like ?
>
>Thank you very much.
>
>Best regards
>
>
>=====
>Jing Shen
>
>State Key Lab of CAD&CG
>ZheJiang University(YuQuan)
>HangZhou, ZheJiang Province 310027
>P.R.China
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>"������Ӯ�ֻ�,�����μ��Ż�������!"
>http://cn.ent.yahoo.com/star/midautumn/index.html
>
>_______________________________________________
>ippm mailing list
>ippm@advanced.org
>http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>_______________________________________________
>ippm mailing list
>ippm@advanced.org
>http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Mon Nov 25 09:22:59 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29532
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:22:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAPEN4cV023901;
	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:23:05 -0500
Received: from kcmso2.proxy.att.com (kcmso2.att.com [192.128.134.71])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAPEMGcV023872
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:22:16 -0500
Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.71.62.12])
	by kcmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with ESMTP id gAPEKdgf027103
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:22:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: from occlust04evs1.ugd.att.com (135.71.164.12) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (6.5.019)
        id 3DDD63A100176298; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:22:10 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
Message-ID: <A66DDF82468CDA44BEC0D63F91E4000B02AF7372@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Thread-Topic: on metrics to be registered
Thread-Index: AcKQQsQyfgeSfvw1EdaB3AACLQmBVQBbxAaQACE3DiAAF5igQAB82J8g
From: "Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO" <rgcole@att.com>
To: "STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN" <emile.stephan@rd.francetelecom.com>,
        <ippm@advanced.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailhost.advanced.org id gAPEMGcV023872
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:22:10 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Emile,

Well, I guess I do not understand.  E.g., what parameters are needed
by the median or the variation?

Thanks,
Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN [SMTP:emile.stephan@rd.francetelecom.com]
> Sent:	Monday, November 25, 2002 8:27 AM
> To:	ippm@advanced.org
> Subject:	RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> At large each metric needs pecific parameters. The percentile is only a
> parameter of the delayPercentile measure.
> 
> regards
> Emile
> 
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO [mailto:rgcole@att.com]
> > Envoye : vendredi 22 novembre 2002 15:55
> > A : STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN; ippm@advanced.org
> > Objet : RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Emile,
> > 
> > The whole intent of the metric registry was to
> > provide a pointer to unambiguously defined metrics.
> > If a MIB object defined thru the registry points to
> > percentile, how do I interprete the value?  Is it a 95%,
> > a 90%, an 87% ....
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Bob
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN 
> > [SMTP:emile.stephan@rd.francetelecom.com]
> > > Sent:	Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:47 PM
> > > To:	ippm@advanced.org
> > > Subject:	RE: [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The RMON WG requested that the IPPM metric registry should 
> > be specified
> > > outside the IPPM REPORTING MIB document.
> > > 
> > > The framework of this administrative task is simple: the registry
> > > provides an identifier for all the metrics standardized. So all
> > > standardized metrics are treated equally.
> > > 
> > > Bob said "> ambiguous metrics, e.g., delayPercentile":
> > > It is not in the scope of this document to have an opinion 
> > on the fact
> > > that a metric is ambiguous metrics or not.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > regards
> > > Emile
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : Cole, Robert G (Bob), ALASO [mailto:rgcole@att.com]
> > > > Envoye : mercredi 20 novembre 2002 15:43
> > > > A : ippm@advanced.org
> > > > Objet : [ippm] on metrics to be registered
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > IPPM Metrics Doc ver.01 notes/questions:
> > > > 
> > > > Emile,
> > > > 
> > > > I think the registry is potentially a useful device.  I have
> > > > one set of comments.
> > > > 
> > > > E.g., the metrics for one-way delay and round trip contain
> > > > reference to delay, delayPoissonStream,
> > > > delayPercentile, delayMedian, delayMinimum, 
> > > > delay inverse percentile, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > These seem to fall into four types of items registered:
> > > > 
> > > > singleton-metric, e.g., delay
> > > > sample-metric, e.g., delayPoisson
> > > > statistical metric, delayMedian
> > > > ambiguous metrics, e.g., delayPercentile
> > > > 
> > > > Of the MIBs I am familiar with in, e.g., RMONMIB,
> > > > they need reference only to singleton-metrics because
> > > > the 'sample' is given or defined and 'statistics' are
> > > > hard coded.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, the first three type require only a single object
> > > > to point to the metric, while the ambiguous statistical
> > > > metrics require additional information
> > > > on the MIB to clarify the ambiguity.
> > > > 
> > > > It is not clear to me that you want to register
> > > > statistical metrics.  Even if you do, should the 
> > > > ambiguous statistical metrics be removed?
> > > > 
> > > > Finally, would it make sense to disassociate the
> > > > sample-metrics from the registration of the statistic?
> > > > This might simplify the registration process.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > Bob Cole
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ippm mailing list
> > > > ippm@advanced.org
> > > > http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ippm mailing list
> > > ippm@advanced.org
> > > http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm> 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@advanced.org
> http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Mon Nov 25 17:24:59 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28845
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:24:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAPMP5cV013560;
	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:25:06 -0500
Received: from kcmso2.proxy.att.com (kcmso2.att.com [192.128.134.71])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gAPMOPcV013510
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:24:26 -0500
Received: from hogpa.mt.att.com ([135.16.74.2])
	by kcmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with SMTP id gAPMOQgV025038
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:24:26 -0600 (CST)
Received: from acmortonw.att.com by hogpa.mt.att.com (SMI-8.6/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2)
	id RAA22241; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:24:24 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021121205716.02fa3ec0@hogpa.mt.att.com>
X-Sender: acm1@hogpa.mt.att.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
To: ippm@advanced.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Subject: [ippm] Comments on One-Way Active Measurements Protocol
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:08:26 -0500

Stanislav, (this was queued but not sent...)

Here's a replay of comments at the mic@ippm:

Good to see the inclusion of periodic sampling (section 4.4).
Section 5.1 only mentions exponentially distributed sampling,
so periodic sampling should be mentioned, or the text could be made
more general as to apply to all types of sampling as the
earlier sections of the document.

End of Section 4.7
When a Packet is Lost - the receiver knows the send time
according to the agreed schedule, but it does not have the
send time error. We need to be explicit about what value the
send time error is set to in the case of loss.

At the end of section 4.3, the response to session requests
is either Accept or Reject.  I stated that I'd like to
see a reason for rejection, and you agreed saying that it was
envisioned that we would add a list of reasons and codes over time.
Maybe we could start with a few that are easy to anticipate,
such as Busy, Can't comply with sending rate, and Errored request.
If you add the initial list, it will be clear how and where
the future list goes.

thanks,
Al


_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm


From ippm-admin@advanced.org  Fri Nov 29 10:40:32 2002
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (root@mailhost.advanced.org [209.211.239.227])
	by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01884
	for <ippm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:40:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.advanced.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gATFe5cV020354;
	Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:40:06 -0500
Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96])
	by mailhost.advanced.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id gATFd6cV020292
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:39:06 -0500
Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49])
	by birch.ripe.net (8.12.5/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gATFd5pG009243
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:39:05 +0100
Received: from localhost (henk@localhost)
	by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gATFd5a03902
	for <ippm@advanced.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:39:05 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs
From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" <henk@ripe.net>
To: ippm@advanced.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211291610340.1166-100000@x49.ripe.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS-ng (Milter interface)
Subject: [ippm] Stratum in draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-01.txt
Sender: ippm-admin@advanced.org
Errors-To: ippm-admin@advanced.org
X-BeenThere: ippm@advanced.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@advanced.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List <ippm.advanced.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>,
	<mailto:ippm-request@advanced.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailhost.advanced.org/archives/ippm/>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:39:05 +0100 (CET)

Emile,

I almost forgot that I got appointed as volunteer to bring this to the
list.

IIRC, in the latest draft, a field

 IppmSynchronizationEntry ::= 		   SEQUENCE {
				   ippmSynchronizationIndex   Integer32,
				   ippmSynchronizationTime    GMTTimeStamp,
				   ippmSynchronizationStratum Integer32
		   }


 ippmSynchronizationStratum OBJECT-TYPE
		   SYNTAX     Integer32
		   MAX-ACCESS read-only
		   STATUS     current
		   DESCRIPTION
  "The stratum level of the clock computed when the synchronization event
occurs."
		   ::= { ippmSynchronizationEntry 3 }


has been added.

Stratum specifies the number of hops that one is away from a stratum-0 NTP
clock.  While this is an interesting parameter, it is not what one wants
to know.  For example, if I have 3 boxes on my local net, box 1 with a GPS
clock, box 2 synchronized off box 1, and box 3 off box 2, then box 3 will
have stratum=2.  However, if I sync box 3 of a timeserver somewhere on the
other side of the planet, then its stratum will be 1, but obviously, the
accuracy of the time will be less.

What should be in the MIB is a single bit (or more) indicating whether the
local clock has been synchronized and a number indicating the estimated
accuracy of the synchronized clock.  That way, one can calculate the
estimated error in the final result and decide to use the measurement or
not.

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                    Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre     WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk
Singel 258                         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1016 AB Amsterdam                    Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands                   Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)





_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@advanced.org
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm