From tjohnson@wirefire.com Mon Sep 1 19:27:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B7B3A6AF2; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:27:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -85.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-85.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_FROM_GIVEAWAY=2.269, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, LOTTERY_PH_004470=2.015, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, SARE_URGBIZ=0.725, TVD_PH_SUBJ_URGENT=2.797, URG_BIZ=1.585, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B3Uffxd6MK4f; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wirefire.com (mailbox.wirefire.com [66.109.172.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714B33A6859; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [58.227.194.87] (account tjohnson@wirefire.com) by wirefire.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.2.9) with HTTP id 68383270; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:16:47 -0400 From: "Google Anniversary Promo." Subject: Urgent Winning Notice from Google(Congrat!!) X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.2.9 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:16:47 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: undisclosed-recipients:; Dear Googler, Your e-email have been picked as a winner to receive the sum of £500,000.00 British Pounds during our Online promotion to mark our 10th Anniversary .No purchases of tickets was required.Participants for the draws were randomly selected from a worldwide range of web searchers who use the Google search engine(Googler) and other Google ancillary services. YOUR WINNING DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOW: CGPN:7-22-71-00-66-12, Ticket number: 00869575733664,Serial numbers:/ BTD/8070447706/06, Lucky numbers: 12-12-23-35-40-41(12). Your email address was linked with the above winning details and was picked among our lucky winners. For more information and to claim your prize,contact the processing agent (Mr.Francis Henson) via email with your winning details above,your full names and location. MR FRANCIS HENSON, Email:payment.application@gmail.com , g_a_t_2008@live.com CALL: +44-703-195-8488 ,+44-703-193-0187. Thank you for using Google. Mr. A.Johnson(Coordinator/announcer) From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 2 12:42:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41ABC3A6ADB; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:42:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04703A6943 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:09:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LvhtdttXFpWj for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800AA3A68CF for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tibre.lip6.fr (tibre.lip6.fr [132.227.74.2]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.13.5.20060614/lip6) with ESMTP id m81Dooc3010200 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:50:50 +0200 (CEST) X-pt: isis.lip6.fr Received: from [127.0.0.1] (portableteixeira [132.227.83.150]) by tibre.lip6.fr (8.13.5.20060614/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m81Don11008784 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:50:50 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <48BBF33A.4020003@lip6.fr> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:50:50 +0200 From: Renata Teixeira User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc7 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:50:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 132.227.60.2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:42:17 -0700 Subject: [ippm] CFP Passive and Active Measurement (PAM) Conference 2009 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: renata.teixeira@lip6.fr List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- Call for Papers Passive and Active Measurement Conference (PAM) 2009 Seoul, Korea April 1 - 3, 2009 http://pam2009.kaist.ac.kr -------------------------------------------------------------------- The tenth Passive and Active Measurement conference will be held April 1-3rd, 2009 in Seoul, Korea. PAM focuses on research and practical applications of network measurement and analysis techniques. The conference's goal is to provide a forum for current work in its early stages. Original papers are invited from the research and operations communities on topics including, but not limited to: * Active Network Measurements * Passive Network Measurements * Performance Metrics * Traffic Statistics * Measurement Visualization * New Measurement Approaches & Techniques * Deployment of Measurement Infrastructure * New Measurement Initiatives * Applications of Network Measurements * Network Measurements and Security * Network Troubleshooting using Measurements * Reproduce (or Refute) Previous Measurement Results The PAM steering committee believes that releasing measurement data allows for better science to be conducted in the field of network measurement. Therefore, an award will be given at PAM 2009 for the best paper based on a new dataset that the authors are releasing for community use in subsequent research. To qualify, a paper must significantly utilize a dataset that has been collected for the work presented in the paper. Further, the dataset must be freely available to any researcher; wireless data sets may, for instance, be published through CRAWDAD. Authors should flag papers they wish to be considered for this award with a footnote on the first page of the paper. Novel datasets are especially encouraged. The awarded paper will be chosen from the set of qualifying papers accepted for the conference by a committee made up of a subset of the program and steering committees. IMPORTANT DATES --------------- * Paper Registration: September 24th, 2008, 23:59 GMT (UK Time) * Paper Submission: October 1st, 2008, 23:59 GMT (UK Time) (HARD deadline) * Author Notification: December 5th, 2008 * Camera Ready: January 14th, 2009 SUBMISSION INFORMATION ---------------------- To ensure PAM 2009 is fresh and interesting, we are soliciting papers, submitted in the Springer LNCS format, that do not exceed 10 pages. No additional space will be given once a paper has been accepted. Authors are, as always, asked to refrain from submitting papers submitted to PAM to other venues during the reviewing period. ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE ---------------------- General Chair: Sue Moon, Kaist, Korea Program Chair: Renata Teixeira, CNRS and UPMC, France PROGRAM COMMITTEE ----------------- Jussara Almeida, UFMG, Brazil Ernst Biersack, Eurecom, France Kenjiro Cho, WIDE/IIJ, Japan kc claffy, CAIDA, USA Mark Crovella, BU, USA Anja Feldmann, TU-Berlin, Germany Clarence Filsfils, Cisco, Belgium Jaeyeon Jung, Intel Seattle, USA Thomas Karagiannis, MSR, UK Balachander Krishnamurthy, AT&T, USA Anukool Lakhina, Guavus, India Simon Leinen, Switch, Switzerland Olaf Maennel, TU-Berlin, Germany Z. Morley Mao, U. Michigan, USA Priya Mahadevan, HP Labs, USA Maurizio Molina, Dante, UK Hung Nugyen, University of Adelaide, Australia Dina Papagiannaki, Intel Pittsburgh, USA Vern Paxson, Berkeley, USA Himabindu Pucha, CMU, USA Jennifer Rexford, Princeton, USA Renata Teixeira, CNRS and UPMC, France Jia Wang, AT&T Tanja Zseby, Fokus, Germany _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 3 02:02:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CB03A6CAE; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 02:02:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E04C3A6CAB for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 02:02:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q-b-6J8MkEU4 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 02:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sink.edelkey.net (sink.edelkey.net [213.138.147.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE5E3A6CB2 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 02:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from HKISR04.ad.vtt.fi ([213.214.159.132]) by sink.edelkey.net (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8390w1S011448; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:00:58 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:00:58 +0300 Message-ID: <1440AB524CC69341A51121CD10008FBD02698739@HKISR04.ad.vtt.fi> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Two comments to draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-02.txt Thread-Index: AckNo5SjM72uN5MtQleFb95P+iuhwQ== From: "Kilpi Jorma" To: Cc: shalunov@shlang.com Subject: [ippm] Two comments to draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-02.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0954131515==" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0954131515== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C90DA3.94F35BA7" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C90DA3.94F35BA7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi First let me introduce myself: I work at the VTT which is the Technical Research Centre of Finland. I have been subscribing to this list already some time since, due to my work, I have to be aware of the current status of ippm wg. I also participated the 72nd IETF meeting in Dublin and both ippm meetings there. I have two comments to draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-02.txt that I consider important. They are related to one-way measurements only. 1. The current estimate of the relative offset must be reported with one-way measurement results. 2. Results that are non-sense must not be reported. For example, if the level of the synchronization is not known. Another issue that I suggest is that instead of one fully parametrized measurement set-up there could be two: one for network performance oriented measurement and one for application performance oriented measurement. Otherwise there may be a need to make compromises that make the whole idea useless. Best Regards Jorma Kilpi ------_=_NextPart_001_01C90DA3.94F35BA7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Two comments to draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-02.txt

Hi

First let me introduce myself: I work = at the VTT which is the Technical Research Centre of Finland. I have = been subscribing to this list already some time since, due to my work, I = have to be aware of the current status of ippm wg. I also participated = the 72nd IETF meeting in Dublin and both ippm meetings there.

I have two comments to = draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-02.txt that I consider important. They are = related to one-way measurements only.

1. The current estimate of the relative = offset must be reported with one-way measurement results.
2. Results that are non-sense must not = be reported. For example, if the level of the synchronization is not = known.

Another issue that I suggest is that = instead of one fully parametrized measurement set-up there could be two: = one for network performance oriented measurement and one for application = performance oriented measurement. Otherwise there may be a need to make = compromises that make the whole idea useless.

Best Regards
Jorma Kilpi


------_=_NextPart_001_01C90DA3.94F35BA7-- --===============0954131515== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --===============0954131515==-- From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 11 00:57:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A12B3A6914; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:57:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580DB3A6914 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:57:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.734 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.515, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7-0xXCEoaGXQ for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855CC3A68DF for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 092A11C0156 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:26:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049491C0124 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:26:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD36A1D95B for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:26:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:26:56 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: ippm@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080911072656.GA4941@nic.fr> References: <76acda070802181608r497b611at971cb52ea33dbc40@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76acda070802181608r497b611at971cb52ea33dbc40@mail.gmail.com> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux lenny/sid X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [ippm] TWAMP reference implementation X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:08:42PM -0800, Murtaza Chiba wrote a message of 40 lines which said: > I wanted to inquire if there are any reference implementations being > developed for TWAMP? It would be great if there is an open source > one. I have seen nothing on that subject. Now that the RFC is almost published, it would be a great thing. Is anyone working on it? _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 16 06:04:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CBC28C1E2; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:04:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B2D3A69A7 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:04:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18Ra-nNLMf7Z for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C87B28C1F4 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:04:25 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-203.messagelabs.com!1221570241!21100081!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 18835 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2008 13:04:01 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-4.tower-203.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Sep 2008 13:04:01 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8GD4XI6002975 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:04:33 -0400 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8GD4VVV002946 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:04:31 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8GD4VcU022758 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:04:31 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8GD4PKx022150 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:04:25 -0400 Message-Id: <200809161304.m8GD4PKx022150@alph001.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dyp004244dys.mt.att.com[135.16.251.219](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080916130425gw1003sn99e>; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:04:25 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:04:24 -0400 To: ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ippm-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org At 05:30 PM 9/12/2008, RFC Editor wrote: >Al, > >We have corrected the text as requested and posted the revised version >of the document at: > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc5357.txt >... IPPM WG, In the final phase of TWAMP editing, we identified a case that is important enough to fix now, with your agreement. Adding a short phrase will solve a small issue with the connection/session "liveliness" timeouts, SERVWAIT and REFWAIT. These timeouts are not mandatory in the Server/Reflector. If we can obtain WG consensus to fix this now, it would be a good thing. Please review this ASAP and reply to the list. Background The host acting as the responder has two "liveliness" timers: SERVWAIT is for monitoring activity on the TWAMP-Control connection (see par. 3 of section 3.1) REFWAIT is for monitoring activity on each TWAMP-Test session (see last par. of section 4.2) controller responder +-----------------+ +-------------------+ | Control-Client |<--TWAMP-Control-->| Server (SERVWAIT)| | | | | | Session-Sender |<--TWAMP-Test----->| Session-Reflector |(REFWAIT) +-----------------+ +-------------------+ When we added these timers in the TWAMP memo, we decided that the responder should suspend monitoring the TWAMP-Control connection while any TWAMP-Test session is in progress and the REFWAIT timer is in force. However, the transfer back to monitoring the Control connection with the SERVWAIT timer is not as straightforward as we thought. The relevant sentence from section 3.1 is: ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout (described below) covers failures during test sessions. The issue occurs when there is a failure while test sessions are in-progress and the Server in the responder never receives a Stop-Sessions command. As a result, the Server leaves its TWAMP-Control connection open because it does not resume monitoring for connection liveliness with the SERVWAIT timer. This is exactly what we were trying to avoid. We think the simplest way to fix this is to add a phrase in paragraph 3, section 3.1: OLD ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout (described below) covers failures during test sessions. NEW ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout (described below) covers failures during test sessions, and if REFWAIT expires on ALL test sessions initiated by a TWAMP-Control connection, then the SERVWAIT monitoring SHALL resume (as though a Stop-Sessions command had been received). (last 3 lines above are new) Comments? Al _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 16 08:11:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1B93A6B7B; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:11:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD223A69C4 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:11:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1cklhfSsFeRd for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4D183A6984 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2008 15:11:13 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m8GFBDok003927; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:11:13 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8GFBDna029231; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:11:13 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:11:13 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:10:56 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200809161304.m8GD4PKx022150@alph001.aldc.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 Thread-Index: AckX/NP9Y3czU1A5S8Wh/olQFH1CygAEUDSw References: <200809161304.m8GD4PKx022150@alph001.aldc.att.com> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Al Morton" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2008 15:11:13.0722 (UTC) FILETIME=[7587E9A0:01C9180E] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4167; t=1221577873; x=1222441873; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20AUTH48=20[SG]=3A=20RFC=205357= 20 |Sender:=20; bh=VpY+KvkiNzg1zjl/aMDAZmp+HnZX9nYzrbSPdsrpx90=; b=ZTZkoqdjcXjHHF9x/oQQUJotjpjQd/Lg2CWLLcfQqwk/KML0bWlGzsCTR8 Vt6Qsd13cBlpIpCsvSgDzwxx+eelKW7XKS4rbvcKpzjIqY37lQyAvj0jb1F4 Mn/N2IHNqaQ7ptLLHBJ6dpoRFQ3ljeEjj923g0nSZHrzCvtmbGvN0=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ippm-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org The proposed change sounds correct. Thanks, _murtaza > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Al Morton > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:04 AM > To: ippm@ietf.org > Cc: ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; ippm-ads@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 > > At 05:30 PM 9/12/2008, RFC Editor wrote: > >Al, > > > >We have corrected the text as requested and posted the > revised version > >of the document at: > > > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc5357.txt > >... > > IPPM WG, > > In the final phase of TWAMP editing, we identified a case > that is important enough to fix now, with your agreement. > > Adding a short phrase will solve a small issue with the > connection/session "liveliness" timeouts, SERVWAIT and REFWAIT. > These timeouts are not mandatory in the Server/Reflector. > > If we can obtain WG consensus to fix this now, it would be a > good thing. > > Please review this ASAP and reply to the list. > > Background > > The host acting as the responder has two "liveliness" timers: > SERVWAIT is for monitoring activity on the TWAMP-Control > connection (see par. 3 of section 3.1) REFWAIT is for > monitoring activity on each TWAMP-Test session (see last par. > of section 4.2) > > controller responder > +-----------------+ +-------------------+ > | Control-Client |<--TWAMP-Control-->| Server (SERVWAIT)| > | | | | > | Session-Sender |<--TWAMP-Test----->| Session-Reflector |(REFWAIT) > +-----------------+ +-------------------+ > > When we added these timers in the TWAMP memo, we decided that > the responder should suspend monitoring the TWAMP-Control > connection while any TWAMP-Test session is in progress and > the REFWAIT timer is in force. However, the transfer back to > monitoring the Control connection with the SERVWAIT timer is > not as straightforward as we thought. > > The relevant sentence from section 3.1 is: > > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control > connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions > command, and > SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout > (described below) covers failures during test sessions. > > The issue occurs when there is a failure while test sessions > are in-progress and the Server in the responder never > receives a Stop-Sessions command. As a result, the Server > leaves its TWAMP-Control connection open because it does not > resume monitoring for connection liveliness with the SERVWAIT timer. > This is exactly what we were trying to avoid. > > We think the simplest way to fix this is to add a phrase in > paragraph 3, section 3.1: > > OLD > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control connection > activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and SHALL > resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout > (described below) covers failures during test sessions. > > NEW > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control connection > activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and SHALL > resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout > (described below) covers failures during test sessions, and > if REFWAIT expires on ALL test sessions initiated by a > TWAMP-Control connection, then the SERVWAIT monitoring SHALL > resume (as though a Stop-Sessions command had been received). > > (last 3 lines above are new) > > Comments? > > Al > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 17 00:12:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A1BE28C294; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:12:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95343A69CF for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.988 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fy7vAIi+QQKP for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47063A68FD for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KfrDJ-00022Q-Ea; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:12:43 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F472F593; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:12:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48D0A047.2020805@ripe.net> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:14:31 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <200809161304.m8GD4P9L001430@klph001.kcdc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <200809161304.m8GD4P9L001430@klph001.kcdc.att.com> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d51abbac977cd0f86c9be64707dac1c118 Cc: ippm-ads@tools.ietf.org, ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org IPPM Group, Al Morton wrote: > IPPM WG, > > In the final phase of TWAMP editing, we identified a case > that is important enough to fix now, with your agreement. [...] > Comments? In order to keep things moving, I suggest that comments should be submitted before Wednesday Sept 24, 8:00am CEST, that is, in a week from now. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 17 23:28:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F1028C2E1; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:28:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9532A28C2E1 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:28:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.378, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1-gx+d2VWUCc for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A951E28C2DB for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 9A96994997; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:28:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 295651906EA; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:25:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:25:53 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: ippm@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080918062553.GA7452@sources.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux lenny/sid User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: [ippm] MUST canonicalize according to RFC 5198? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org I know it is quite late now that the I-D is in AUTH48 but I'm bothered by a recent (outside WG, it seems) addition. RFC 5198 is a normative reference. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09.txt says: The protocol does not carry any information in a natural language, with the possible exception of the KeyID in TWAMP-Control, which is encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629, RFC5198]. This was apparently added in response to IESG comments like Chris Newman's remark in . Does it mean that a TWAMP implementation MUST canonicalize the KeyID according to RFC 5198, section 2? I may be dense but it is not obvious for me. _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 18 00:45:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E475A3A698D; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:45:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50CCD3A698D for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.849, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T5i6qJ+W9dVl for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C183A6977 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KgECz-0007Tt-PB; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:45:50 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A9A2F583; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:45:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48D2072C.4010604@ripe.net> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:45:48 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer References: <20080918062553.GA7452@sources.org> In-Reply-To: <20080918062553.GA7452@sources.org> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5cf0418f702b24919af4707a42bcfaf28 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] MUST canonicalize according to RFC 5198? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I know it is quite late now that the I-D is in AUTH48 but I'm bothered > by a recent (outside WG, it seems) addition. > > RFC 5198 is a normative reference. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09.txt says: > > The protocol does not carry any information in a natural language, > with the possible exception of the KeyID in TWAMP-Control, which is > encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629, RFC5198]. > > This was apparently added in response to IESG comments like Chris > Newman's remark in . > > Does it mean that a TWAMP implementation MUST canonicalize the KeyID > according to RFC 5198, section 2? I may be dense but it is not obvious > for me. Al, Keynam, others. Since we have another bug to be discussed by the WG, can you also address this one? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 18 06:16:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59DD128C2AF; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC98128C28C for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eto8TX6zQW37 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.245.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69673A6774 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:04 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1221743776!5984279!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 29686 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2008 13:16:16 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-15.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Sep 2008 13:16:16 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8IDGE76024836 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:14 -0700 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8IDGAep024799 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:16:10 -0700 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8IDGAqk010782 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:16:10 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8IDG8hB010778 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:16:09 -0500 Message-Id: <200809181316.m8IDG8hB010778@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dyp004244dys.mt.att.com[135.16.251.219](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080918131608gw1003snq0e>; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:16:08 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:16:08 -0400 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer , ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <20080918062553.GA7452@sources.org> References: <20080918062553.GA7452@sources.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ippm] MUST canonicalize according to RFC 5198? X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org At 02:25 AM 9/18/2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >I know it is quite late now that the I-D is in AUTH48 but I'm bothered >by a recent (outside WG, it seems) addition. > >RFC 5198 is a normative reference. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-09.txt says: > > The protocol does not carry any information in a natural language, > with the possible exception of the KeyID in TWAMP-Control, which is > encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629, RFC5198]. > >This was apparently added in response to IESG comments like Chris >Newman's remark in . > >Does it mean that a TWAMP implementation MUST canonicalize the KeyID >according to RFC 5198, section 2? I may be dense but it is not obvious >for me. Stephane, Chris asked to include the UTF-8 reference in this section, and in a subsequent e-mail the 5198 reference, and both add clarity to what "UTF-8" is and its use in protocols. See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp/comment/84276/? Otherwise, the wording of this text in this section is identical to OWAMP's: >9. Internationalization Considerations > > The protocol does not carry any information in a natural language, > with the possible exception of the KeyID in OWAMP-Control, which is > encoded in UTF-8. There are no RFC 2119 requirement terms in section 9 of either OWAMP or TWAMP. KeyID is only mentioned as a "possible exception". IMO, inserting references (normative or informative) does not add requirements unless the text specifies it (and the level of requirement, using RFC 2119 terms). Al _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 22 05:46:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447D13A6AA2; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:46:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7431C3A6A77 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:46:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kHpEaSgG9Ygj for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CA33A6ABA for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Khkni-0007PK-3f for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:46:04 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1679C2F583 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:46:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48D79389.6090201@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:46:01 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5a189b882ad86f05cba4798390f984ebd Subject: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org IPPM Group, In Dublin, 3 drafts were presented to extend the TWAMP protocol: draft-morton-ippm-more-twamp-02 (Morton & Hedayat) draft-morton-ippm-twamp-reflect-padding-00 (Morton and Ciavattone) draft-morton-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-00 (Morton) All available through the ID DB: https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/?filename=draft-morton For slidepacks discussing these drafts, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/72/materials.html We would like to hear from people if all/some/none of these drafts should be picked up as working group drafts. Please post your comments to the list before October 6, 2008. Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 22 05:47:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122253A6939; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:47:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300FD3A6A8A for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:47:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ttm15Dxf5Ton for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414423A69FF for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:47:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KhkpS-0002IT-QZ for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:47:53 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0E32F583 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:47:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48D793F6.70702@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:47:50 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d53b7b74f30876d4ec2f1e7368a83cf9e7 Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as. X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org IPPM group, This message announces the WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as-01 The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears to have support and be stable. We would like to start a Working Group Last Call in order to move it forward. Please raise any remaining issues by October 6, 2008, 9:00 UTC. A URL for the draft is: and the tools team also has a great page here: Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 22 11:09:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3354D3A6A4C; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:09:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E783A6AB3 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:09:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P+5ezV7IkLAA for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:09:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (mail.internet2.edu [207.75.164.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109A83A6924 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E93847C08; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29425-04; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (68-112.69-92-cpe.cableone.net [69.92.68.112]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5BB47C07; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:09:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeff W. Boote" To: Henk Uijterwaal In-Reply-To: <48D793F6.70702@ripe.net> References: <48D793F6.70702@ripe.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:09:53 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as. X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi All, I think this is a good draft with a LOT of very good information. It is taking me some time to go through, but I wanted to provide *some* feedback right away on my first impression. (As someone who would very much like to have a draft like this published to support my ongoing work.) It would be very helpful if there was more of an executive summary for people writing applications that could make use of these metrics (or writing applications to produce these metrics). For example, I'd love to see something near the beginning that said, for these types of applications A, B, C - we recommend you use this metric, and that metric is derived using processes X, Y, Z. And then for those really interested in the *why*, you already have very good information here. I realize part of the issue here is that you don't necessarily give a recommendation in all cases. (For example, section 6.5 still has questions about what to report for a single number.) That is why I would perhaps encourage you to break out a couple of application classes, and indicate a good recommendation for each instead. If this is counter to your goals for this draft, please feel free to ignore. This is just what I was hoping to see based on the title/ abstract. thanks, jeff On Sep 22, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > IPPM group, > > This message announces the WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-delay-var-as-01 > > The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and appears > to have support and be stable. We would like to start a Working > Group Last > Call in order to move it forward. > > Please raise any remaining issues by October 6, 2008, 9:00 UTC. > > A URL for the draft is: > > > > > > and the tools team also has a great page here: > > > > > Matt & Henk > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Is one of the choices leaving the office open? > Alan Greenspan on the next > elections > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 01:14:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3263A6870; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:14:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31BAB3A6870 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:14:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id alLGu2+vJqJW for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9BC3A6868 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KiPVl-00072H-BO; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:14:15 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7EF2F594; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:14:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48D9F6D5.3050905@ripe.net> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:14:13 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <200809161304.m8GD4P9L001430@klph001.kcdc.att.com> <48D0A047.2020805@ripe.net> In-Reply-To: <48D0A047.2020805@ripe.net> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5bba3896c11c48368952c132dc53ee6b4 Cc: ippm@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ippm-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org IPPM group, > Al Morton wrote: >> IPPM WG, >> >> In the final phase of TWAMP editing, we identified a case >> that is important enough to fix now, with your agreement. > [...] >> Comments? > > In order to keep things moving, I suggest that comments should be > submitted before Wednesday Sept 24, 8:00am CEST, that is, in > a week from now. There was one comment in support and no comments who disagreed, so the authors can make this fix and proceed with the document. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 02:15:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1693A6AB5; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:15:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433CC3A6AB5 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:15:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.156 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.041] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IEddgPt46pSd for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7B03A6AA4 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K7P00NDH0AC06@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:13:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K7P005K10ACN5@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:13:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from d00134398 ([10.111.12.150]) by szxml05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K7P0064N0ACRK@szxml05-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:13:24 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:13:23 +0800 From: =?utf-8?B?6JGj6Zuv6Zye?= To: ippm@ietf.org Message-id: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Subject: [ippm] Some questions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org SGkgZXZlcnlvbmUNCg0KSSBoYXZlIHR3byBxdWVzdGlvbnMsIGFzIGZsb3dzOg0KKDEpICBPbiBw YWdlIDcgaW4gcmZjMjY4MCx3aHkgaXMgVHlwZS1QLU9uZS13YXktUGFja2V0LUxvc3MgMCBpZiB0 aGUgdGVzdCBwYWNrZXQgZG9lcyBub3QgYXJyaXZlLCBvciBpZiBpdCBkb2VzIGFycml2ZSBhbmQg dGhlIGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgYmV0d2VlbiBTcmMgdGltZXN0YW1wIGFuZCBEc3QgdGltZXN0YW1wIGlz IGdyZWF0ZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgInJlYXNvbmFibGUgcGVyaW9kIG9mIHRpbWUiLCBvciBsb3NzIHRo cmVzaG9sZC4gb3IgSXMgaXQgYSB3cml0aW5nIG1pc3Rha2U/IFRoYW5rcyBhIGxvdCENCg0KKDIp IENvdWxkIHlvdSB0ZWxsIG1lIHRoZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gcGF0aCBwZXJmb3JtYW5j ZSBhbmQgbmV0d29yayBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZT8gRm9yIHJmYzI2ODDjgIFyZmMyNjgxIGFuZCBzbyBv biwgYXJlIHRob3NlIG1ldHJpY3MgcGF0aCBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZT8gV2hlbiB3ZSBtZWFzdXJlIHRo ZSBwYXRoIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlLCBjb3VsZCB3ZSBkZXNpZ25hdGUgc3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5IHJvdXRl ciBmb3IgdGVzdCBwYWNrZXRzPyBUaGFua3MgYSBsb3QhDQoNCg0KVGhhbmtzIGEgbG90IQ0KDQpC ZXN0IFdpc2hlcyENCg0KV2VueGlhIERvbmcNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KaXBwbSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKaXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZwpodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2lwcG0K From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 02:30:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690523A6AFC; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:30:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29ED23A6D3E for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:30:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gUF01uJi1QZn for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7241A3A6D47 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KiQhR-0008CG-1j; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:30:23 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C142F595; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:30:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48DA08AD.9070406@ripe.net> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:30:21 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?6JGj6Zuv6Zye?= References: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d59dae959653cb3c7fd1dbcc08f7910dea Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org SGksCgo+IEkgaGF2ZSB0d28gcXVlc3Rpb25zLCBhcyBmbG93czogKDEpICBPbiBwYWdlIDcgaW4g cmZjMjY4MCx3aHkgaXMKPiBUeXBlLVAtT25lLXdheS1QYWNrZXQtTG9zcyAwIGlmIHRoZSB0ZXN0 IHBhY2tldCBkb2VzIG5vdCBhcnJpdmUsIG9yIGlmIGl0Cj4gZG9lcyBhcnJpdmUgYW5kIHRoZSBk aWZmZXJlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gU3JjIHRpbWVzdGFtcCBhbmQgRHN0IHRpbWVzdGFtcCBpcwo+IGdy ZWF0ZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgInJlYXNvbmFibGUgcGVyaW9kIG9mIHRpbWUiLCBvciBsb3NzIHRocmVz aG9sZC4gb3IgSXMgaXQgYQo+IHdyaXRpbmcgbWlzdGFrZT8gVGhhbmtzIGEgbG90IQoKVGhpcyBs b29rcyBsaWtlIGEgdHlwbyB0byBtZS4KCgo+ICgyKSBDb3VsZCB5b3UgdGVsbCBtZSB0aGUgZGlm ZmVyZW5jZSBiZXR3ZWVuIHBhdGggcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgYW5kIG5ldHdvcmsKPiBwZXJmb3JtYW5j ZT8gRm9yIHJmYzI2ODDjgIFyZmMyNjgxIGFuZCBzbyBvbiwgYXJlIHRob3NlIG1ldHJpY3MgcGF0 aAo+IHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlPyBXaGVuIHdlIG1lYXN1cmUgdGhlIHBhdGggcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UsIGNv dWxkIHdlIGRlc2lnbmF0ZQo+IHNwZWNpZmljYWxseSByb3V0ZXIgZm9yIHRlc3QgcGFja2V0cz8g VGhhbmtzIGEgbG90IQoKUGF0aCBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSByZWZlcnMgdG8gYSBzcGVjaWZpYyBwYXRo IGJldHdlZW4gc3JjIGFuZCBkc3QuICBOZXR3b3JrCnBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIHRvIGFsbCBwb3NzaWJs ZSBwYXRocyBiZXR3ZWVuIHNyYyBhbmQgZHN0LCByZWdhcmRsZXNzIHdoaWNoCnBhdGggdGhlIHBh Y2tldCB0b29rLiAgV2hlbiBtZWFzdXJpbmcsIHllcywgeW91IGNhbiBkZXNpZ25hdGUgYSBzcGVj aWZpYwpkZXZpY2UgdG8gc2VuZCB0ZXN0IHBhY2tldHMuCgpIZW5rCgotLSAKLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tCkhlbmsgVWlqdGVyd2FhbCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEVtYWls OiBoZW5rLnVpanRlcndhYWwoYXQpcmlwZS5uZXQKUklQRSBOZXR3b3JrIENvb3JkaW5hdGlvbiBD ZW50cmUgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5hbXN0ZXJkYW1uZWQub3JnL35oZW5rClAuTy5Cb3gg MTAwOTYgICAgICAgICAgU2luZ2VsIDI1OCAgICAgICAgIFBob25lOiArMzEuMjAuNTM1NDQxNAox MDAxIEVCIEFtc3RlcmRhbSAgICAgIDEwMTYgQUIgQW1zdGVyZGFtICBGYXg6ICszMS4yMC41MzU0 NDQ1ClRoZSBOZXRoZXJsYW5kcyAgICAgICAgVGhlIE5ldGhlcmxhbmRzICAgIE1vYmlsZTogKzMx LjYuNTU4NjE3NDYKLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tCgpDZXRlcnVtIGNlbnNlbyBBc3BsYWlu IGVzc2UgZGVsZW5kYW0gIChDYXRvICYgSGVuaykKX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KaXBwbSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKaXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZwpodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2lwcG0K From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 05:21:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78713A6D25; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:21:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE3A3A6B48 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:20:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_DEALS=2.3, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQ7B8Y28bgaP for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428CA3A6C8B for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:20:58 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1222258819!35692022!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 25971 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2008 12:20:19 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-4.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Sep 2008 12:20:19 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8OCKI9Z007768 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:20:19 -0700 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8OCKBxi007692 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:20:12 -0700 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8OCKBKH013986 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:20:11 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8OCK7rm013684 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:20:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200809241220.m8OCK7rm013684@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.97.96](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080924122006gw1003snube>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:20:07 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:20:05 -0400 To: Henk Uijterwaal , ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <7.1.0.9.0.20080917073956.032be338@att.com> References: <200809161304.m8GD4PKx022150@alph001.aldc.att.com> <200809161355.m8GDtWVw006439@klph001.kcdc.att.com> <7.1.0.9.0.20080917073956.032be338@att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: Re: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Henk and all, Apparently, this thread from last week was never posted to the list (see below). Emile simply points out that an implementation of SERVWAIT should also implement REFWAIT to work as recommended. There's another sentence to add (below) to accomplish this. NEW ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout (described below) covers failures during test sessions, and if REFWAIT expires on ALL test sessions initiated by a TWAMP-Control connection, then the SERVWAIT monitoring SHALL resume (as though a Stop-Sessions command had been received). An implementation which supports the SERVWAIT timeout SHOULD also implement the REFWAIT timeout. (now, last 5 lines above are new) I think that does it, Al At 07:41 AM 9/17/2008, Al Morton wrote: >Because I didn't look at the addresses carefully, >I thought this exchange *already* included IPPM. > >Feel free to send the entire thread to the list >(indicating your opinion). > >thanks, >Al > >At 03:26 AM 9/17/2008, emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com wrote: >>Hi Al >> >>Exactly, TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-test must work = >>consistently when this option is selected. >> >>Does it help to push it to the ML? >> >>Regards >>Emile >> >> > -----Message d'origine----- >> > De : Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] >> > Envoy=E9 : mardi 16 septembre 2008 15:56 >> > =C0 : STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN >> > Objet : RE: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 >> > >> > Emile, >> > >> > Changing that MAY to a MUST would mandate the REFWAIT timer, >> > which we're not seeking to do. >> > >> > If you are saying that: >> > An implementation which supports the SERVWAIT timeout option >> > SHOULD also implement the REFWAIT timeout option. >> > >> > I think that's reasonable to add. >> > >> > Al >> > >> > At 09:36 AM 9/16/2008, emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com wrote: >> > >... >> > > From my understanding we have to change the following too: >> > > >> > >Old: >> > >"The Session-Reflector MAY >> > > discontinue any session that has been started when no packet >> > > associated with that session has been received for REFWAIT second= s." >> > > >> > >New: >> > >"The Session-Reflector MUST >> > > discontinue any session that has been started when no packet >> > > associated with that session has been received for REFWAIT second= s." >> > > >> > >Regards >> > >emile >> > > >> > > >> > > > -----Message d'origine----- >> > > > De : ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] De la pa= rt >> > de Al >> > > > Morton >> > > > Envoy=E9 : mardi 16 septembre 2008 15:04 >> > > > =C0 : ippm@ietf.org >> > > > Cc : ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; ippm-ads@tools.ietf.org >> > > > Objet : [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 >> > > > >> > > > At 05:30 PM 9/12/2008, RFC Editor wrote: >> > > > >Al, >> > > > > >> > > > >We have corrected the text as requested and posted the revised >> > version >> > > > >of the document at: >> > > > > >> > > > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc5357.txt >> > > > >... >> > > > >> > > > IPPM WG, >> > > > >> > > > In the final phase of TWAMP editing, we identified a case >> > > > that is important enough to fix now, with your agreement. >> > > > >> > > > Adding a short phrase will solve a small issue with the >> > > > connection/session "liveliness" timeouts, SERVWAIT and REFWAIT. >> > > > These timeouts are not mandatory in the Server/Reflector. >> > > > >> > > > If we can obtain WG consensus to fix this now, it would be a >> > > > good thing. >> > > > >> > > > Please review this ASAP and reply to the list. >> > > > >> > > > Background >> > > > >> > > > The host acting as the responder has two "liveliness" timers: >> > > > SERVWAIT is for monitoring activity on the TWAMP-Control connection >> > > > (see par. 3 of section 3.1) >> > > > REFWAIT is for monitoring activity on each TWAMP-Test session >> > > > (see last par. of section 4.2) >> > > > >> > > > controller responder >> > > > +-----------------+ +-------------------+ >> > > > | Control-Client |<--TWAMP-Control-->| Server (SERVWAIT)| >> > > > | | | | >> > > > | Session-Sender |<--TWAMP-Test----->| Session-Reflector |(REFWAI= T) >> > > > +-----------------+ +-------------------+ >> > > > >> > > > When we added these timers in the TWAMP memo, we >> > > > decided that the responder should suspend monitoring the >> > > > TWAMP-Control connection while any TWAMP-Test session is in >> > > > progress and the REFWAIT timer is in force. However, the transfer >> > > > back to monitoring the Control connection with the SERVWAIT timer >> > > > is not as straightforward as we thought. >> > > > >> > > > The relevant sentence from section 3.1 is: >> > > > >> > > > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control >> > > > connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions comman= d, >> > and >> > > > SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the >> > > > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeo= ut >> > > > (described below) covers failures during test sessions. >> > > > >> > > > The issue occurs when there is a failure while test sessions are >> > > > in-progress and the Server in the responder never receives a >> > > > Stop-Sessions command. As a result, the Server leaves its >> > > > TWAMP-Control connection open because it does not resume >> > > > monitoring for connection liveliness with the SERVWAIT timer. >> > > > This is exactly what we were trying to avoid. >> > > > >> > > > We think the simplest way to fix this is to add a phrase in >> > > > paragraph 3, section 3.1: >> > > > >> > > > OLD >> > > > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control >> > > > connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and >> > > > SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the >> > > > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout >> > > > (described below) covers failures during test sessions. >> > > > >> > > > NEW >> > > > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control >> > > > connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and >> > > > SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the >> > > > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout >> > > > (described below) covers failures during test sessions, >> > > > and if REFWAIT expires on ALL test sessions initiated by a >> > > > TWAMP-Control connection, then the SERVWAIT monitoring SHALL >> > > > resume (as though a Stop-Sessions command had been received). >> > > > >> > > > (last 3 lines above are new) >> > > > >> > > > Comments? >> > > > >> > > > Al >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > ippm mailing list >> > > > ippm@ietf.org >> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 05:26:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3FA28C322; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:26:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B333A28C322 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:26:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.728, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWqaGqBRi0K4 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77C028C321 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:26:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 6539394CB5; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:25:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: by horcrux (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7022E157943; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:18:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:18:54 -0400 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Henk Uijterwaal , dongwx134398@huawei.com Message-ID: <20080924121854.GA15469@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <48DA08AD.9070406@ripe.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48DA08AD.9070406@ripe.net> X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 8.04 (hardy) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:30:21AM +0200, Henk Uijterwaal wrote a message of 9 lines which said: >> I have two questions, as flows: (1) On page 7 in rfc2680,why is> >> Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss 0 if the test packet does not arrive, > This looks like a typo to me. Wenxia Dong, you should report it to the RFC editor: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 06:07:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FDB3A6D9F; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:07:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E13B3A6D9F for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:07:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_DEALS=2.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45Zn65A-E7ii for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791773A6D98 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KiU4d-0001cC-2D; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:06:33 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FF12F594; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:06:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48DA3B57.3030801@ripe.net> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:06:31 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <200809161304.m8GD4PKx022150@alph001.aldc.att.com> <200809161355.m8GDtWVw006439@klph001.kcdc.att.com> <7.1.0.9.0.20080917073956.032be338@att.com> <200809241220.m8OCK7wD013683@klph001.kcdc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <200809241220.m8OCK7wD013683@klph001.kcdc.att.com> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d55ccc1923445162f83ac1dc66690cd78d Cc: emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi Al, > Apparently, this thread from last week was never posted > to the list (see below). No, I didn't see this. Let's have another week for comments :-) Henk > = > Emile simply points out that an implementation of SERVWAIT > should also implement REFWAIT to work as recommended. > There's another sentence to add (below) to accomplish this. > = > NEW > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control > connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and > SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout > (described below) covers failures during test sessions, > and if REFWAIT expires on ALL test sessions initiated by a > TWAMP-Control connection, then the SERVWAIT monitoring SHALL > resume (as though a Stop-Sessions command had been received). > An implementation which supports the SERVWAIT timeout > SHOULD also implement the REFWAIT timeout. > = > (now, last 5 lines above are new) > = > I think that does it, > Al > = > = > At 07:41 AM 9/17/2008, Al Morton wrote: >> Because I didn't look at the addresses carefully, >> I thought this exchange *already* included IPPM. >> >> Feel free to send the entire thread to the list >> (indicating your opinion). >> >> thanks, >> Al >> >> At 03:26 AM 9/17/2008, emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com wrote: >>> Hi Al >>> >>> Exactly, TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-test must work consistently when = >>> this option is selected. >>> >>> Does it help to push it to the ML? >>> >>> Regards >>> Emile >>> >>> > -----Message d'origine----- >>> > De : Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] >>> > Envoy=E9 : mardi 16 septembre 2008 15:56 >>> > =C0 : STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN >>> > Objet : RE: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 = >>> >>> > >>> > Emile, >>> > >>> > Changing that MAY to a MUST would mandate the REFWAIT timer, >>> > which we're not seeking to do. >>> > >>> > If you are saying that: >>> > An implementation which supports the SERVWAIT timeout option >>> > SHOULD also implement the REFWAIT timeout option. >>> > >>> > I think that's reasonable to add. >>> > >>> > Al >>> > >>> > At 09:36 AM 9/16/2008, emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com wrote: >>> > >... >>> > > From my understanding we have to change the following too: >>> > > >>> > >Old: >>> > >"The Session-Reflector MAY >>> > > discontinue any session that has been started when no packet >>> > > associated with that session has been received for REFWAIT = >>> seconds." >>> > > >>> > >New: >>> > >"The Session-Reflector MUST >>> > > discontinue any session that has been started when no packet >>> > > associated with that session has been received for REFWAIT = >>> seconds." >>> > > >>> > >Regards >>> > >emile >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > -----Message d'origine----- >>> > > > De : ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] De la = >>> part >>> > de Al >>> > > > Morton >>> > > > Envoy=E9 : mardi 16 septembre 2008 15:04 >>> > > > =C0 : ippm@ietf.org >>> > > > Cc : ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; ippm-ads@tools.ietf.org >>> > > > Objet : [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 = >>> >>> > > > >>> > > > At 05:30 PM 9/12/2008, RFC Editor wrote: >>> > > > >Al, >>> > > > > >>> > > > >We have corrected the text as requested and posted the revised >>> > version >>> > > > >of the document at: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc5357.txt >>> > > > >... >>> > > > >>> > > > IPPM WG, >>> > > > >>> > > > In the final phase of TWAMP editing, we identified a case >>> > > > that is important enough to fix now, with your agreement. >>> > > > >>> > > > Adding a short phrase will solve a small issue with the >>> > > > connection/session "liveliness" timeouts, SERVWAIT and REFWAIT. >>> > > > These timeouts are not mandatory in the Server/Reflector. >>> > > > >>> > > > If we can obtain WG consensus to fix this now, it would be a >>> > > > good thing. >>> > > > >>> > > > Please review this ASAP and reply to the list. >>> > > > >>> > > > Background >>> > > > >>> > > > The host acting as the responder has two "liveliness" timers: >>> > > > SERVWAIT is for monitoring activity on the TWAMP-Control = >>> connection >>> > > > (see par. 3 of section 3.1) >>> > > > REFWAIT is for monitoring activity on each TWAMP-Test session >>> > > > (see last par. of section 4.2) >>> > > > >>> > > > controller responder >>> > > > +-----------------+ +-------------------+ >>> > > > | Control-Client |<--TWAMP-Control-->| Server (SERVWAIT)| >>> > > > | | | | >>> > > > | Session-Sender |<--TWAMP-Test----->| Session-Reflector = >>> |(REFWAIT) >>> > > > +-----------------+ +-------------------+ >>> > > > >>> > > > When we added these timers in the TWAMP memo, we >>> > > > decided that the responder should suspend monitoring the >>> > > > TWAMP-Control connection while any TWAMP-Test session is in >>> > > > progress and the REFWAIT timer is in force. However, the transfer >>> > > > back to monitoring the Control connection with the SERVWAIT timer >>> > > > is not as straightforward as we thought. >>> > > > >>> > > > The relevant sentence from section 3.1 is: >>> > > > >>> > > > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control >>> > > > connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions = >>> command, >>> > and >>> > > > SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF = >>> the >>> > > > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT = >>> timeout >>> > > > (described below) covers failures during test sessions. >>> > > > >>> > > > The issue occurs when there is a failure while test sessions are >>> > > > in-progress and the Server in the responder never receives a >>> > > > Stop-Sessions command. As a result, the Server leaves its >>> > > > TWAMP-Control connection open because it does not resume >>> > > > monitoring for connection liveliness with the SERVWAIT timer. >>> > > > This is exactly what we were trying to avoid. >>> > > > >>> > > > We think the simplest way to fix this is to add a phrase in >>> > > > paragraph 3, section 3.1: >>> > > > >>> > > > OLD >>> > > > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control >>> > > > connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and >>> > > > SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the >>> > > > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout >>> > > > (described below) covers failures during test sessions. >>> > > > >>> > > > NEW >>> > > > ...The Server SHALL suspend monitoring control >>> > > > connection activity after receiving a Start-Sessions command, and >>> > > > SHALL resume after receiving a Stop-Sessions command (IF the >>> > > > SERVWAIT option is supported). Note that the REFWAIT timeout >>> > > > (described below) covers failures during test sessions, >>> > > > and if REFWAIT expires on ALL test sessions initiated by a >>> > > > TWAMP-Control connection, then the SERVWAIT monitoring SHALL >>> > > > resume (as though a Stop-Sessions command had been received). >>> > > > >>> > > > (last 3 lines above are new) >>> > > > >>> > > > Comments? >>> > > > >>> > > > Al >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > ippm mailing list >>> > > > ippm@ietf.org >>> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > = > = -- = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 06:23:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C8B3A6AFB; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:23:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6403A6AFB for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:23:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DygVwIVSAFhZ for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AF43A6ADC for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:23:29 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1222262537!9988339!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 27716 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2008 13:22:18 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-10.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Sep 2008 13:22:18 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8ODMHqj004954 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:22:17 -0700 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8ODMBJf004912 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:22:11 -0700 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8ODMB4R001119 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:22:11 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8ODM7SM001036 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:22:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200809241322.m8ODM7SM001036@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.97.96](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080924132206gw1003snv5e>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:22:06 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:22:05 -0400 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer , Henk Uijterwaal , dongwx134398@huawei.com From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <20080924121854.GA15469@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <48DA08AD.9070406@ripe.net> <20080924121854.GA15469@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org There's no typo here, the actual text is >... > The first two sources are interrelated and could result in a test > packet with finite delay being reported as lost. Type-P-One-way- > Packet-Loss is 0 if the test packet does not arrive, or if it does > arrive and the difference between Src timestamp and Dst timestamp is > greater than the "reasonable period of time", or loss threshold. So if the question is about the waiting time, or loss threshold... At 05:13 AM 9/24/2008, =E8=91=A3=E9=9B=AF=E9=9C=9E wrote: >... >(1) On page 7 in rfc2680,why is = >Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss 0 if the test packet = >does not arrive, or if it does arrive and the = >difference between Src timestamp and Dst = >timestamp is greater than the "reasonable period = >of time", or loss threshold. or Is it a writing mistake? Thanks a lot! There a practical matter that measurement systems cannot wait forever for test packets to arrive. If a packet arrives beyond the waiting time threshold, it is still defined as lost. It is important to set this threshold carefully, and to report the value of the threshold with the results. Section 2.6 explains this in more detail (page 6). Al At 08:18 AM 9/24/2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:30:21AM +0200, > Henk Uijterwaal wrote > a message of 9 lines which said: > > >> I have two questions, as flows: (1) On page 7 in rfc2680,why is> > >> Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss 0 if the test packet does not arrive, > > > This looks like a typo to me. > >Wenxia Dong, you should report it to the RFC editor: > >http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php >_______________________________________________ >ippm mailing list >ippm@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 06:33:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4B028C0F4; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:33:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6345F3A6DB8 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:33:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.382 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ntYw4N2mafQY for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB183A6DCD for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KiUUE-0003o5-76; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:33:00 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E32D2F594; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:32:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48DA418A.5070103@ripe.net> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:32:58 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <48DA08AD.9070406@ripe.net> <20080924121854.GA15469@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <200809241322.m8ODM7sS001032@klph001.kcdc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <200809241322.m8ODM7sS001032@klph001.kcdc.att.com> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d51144b1eb8192b46eb07c366f9aaaaa4c Cc: dongwx134398@huawei.com, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Al, >> ... >> The first two sources are interrelated and could result in a test >> packet with finite delay being reported as lost. Type-P-One-way- >> Packet-Loss is 0 if the test packet does not arrive, or if it does >> arrive and the difference between Src timestamp and Dst timestamp is >> greater than the "reasonable period of time", or loss threshold. "Type-P-One-way-packet loss is 0 if the packet does not arrive" is not what section 2.4 says: 2.4. Definitions >>The *Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss* from Src to Dst at T is 0<< means that Src sent the first bit of a Type-P packet to Dst at wire-time* T and that Dst received that packet. The paragraph above should say 1, right? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 07:28:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC52428C0DB; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:28:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EDB3A6D80 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.383, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5+I0gzpQ7Fv3 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509413A6D3A for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:28:47 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-203.messagelabs.com!1222266455!22101584!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 13426 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2008 14:27:36 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-12.tower-203.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Sep 2008 14:27:36 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8OERwqU007807 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:27:58 -0400 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8OERr2h007743 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:27:54 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8OERrAm012775 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:27:53 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8OERmBo012648 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:27:48 -0400 Message-Id: <200809241427.m8OERmBo012648@alph001.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (unknown[135.210.97.96](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080924142747gw1003sn0me>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:27:47 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:27:46 -0400 To: Henk Uijterwaal From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <48DA418A.5070103@ripe.net> References: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <48DA08AD.9070406@ripe.net> <20080924121854.GA15469@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <200809241322.m8ODM7sS001032@klph001.kcdc.att.com> <48DA418A.5070103@ripe.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: dongwx134398@huawei.com, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Yes, the 0 should be a 1. Thanks for making the needed correction clear. I thought the "typo" was referring to a missing "is" in the quoted text of the original message: >(1) On page 7 in rfc2680,why is Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss 0 if the >test packet does not arrive, or if it does arrive and the difference >between Src timestamp and Dst timestamp is greater than the >"reasonable period of time", or loss threshold. or Is it a writing mistake? At 09:32 AM 9/24/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >>>... >>> The first two sources are interrelated and could result in a test >>> packet with finite delay being reported as lost. Type-P-One-way- >>> Packet-Loss is 0 if the test packet does not arrive, or if it does >>> arrive and the difference between Src timestamp and Dst timestamp is >>> greater than the "reasonable period of time", or loss threshold. > >"Type-P-One-way-packet loss is 0 if the packet does not arrive" is not >what section 2.4 says: > > 2.4. Definitions > >>The *Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss* from Src to Dst at T is 0<< means > that Src sent the first bit of a Type-P packet to Dst at wire-time* T > and that Dst received that packet. > > >The paragraph above should say 1, right? _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 11:28:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417603A68CE; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:28:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB563A68DA for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:28:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NwAI6T1q+Rs1 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FD13A6ACF for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:28:08 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,302,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="161949758" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2008 18:27:19 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m8OIRJd5014243; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:27:19 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8OIRJiE010960; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:27:19 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:27:19 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:27:18 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <48D79389.6090201@ripe.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions Thread-Index: AckcsTtPf5/yKMC/Qzqf15vRcwnxzwBwWtIw References: <48D79389.6090201@ripe.net> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "Henk Uijterwaal" , "IETF IPPM WG" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2008 18:27:19.0477 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DC5A650:01C91E73] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1920; t=1222280839; x=1223144839; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mchiba@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Murtaza=20Chiba=20(mchiba)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20TWAMP=20Extensions |Sender:=20; bh=6q6seU4ujUyMGBAQQ8obKRe+aDzeqcdRluTv/NKA6Uw=; b=AEdaltj4esEQfyxVpcgF7RgvAqm6CDWW9MGgWVTHgukUOW4/oz9fCBsfV+ EvF7S+edGcmo4O4B+nHcXFAyaDEEoonkED0v3bMqIqgLVoLZ0JkFuXjEdeke +LYi3CFnq7; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=mchiba@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hello Matt and Henk, I would like to endorse that all three be taken up as WG items. Thanks, _murtaza > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 5:46 AM > To: IETF IPPM WG > Subject: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions > > IPPM Group, > > In Dublin, 3 drafts were presented to extend the TWAMP protocol: > > draft-morton-ippm-more-twamp-02 (Morton & Hedayat) > draft-morton-ippm-twamp-reflect-padding-00 (Morton and Ciavattone) > draft-morton-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-00 (Morton) > > All available through the ID DB: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/?filename=draft-morton > > For slidepacks discussing these drafts, please see: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/72/materials.html > > We would like to hear from people if all/some/none of these > drafts should be picked up as working group drafts. Please > post your comments to the list before October 6, 2008. > > Matt & Henk > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > Is one of the choices leaving the office open? > Alan Greenspan on the > next elections > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 19:00:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E343A6C28; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:00:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2D23A6B4A for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:00:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.041, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VkDPtoYjEw6b for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CCE3A6872 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:59:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K7Q00JDQAVV09@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:59:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K7Q0073DAVVSA@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:59:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from d00134398 ([10.111.12.150]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K7Q000LDAVVHK@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:59:55 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:59:55 +0800 From: =?UTF-8?B?6JGj6Zuv6Zye?= To: Al Morton Message-id: <009801c91eb2$6801a500$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <48DA08AD.9070406@ripe.net> <20080924121854.GA15469@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <200809241322.m8ODM7jI013342@alph001.aldc.att.com> Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org SSB0aGluayBUeXBlLVAtT25lLXdheS1QYWNrZXQtTG9zcyBpcyAxIGlmIHRoZSB0ZXN0IHBhY2tl dCBkb2VzIG5vdCBhcnJpdmUsIG9yIGlmIGEgcGFja2V0IGFycml2ZXMgYmV5b25kIHRoZSB3YWl0 aW5nIHRpbWUgdGhyZXNob2xkLg0KQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHNlY3Rpb24gMi40IGluIFJGQzI2ODAs IHRoZSBkaWZpbml0aW9uIHRlbGxzIHVzIFR5cGUtUC1PbmUgLXdheS1QYWNrZXQtTG9zcyBpcyAx IHdoZW4gU3JjIHNlbnQgdGhlIGZpcnN0IGJpdCBvZiBhIHR5cGUtUCBwYWNrZXQgdG8gRHN0IGF0 IHdpcmUtdGltZSBUDQphbmQgdGhhdCBEc3QgZGlkIG5vdCByZWNlaXZlIHRoYXQgcGFja2V0Lg0K DQpUaGFuayB5b3UgYSBsb3QuDQoNCkJlc3Qgd2lzaGVzLg0KDQpXZW54aWEgIERvbmcNCg0KDQoN Ci0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0gDQpGcm9tOiAiQWwgTW9ydG9uIiA8YWNtb3J0 b25AYXR0LmNvbT4NClRvOiAiU3RlcGhhbmUgQm9ydHptZXllciIgPGJvcnR6bWV5ZXJAbmljLmZy PjsgIkhlbmsgVWlqdGVyd2FhbCIgPGhlbmtAcmlwZS5uZXQ+OyA8ZG9uZ3d4MTM0Mzk4QGh1YXdl aS5jb20+DQpDYzogPGlwcG1AaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpTZW50OiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAy NCwgMjAwOCA5OjIyIFBNDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2lwcG1dIFNvbWUgcXVlc3Rpb25zDQoNCg0K VGhlcmUncyBubyB0eXBvIGhlcmUsIHRoZSBhY3R1YWwgdGV4dCBpcw0KDQo+Li4uDQo+ICAgIFRo ZSBmaXJzdCB0d28gc291cmNlcyBhcmUgaW50ZXJyZWxhdGVkIGFuZCBjb3VsZCByZXN1bHQgaW4g YSB0ZXN0DQo+ICAgIHBhY2tldCB3aXRoIGZpbml0ZSBkZWxheSBiZWluZyByZXBvcnRlZCBhcyBs b3N0LiAgVHlwZS1QLU9uZS13YXktDQo+ICAgIFBhY2tldC1Mb3NzIGlzIDAgaWYgdGhlIHRlc3Qg cGFja2V0IGRvZXMgbm90IGFycml2ZSwgb3IgaWYgaXQgZG9lcw0KPiAgICBhcnJpdmUgYW5kIHRo ZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGJldHdlZW4gU3JjIHRpbWVzdGFtcCBhbmQgRHN0IHRpbWVzdGFtcCBpcw0K PiAgICBncmVhdGVyIHRoYW4gdGhlICJyZWFzb25hYmxlIHBlcmlvZCBvZiB0aW1lIiwgb3IgbG9z cyB0aHJlc2hvbGQuDQoNClNvIGlmIHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBpcyBhYm91dCB0aGUgd2FpdGluZyB0 aW1lLCBvciBsb3NzIHRocmVzaG9sZC4uLg0KQXQgMDU6MTMgQU0gOS8yNC8yMDA4LCDDqCfCo8Op PsKvw6lveiB3cm90ZToNCj4uLi4NCj4oMSkgIE9uIHBhZ2UgNyBpbiByZmMyNjgwLHdoeSBpcyAN Cj5UeXBlLVAtT25lLXdheS1QYWNrZXQtTG9zcyAwIGlmIHRoZSB0ZXN0IHBhY2tldCANCj5kb2Vz IG5vdCBhcnJpdmUsIG9yIGlmIGl0IGRvZXMgYXJyaXZlIGFuZCB0aGUgDQo+ZGlmZmVyZW5jZSBi ZXR3ZWVuIFNyYyB0aW1lc3RhbXAgYW5kIERzdCANCj50aW1lc3RhbXAgaXMgZ3JlYXRlciB0aGFu IHRoZSAicmVhc29uYWJsZSBwZXJpb2QgDQo+b2YgdGltZSIsIG9yIGxvc3MgdGhyZXNob2xkLiBv ciBJcyBpdCBhIHdyaXRpbmcgbWlzdGFrZT8gVGhhbmtzIGEgbG90IQ0KDQpUaGVyZSBhIHByYWN0 aWNhbCBtYXR0ZXIgdGhhdCBtZWFzdXJlbWVudCBzeXN0ZW1zIGNhbm5vdCB3YWl0DQpmb3JldmVy IGZvciB0ZXN0IHBhY2tldHMgdG8gYXJyaXZlLiAgSWYgYSBwYWNrZXQgYXJyaXZlcyBiZXlvbmQN CnRoZSB3YWl0aW5nIHRpbWUgdGhyZXNob2xkLCBpdCBpcyBzdGlsbCBkZWZpbmVkIGFzIGxvc3Qu DQpJdCBpcyBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdG8gc2V0IHRoaXMgdGhyZXNob2xkIGNhcmVmdWxseSwgYW5kIHRv IHJlcG9ydA0KdGhlIHZhbHVlIG9mIHRoZSB0aHJlc2hvbGQgd2l0aCB0aGUgcmVzdWx0cy4gIFNl Y3Rpb24gMi42DQpleHBsYWlucyB0aGlzIGluIG1vcmUgZGV0YWlsIChwYWdlIDYpLg0KDQpBbA0K DQoNCg0KDQpBdCAwODoxOCBBTSA5LzI0LzIwMDgsIFN0ZXBoYW5lIEJvcnR6bWV5ZXIgd3JvdGU6 DQo+T24gV2VkLCBTZXAgMjQsIDIwMDggYXQgMTE6MzA6MjFBTSArMDIwMCwNCj4gIEhlbmsgVWlq dGVyd2FhbCA8aGVua0ByaXBlLm5ldD4gd3JvdGUNCj4gIGEgbWVzc2FnZSBvZiA5IGxpbmVzIHdo aWNoIHNhaWQ6DQo+DQo+ID4+IEkgaGF2ZSB0d28gcXVlc3Rpb25zLCBhcyBmbG93czogKDEpICBP biBwYWdlIDcgaW4gcmZjMjY4MCx3aHkgaXM+DQo+ID4+IFR5cGUtUC1PbmUtd2F5LVBhY2tldC1M b3NzIDAgaWYgdGhlIHRlc3QgcGFja2V0IGRvZXMgbm90IGFycml2ZSwNCj4NCj4gPiBUaGlzIGxv b2tzIGxpa2UgYSB0eXBvIHRvIG1lLg0KPg0KPldlbnhpYSBEb25nLCB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIHJlcG9y dCBpdCB0byB0aGUgUkZDIGVkaXRvcjoNCj4NCj5odHRwOi8vd3d3LnJmYy1lZGl0b3Iub3JnL2Vy cmF0YS5waHANCj5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f Xw0KPmlwcG0gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+aXBwbUBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYu b3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaXBwbQ0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwppcHBtIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdAppcHBtQGlldGYub3JnCmh0dHBz Oi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaXBwbQo= From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 20:06:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B64F3A6B02; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9689C3A67F7 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:06:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eiiISiPeIlP0 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu (mail.internet2.edu [207.75.164.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E763A6B02 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116CA47C74; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:06:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from basie.internet2.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basie.internet2.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15995-07; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (68-112.69-92-cpe.cableone.net [69.92.68.112]) by basie.internet2.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4909A47C70; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:06:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jeff W. Boote" To: Henk Uijterwaal , Matthew J Zekauskas In-Reply-To: References: <48D79389.6090201@ripe.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:06:08 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by mail.internet2.edu virus scanner Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org I also agree that these should be taken up as WG items. jeff On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) wrote: > Hello Matt and Henk, > I would like to endorse that all three be taken up as WG items. > > Thanks, > _murtaza > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal >> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 5:46 AM >> To: IETF IPPM WG >> Subject: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions >> >> IPPM Group, >> >> In Dublin, 3 drafts were presented to extend the TWAMP protocol: >> >> draft-morton-ippm-more-twamp-02 (Morton & Hedayat) >> draft-morton-ippm-twamp-reflect-padding-00 (Morton and Ciavattone) >> draft-morton-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-00 (Morton) >> >> All available through the ID DB: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/?filename=draft-morton >> >> For slidepacks discussing these drafts, please see: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/72/materials.html >> >> We would like to hear from people if all/some/none of these >> drafts should be picked up as working group drafts. Please >> post your comments to the list before October 6, 2008. >> >> Matt & Henk >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------------- >> Henk Uijterwaal Email: >> henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net >> RIPE Network Coordination Centre >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk >> P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >> 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >> The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------------- >> >> Is one of the choices leaving the office open? >> Alan Greenspan on the >> next elections >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ippm mailing list >> ippm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >> > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 20:23:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DCA3A697F; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:23:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D083A6864 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:23:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ioMFnFrhb3kY for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ind-iport-1.cisco.com (ind-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.129.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F033A67FB for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:23:09 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,305,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="29206933" Received: from ind-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.104.140.59]) by ind-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2008 03:23:13 +0000 Received: from india-core-1.cisco.com (india-core-1.cisco.com [64.104.129.221]) by ind-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m8P3NDNW000828; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:53:13 +0530 Received: from xbh-blr-411.apac.cisco.com (xbh-blr-411.cisco.com [64.104.140.150]) by india-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8P3NCc2008968; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:23:12 GMT Received: from xmb-blr-412.apac.cisco.com ([64.104.140.141]) by xbh-blr-411.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:53:12 +0530 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:52:53 +0530 Message-ID: <3E3D8ACB1917BD48A27F853F9C4AC79D060D6E3A@xmb-blr-412.apac.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions Thread-Index: AckcsTtPf5/yKMC/Qzqf15vRcwnxzwBwWtIwABKKuKA= From: "Ravi H (ravh)" To: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" , "Henk Uijterwaal" , "IETF IPPM WG" , "Matthew J Zekauskas" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2008 03:23:12.0886 (UTC) FILETIME=[0AB28160:01C91EBE] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2376; t=1222312993; x=1223176993; c=relaxed/simple; s=inddkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ravh@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ravi=20H=20(ravh)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[ippm]=20TWAMP=20Extensions |Sender:=20; bh=0HE68ObtMAe9t3TkwzSUdUFxtxjIGhfyd0xaa7zqHjc=; b=t9XH7e3t3p5PKO1WlqidqgdxfsRHFcYPp2+HNh99Qqi2i36Hj3nlGxCWhl 5qpDQOd+/vzqnofE93bkQmJ4fQhq81SBfeyS3Agh5CA3rl88Fwj+NqBDEOjU ymy4uyz7YA; Authentication-Results: ind-dkim-2; header.From=ravh@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/inddkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org I second Murtaza. All three could be taken up as WG tokens. Thanks, Ravi -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murtaza Chiba (mchiba) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:57 PM To: Henk Uijterwaal; IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions Hello Matt and Henk, I would like to endorse that all three be taken up as WG items. Thanks, _murtaza > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Henk Uijterwaal > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 5:46 AM > To: IETF IPPM WG > Subject: [ippm] TWAMP Extensions > > IPPM Group, > > In Dublin, 3 drafts were presented to extend the TWAMP protocol: > > draft-morton-ippm-more-twamp-02 (Morton & Hedayat) > draft-morton-ippm-twamp-reflect-padding-00 (Morton and Ciavattone) > draft-morton-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-00 (Morton) > > All available through the ID DB: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/?filename=draft-morton > > For slidepacks discussing these drafts, please see: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/72/materials.html > > We would like to hear from people if all/some/none of these drafts > should be picked up as working group drafts. Please post your > comments to the list before October 6, 2008. > > Matt & Henk > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > Is one of the choices leaving the office open? > Alan Greenspan on the next > elections > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 25 00:53:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5343A659B; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:53:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E013A659A for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:53:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KvwZL+aaW6Ui for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C393A67FA for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KileS-0001jK-Eo for ippm@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:52:42 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC822F594 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:52:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48DB4346.6010707@ripe.net> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:52:38 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <48DA08AD.9070406@ripe.net> <00ac01c91eb5$ac006270$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <00ac01c91eb5$ac006270$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d584a68aeb9bd4361c5215d41014aecf90 Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wenxia wrote: > When measuring, how do we designate a specific device to test packet? > Configure static routing? But for real large network, static routing is not > useful. One usually attaches the measurement device to a router on both ends. The devices send packets to eachother and let the routers route them. With a tool like traceroute, one can determine the path that the packet took (or most likely took). > What metrics for network performance? Including Loss, Delay, Dely Variation > ,etc? I'd say all of them, with the focus depending on the application. > Commonly, can we estimate the network performance from many paths > performance? In what sense? If it is the delay or loss, or whatever, between two points (say, my machine and www.xyz.nl), then I can simply measure that and ignore any path changes. If it is between me and the rest of the internet, then the composition is much more complex. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 25 05:40:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8E03A68F5; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:40:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373523A68D4 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:40:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IQaCMTWRWmRi for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.245.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77A43A68A2 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:40:04 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1222346323!23890716!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.141] Received: (qmail 25927 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2008 12:38:44 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.141) by server-9.tower-121.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Sep 2008 12:38:44 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8PCchvJ030660 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:38:43 -0700 Received: from klph001.kcdc.att.com (klph001.kcdc.att.com [135.188.3.11]) by flph161.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8PCce9M030635 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:38:40 -0700 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8PCcdif031057 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:38:39 -0500 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klph001.kcdc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m8PCcX41030956 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:38:34 -0500 Message-Id: <200809251238.m8PCcX41030956@klph001.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (dyp004244dys.mt.att.com[135.16.251.219](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20080925123832gw1003sn9te>; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:38:32 +0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:38:32 -0400 To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <48DB4346.6010707@ripe.net> References: <006b01c91e25$cc036e90$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <48DA08AD.9070406@ripe.net> <00ac01c91eb5$ac006270$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <48DB4346.6010707@ripe.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org At 03:52 AM 9/25/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >Wenxia wrote: >>Commonly, can we estimate the network performance from many paths >>performance? > >In what sense? If it is the delay or loss, or whatever, between two >points (say, my machine and www.xyz.nl), then I can simply measure that >and ignore any path changes. If it is between me and the rest of the >internet, then the composition is much more complex. Is this question seeking what we have called Spatial Aggregation? > ...defined as the combination of metrics of the > same type and different scope, in order to estimate the overall > performance of a larger domain. This combination may involve > weighing the contributions of the input metrics. from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-06#section-4.2 Al _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Thu Sep 25 19:30:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C663A6A27; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:30:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854D43A6A27 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:30:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id grQCD8pjgPr9 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D003A69EC for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K7S00JRM6ZJO9@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:30:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0K7S00H9B6ZJMP@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:30:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from d00134398 ([10.111.12.150]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0K7S00BKN6ZJBW@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for ippm@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:30:55 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:30:54 +0800 From: =?UTF-8?B?6JGj6Zuv6Zye?= To: ippm@ietf.org Message-id: <001401c91f7f$e6efc270$960c6f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Subject: [ippm] Path Performance and Network Performance X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Hi All Receiving so much advice, I comprehend Path Performance and Network Performance as follows. Correct me if I am missing any information. Thank you very much. (1) When measuring the performance from Src to Dst, the path is not specific . It is also called Point-to-Point Performance. Is it right? (2) When measuring the Path Performance, the path the test packet took is specific. (3) When measuring the Network Performance, we can random choose some Src and Dst, ignoring the path the test packet took. And we can get some point-to-point performance, then get the Network Performance by compositing those point-to-point performance. Thanks a lot. Best wishes. Wenxia Dong > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:52:38 +0200 > From: Henk Uijterwaal > Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions > To: IETF IPPM WG > Message-ID: <48DB4346.6010707@ripe.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Wenxia wrote: > >> When measuring, how do we designate a specific device to test packet? >> Configure static routing? But for real large network, static routing is not >> useful. > > One usually attaches the measurement device to a router on both ends. The > devices send packets to eachother and let the routers route them. With a > tool like traceroute, one can determine the path that the packet took (or > most likely took). > >> What metrics for network performance? Including Loss, Delay, Dely Variation >> ,etc? > > I'd say all of them, with the focus depending on the application. > >> Commonly, can we estimate the network performance from many paths >> performance? > > In what sense? If it is the delay or loss, or whatever, between two > points (say, my machine and www.xyz.nl), then I can simply measure that > and ignore any path changes. If it is between me and the rest of the > internet, then the composition is much more complex. > > Henk > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:38:32 -0400 > From: Al Morton > Subject: Re: [ippm] Some questions > To: Henk Uijterwaal , IETF IPPM WG > Message-ID: <200809251238.m8PCcX41030956@klph001.kcdc.att.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > At 03:52 AM 9/25/2008, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >>Wenxia wrote: >>>Commonly, can we estimate the network performance from many paths >>>performance? >> >>In what sense? If it is the delay or loss, or whatever, between two >>points (say, my machine and www.xyz.nl), then I can simply measure that >>and ignore any path changes. If it is between me and the rest of the >>internet, then the composition is much more complex. > > Is this question seeking what we have called Spatial Aggregation? >> ...defined as the combination of metrics of the >> same type and different scope, in order to estimate the overall >> performance of a larger domain. This combination may involve >> weighing the contributions of the input metrics. > from > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-06#section-4.2 > > Al > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > > > End of ippm Digest, Vol 52, Issue 9 > *********************************** > _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From support@google.com Tue Sep 30 00:25:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A818A3A6A00 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -48.829 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-48.829 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IXzkLOs5f5kh for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppp-58-8-86-22.revip2.asianet.co.th (ppp-58-8-86-22.revip2.asianet.co.th [58.8.86.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFD33A68EB for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:38:22 +0000 Message-ID: <59742.charles@maryann> From: "Google Adwords news" To: Subject: Account Protection! Google Adwords Services MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_QcCevqhESFIfoT" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_QcCevqhESFIfoT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Attention GOOGLE ADWORDS Customers!=20 For certain services, such as our advertising programs, we request = 128-bit SSL security information which we maintain in encrypted form on = secure servers.=20 We take appropriate security measures to protect against unauthorized = access to our unauthorized alteration, disclosure or destruction of = data. Please download latest SSL protection certificate Read more>> Unprotected browsers will not be able to Log in after September 30, 2008 Sincerely, Trina Barajas. 2008 Google Adwords, Developing new services. --=_QcCevqhESFIfoT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Attention GOOGLE ADWORDS Customers!

For certain services, such as our advertising programs, we request = 128-bit SSL security information which we maintain in encrypted form on = secure servers.
We take appropriate security measures to protect against unauthorized = access to our unauthorized alteration, disclosure or destruction of = data.
Please download latest SSL protection certificate

Read = more>>

Unprotected browsers will not be able to Log in after September 30, = 2008
Sincerely, Trina Barajas.

2008 Google Adwords, Developing new services.
--=_QcCevqhESFIfoT-- From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 30 02:30:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E57628C10C; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:30:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 105F63A67AF; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080930093002.105F63A67AF@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-08.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org --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 : IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) for spatial and multicast Author(s) : E. Stephan, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-08.txt Pages : 51 Date : 2008-09-30 The IETF has standardized IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) for measuring end-to-end performance between two points. This memo defines two new categories of metrics that extend the coverage to multiple measurement points. It defines spatial metrics for measuring the performance of segments of a source to destination path, and metrics for measuring the performance between a source and many destinations in multiparty communications (e.g., a multicast tree).Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ 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: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-09-30021834.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --NextPart-- From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Oct 1 01:30:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F9D3A69B7; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:30:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18073A69B7 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:30:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24ocICdemBtb for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51B03A692D for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Kkx72-0007br-Df; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:31:13 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE152F583; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:31:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48E3198E.4010607@ripe.net> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:32:46 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henk Uijterwaal References: <200809161304.m8GD4PKx022150@alph001.aldc.att.com> <200809161355.m8GDtWVw006439@klph001.kcdc.att.com> <7.1.0.9.0.20080917073956.032be338@att.com> <200809241220.m8OCK7wD013683@klph001.kcdc.att.com> <48DA3B57.3030801@ripe.net> In-Reply-To: <48DA3B57.3030801@ripe.net> X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d53c54c626076a2bfd8c0abca6e08ad39f Cc: Al Morton , emile.stephan@orange-ftgroup.com, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] AUTH48 [SG]: RFC 5357 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Al, others, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >> Apparently, this thread from last week was never posted >> to the list (see below). > > No, I didn't see this. Let's have another week for comments :-) There were no further comments on this, so please make the changes and let's finish this document. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From ippm-bounces@ietf.org Wed Oct 1 01:31:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ippm-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC333A6C11; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:31:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170273A6C11 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:31:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.455 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Zf75-ts7Ylq for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED533A6C0A for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Kkx72-0007bt-Jr for ippm@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:31:16 +0200 Received: from guest-wv-26.ripe.net (gw.office.nsrp.ripe.net [193.0.1.126]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA382F594 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:31:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <48E31A7C.9000306@ripe.net> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:36:44 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d565bec4a705dfdafa904e30933aa46ff7 Subject: [ippm] 2nd WGLC for X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: ippm-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ippm-bounces@ietf.org IPPM group, This message announces a second WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics The draft has been discussed extensively in this group and concensus on the content was reached in the first WGLC. There were some issues with the wording. These have been addressed in the -08 version of the draft. We feel that it is good to have a second WGLC in order to make sure that all comments have been properly included, before moving the document forward. Please raise any remaining issues by October 14, 2008, 9:00 UTC. A URL for the draft is: and the tools team also has a great page here: Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm