From henk@uijterwaal.nl Fri Jul 1 00:48:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DD721F85D4 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 00:48:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MkOFhznhLIHf for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 00:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EBF21F85A9 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 00:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p617mE0o069513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:48:14 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E0D7BBE.4030300@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:48:14 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] 1st draft agenda for Quebec X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:48:47 -0000 IPPM group, Here is the first draft of the agenda for Quebec. If you want to talk about something, please let us know, Matt & Henk - - - - AGENDA IPPM Meeting @ IETF81 ============================ Monday, 9:00 - 11:30 Draft 1. 1/7/2011 0. 5' Administrativia Scribe: We need a volunteer (Minutes, Scribe, Blue Sheet, Note Well, ...) 1. 5' Status of drafts not discussed today Ongoing work ============ 2. 20' Metrics on the standard track (Ruediger, Al) * draft-ietf-ippm-metricstest-03 * draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 Possible new work ================= 3. 20' TWAMP Value-Added Octets (Steve Baillargeon/Andreas Johnsson) draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01 How to proceed with this work. 4. Draft from I.Tiziano 5. Future of the group 6. AOB -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jul 7 17:54:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C15F21F88E4; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:54:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kac1w-BKDDM4; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ECA021F886E; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:54:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110708005427.1015.17442.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:54:27 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-05.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:54:28 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Reporting Metrics: Different Points of View Author(s) : Al Morton Gomathi Ramachandran Ganga Maguluri Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-05.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2011-07-07 Consumers of IP network performance metrics have many different uses in mind. The memo provides "long-term" reporting consideratio= ns (e.g, days, weeks or months, as opposed to 10 seconds), based on analysis of the two key audience points-of-view. It describes how the audience categories affect the selection of metric parameters and options when seeking info that serves their needs. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-05.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jul 7 18:04:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FA121F8A52; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:04:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CoJyfct3YbiW; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:04:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281B821F893B; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:04:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110708010418.5188.57149.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:04:18 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-01.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 01:04:18 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Round-trip Loss Metrics Author(s) : Al Morton Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-01.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2011-07-07 Many user applications (and the transport protocols that make them possible) require two-way communications. To assess this capability, and to achieve test system simplicity, round-trip loss measurements are frequently conducted in practice. The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol specified in RFC 5357 establishes a round-trip loss measurement capability for the Internet. However, there is currently no metric specified according to the RFC 2330 framework. This memo adds round-trip loss to the set of IP Performance Metrics (IPPM). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-01.txt From henk@uijterwaal.nl Fri Jul 8 00:01:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C1421F8641 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:01:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.24 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ths8RmrR2nTV for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B909B21F8622 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 00:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6871Jkv089772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:01:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E16AB3C.7020503@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:01:16 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] First draft agenda published X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 07:01:52 -0000 IPPM Group, A first draft for the agenda in Quebec has been published at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/agenda/ippm.txt Additions welcome, please note that the focus is on things that require face-2-face discussion, not on status updates. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com Mon Jul 11 04:18:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E751C21F8B08 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 04:18:49 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C1fnz+c5e3Jp for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 04:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5C721F8B07 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 04:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6BBIl3I014094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:18:48 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.59]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:18:47 -0400 From: Steve Baillargeon To: Henk Uijterwaal Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 07:18:46 -0400 Thread-Topic: [ippm] First draft agenda published Thread-Index: Acw9PPajxUKt0SqwSoO5RURQzD0i9gAZmqSw Message-ID: <4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF0E0A7A3A9C@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4E16AB3C.7020503@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4E16AB3C.7020503@uijterwaal.nl> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] First draft agenda published X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:18:50 -0000 Hi Henk It seems the agenda is missing an important item that we identified at our = last meeting. Can you add the discussion around the need to move RFC5136 to the standard = track? It is important to standardize a metric like the IP-type-P Available Path C= apacity that can be measured with TWAMP value-added octets for instance. Regards Steve -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hen= k Uijterwaal Sent: July-08-11 3:01 AM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] First draft agenda published IPPM Group, A first draft for the agenda in Quebec has been published at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/agenda/ippm.txt Additions welcome, please note that the focus is on things that require fac= e-2-face discussion, not on status updates. Henk -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project= ) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From henk@uijterwaal.nl Wed Jul 13 00:20:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9517D21F8B1A for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:20:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fKki44zSHlAF for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7110A21F8B16 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6D7JYuv079439 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:19:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E1D4705.9000405@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:19:33 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Agenda for Quebec posted X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 07:20:11 -0000 IPPM group, The agenda for Quebec has been posted at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/agenda/ippm.txt If you are presenting, please send slides to the chairs before the meeting and note that you should leave sufficient time for discussion in your slot. Matt & Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From pescape@unina.it Tue Jul 19 01:19:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2351B21F89C2 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:19:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ps2u8v-XQt6n for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.unina.it (smtp1.unina.it [192.132.34.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B8421F89A7 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [143.225.229.198] ([143.225.229.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6J8JpFA025116 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:19:52 +0200 From: "Antonio Pescape'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:19:51 +0200 Message-Id: <9116A8D1-DE31-4C9E-8BFD-94EE129454BB@unina.it> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:23:11 -0700 Subject: [ippm] PAM 2012 - call for papers X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:19:59 -0000 [Our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- PAM 2012: CALL FOR PAPERS -- First Announcement = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Passive and Active Measurement (PAM) Conference 2012 VIENNA, AUSTRIA, MARCH 12-14, 2012 http://pam2012.ftw.at/ The PAM conference has in the past focused on research and practical = applications of network measurement and analysis techniques. However = this year PAM is broadening its scope based upon numerous trends in this = area. The scope of network measurements today goes well beyond the = traditional Layer-3 and encompasses measurements in any type of = networked environment --- networked applications, content distribution = networks, online social networks, overlay networks, and more. = Measurement technology is needed at all layers of the stack: for power = profiling of hardware components, at the MAC/network/transport layers, = as well as up the stack for application profiling and even to collect = user feedback. Measurements technologies are being designed for the = digital home, residential access networks, wireless and mobile access, = enterprise, ISP and data center networks. In recognition of these = trends, PAM is encouraging submission on a broad set of topics. We aim = to understand the role that measurement techniques can play in networked = environments and applications, across different layers, and how they can = serve as critical building blocks for broader measurement needs. At the = same time, PAM also continues with its original goal, to expand the = techniques, tools and practical uses of network measurement technology. = PAM seeks to bring together both the research and operation communities, = and encourages submission of early stage research. Original papers are = invited, but not limited to, the following topics: =20 =95 Passive and Active Measurement Tools: Techniques, Design and = Experience =95 Characterization studies of network usage and networked = applications =95 Measurements of social networks, game networks and networked = services at large. =95 Correlating measurements across multiple layers =95 Combining measurements from a network and end-terminals=20 =95 Measurement oriented to End-user Perception and Quality of = Experience =95 Measurements for Security and Privacy=20 =95 Distributed and Inter-domain measurements=20 =95 Network and System Troubleshooting using Measurements=20 =95 Metrics and measurements of resilience and dependability =95 Measurement technology for software-based routers =95 Assessing Data Center Networks and Cloud Services =95 Measurements in Home Networks =95 Measurement Visualization =95 Deployment and operation of Measurement Infrastructure=20 =95 New Measurement Initiatives=20 =95 Reassessing Previous Measurement Methodology and Results=20 =95 Performance Metrics and Traffic Analysis =95 Measurement Data Management Important Dates: Abstract Submission: September 7, 2011 Paper Submission: September 14, 2011 Notification: November 22, 2011 Camera Ready due: December 22, 2011 Organizers General Chair Fabio Ricciato, FTW and = University of Salento Program Chair Nina Taft, Technicolor Research, = Palo Alto (USA) Local Arrangements Chair Philipp Svoboda, TU Wien Publicity Chair Antonio Pescap=E8, University of = Napoli Federico II ------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Pescape' Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica University of Napoli ''Federico II'' Via Claudio, 21 - 80125, Napoli (Italy) [Room n. 3.10] tel. +39 081 7683856 - fax +39 081 7683816 e-mail : pescape@unina.it (or pescape@ieee.org) Personal web-page: http://wpage.unina.it/pescape Teaching web-site (in Italian): = http://www.docenti.unina.it/antonio.pescape From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 10:49:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7C621F86EB; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qOhdTmyvIlEn; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A4021F86C1; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:49:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: babiarz@nortel.com, X-Test-IDTracker: no Message-ID: <20110721174923.10263.40067.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:49:23 -0700 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:58:30 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org, matt@internet2.edu, ietfdbh@comcast.net, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to RFC 5357 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:49:24 -0000 Dear Jozef Babiarz: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)" (RFC5357) was submitted to the IETF Secretari= at on 2011-07-20 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property R= ights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1599/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to RFC 5357.""); The IETF Secretariat From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Thu Jul 21 10:54:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57D221F8753; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qfUNmNm3iDhJ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BCC21F8741; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: shalunov@bittorrent.com, X-Test-IDTracker: no Message-ID: <20110721175457.11237.80870.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:54:57 -0700 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:58:30 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org, matt@internet2.edu, ietfdbh@comcast.net, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to RFC 4656 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:54:57 -0000 Dear Stanislav Shalunov: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)" (RFC4656) was submitted to the IETF Secretari= at on 2011-07-20 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property R= ights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1600/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to RFC 4656.""); The IETF Secretariat From matt@internet2.edu Sun Jul 24 18:25:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E63821F85E3 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:25:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NUsUatTLOtrt for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mailstore01.merit.edu (int-mailstore01.merit.edu [207.75.116.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5503A21F85DB for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by int-mailstore01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC133055FB1 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:25:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at int-mailstore01.merit.edu Received: from int-mailstore01.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (int-mailstore01.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d3-7Vc1pFOdm for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:25:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from matt.local (unknown [70.25.120.2]) by int-mailstore01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21DD33055B52 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E2CC5F4.2040800@internet2.edu> Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:25:08 -0400 From: Matthew J Zekauskas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [ippm] Remote Participation Details for IPPM at IETF 81 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:25:20 -0000 If you plan to join remotely, we start at Monday 25-Jul-2011 at 0900 in Quebec (which is EDT or GMT-4). If you're local, we're in room 202. Assuming the Audio stream is working, please join it: Audio will be archived at All the latest versions of the slides received will be posted here by meeting time: (Tools format agenda at ) Jabber info: , we'll be in ippm@jabber.ietf.org (We will monitor jabber; however, do not expect that the session will be completely scribed there!) IETF remote participation page: --Matt From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Jul 25 01:31:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2E921F84FD for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:31:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.355 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QBCkBispLJyB for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAD621F84FB for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6P8UbGH020284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:30:37 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E2D29AD.8020006@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:30:37 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4D9C23B1.8040205@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4D9C23B1.8040205@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4D9C23B1.8040205@uijterwaal.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] WGLC draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-02 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:31:10 -0000 IPPM group, This starts a WGLC for the draft: Loss Episode Metrics for IPPM draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-02 Please review the draft and raise any issues by Monday, August 29, 8:00 UTC. This is indeed longer than usual, due to the current meeting and the vacation period. An URL for the draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics/ Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl RIPE NCC http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Jul 25 09:09:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F8021F90AB for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:09:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZLVHmH1rHy4Y for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from antivir2.rad.co.il (antivir2.rad.co.il [62.0.23.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E91D21F876A for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exrad5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by antivir2.rad.co.il with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2011 17:18:42 +0300 Received: from EXUS4-DRP.ad.rad.co.il (192.114.24.119) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il (192.114.24.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:18:39 +0300 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by exus4-drp.ad.rad.co.il ([fe80::5d6f:c2cb:2468:ee2%16]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:18:39 +0300 From: Yaakov Stein To: IETF IPPM WG Thread-Topic: EANTC interop event Thread-Index: AcxK1b4ymAUHmE7GQRSKFLPhe84CLw== Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:18:39 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CAD@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [207.232.33.112] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CADEXRAD5adradcoil_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ippm] EANTC interop event X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:09:26 -0000 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CADEXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all As promised, here is some information on the upcoming TWAMP interop event. The European Advanced Networking Test Center (EANTC) http://www.eantc.com/ has several multi-vendor interop tests per year. In 2010 TWAMP was tested for the first time (see http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/2007-2010/CEWC201= 0/EANTC-CEWC2010-WhitePaper-v1_2.pdf) and this year a more significant test is planned. I can't find the information right now, but I believe the test will be held= in September. It would be great to be able to test additional implementations. Y(J)S --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CADEXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all

 

As promised, here is some information on the upcomin= g TWAMP interop event.

 

The European Advanced Networking Test Center (EANTC) http://www.eantc.com/

has several multi-vendor interop tests per year.

 

In 2010 TWAMP was tested for the first time

(see http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/e= vents/2007-2010/CEWC2010/EANTC-CEWC2010-WhitePaper-v1_2.pdf)

and this year a more significant test is planned.

 

I can't find the information right now, but I believ= e the test will be held in September.

 

It would be great to be able to test additional impl= ementations.

 

Y(J)S

 

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CADEXRAD5adradcoil_-- From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Jul 25 09:13:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED40B11E8221 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:13:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fk5RbXLMPzOa for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from antivir2.rad.co.il (antivir2.rad.co.il [62.0.23.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC36521F8DA0 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exrad5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by antivir2.rad.co.il with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2011 18:08:49 +0300 Received: from EXUS4-DRP.ad.rad.co.il (192.114.24.119) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il (192.114.24.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:08:49 +0300 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by exus4-drp.ad.rad.co.il ([fe80::5d6f:c2cb:2468:ee2%16]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:08:49 +0300 From: Yaakov Stein To: IETF IPPM WG Thread-Topic: "secret sauce" Thread-Index: AcxK3MCwk1176FFsQ3uTAO8obuu22w== Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:08:48 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-cr-puzzleid: {8FAFB3A2-5877-4195-868F-6A4A28E1288F} x-cr-hashedpuzzle: BFvY B1s5 DJHV DKg0 Dzdb El5A F85I GXuU Gqk3 HJp8 I+1I J8YZ KXpT K0he K3+t L8Jo; 1; aQBwAHAAbQBAAGkAZQB0AGYALgBvAHIAZwA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {8FAFB3A2-5877-4195-868F-6A4A28E1288F}; eQBhAGEAawBvAHYAXwBzAEAAcgBhAGQALgBjAG8AbQA=; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:08:47 GMT;IgBzAGUAYwByAGUAdAAgAHMAYQB1AGMAZQAiAA== x-originating-ip: [207.232.33.112] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5EXRAD5adradcoil_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:13:18 -0000 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am really sorry to have brought up the "secret sause" issue, but would like to point out, as Steve said, that there are MANY capacity me= asurement techniques, including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, AGI, PTR, A= SSOLO, TOPP, MoSeab. These all send trains of N packets of size S and spacings (either constant = delta between them or something else) and measure delay changes or packet loss. They all need to repeat the measu= rement at different rates, so observe when a delay change knee. These commonalities seem to be sufficient to enable a single extension to O= WAMP and TWAMP to accommodate all of them. Y(J)S --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am really sorry to have brought up the "se= cret sause" issue,

but would like to point out, as Steve said, that = there are MANY capacity measurement techniques,

including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, nettimer= , Spruce, Yaz, AGI, PTR, ASSOLO, TOPP, MoSeab.

 

These all send trains of N packets of size S and = spacings (either constant delta between them or something else)<= /p>

and measure delay changes or packet loss. They al= l need to repeat the measurement at different rates,

so observe when a delay change knee.

 

These commonalities seem to be sufficient to enab= le a single extension to OWAMP and TWAMP

to accommodate all of them.

 

Y(J)S

 

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5EXRAD5adradcoil_-- From boote@internet2.edu Mon Jul 25 09:49:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3714821F886A for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:49:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGo+ZRszZUX7 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mailstore01.merit.edu (int-mailstore01.merit.edu [207.75.116.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372EC21F871E for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by int-mailstore01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA33C30574E0; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:49:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at int-mailstore01.merit.edu Received: from int-mailstore01.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (int-mailstore01.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gLL2kqBKxuNQ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.5.109] (174-126-25-37.cpe.cableone.net [174.126.25.37]) by int-mailstore01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C05D33057338; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9-445373296 From: "Jeff W. Boote" In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:48:58 -0600 Message-Id: <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> X-Mailtags: { "mailTagsKeyWords" : ["EMAILLIST", "IETF"]} To: Yaakov Stein X-Mailtags-Uuid: 1B1907F9-0074-4B2E-B708-F5835C2FF697 X-Keywords: EMAILLIST IETF X-Mailtags-Timestamp: 2011-07-25 10:47:05 -0600 X-Mailtags-Version: 2.5 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:49:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail-9-445373296 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jul 25, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > I am really sorry to have brought up the "secret sause" issue, > but would like to point out, as Steve said, that there are MANY = capacity measurement techniques, > including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, AGI, = PTR, ASSOLO, TOPP, MoSeab. > =20 > These all send trains of N packets of size S and spacings (either = constant delta between them or something else) > and measure delay changes or packet loss. They all need to repeat the = measurement at different rates, > so observe when a delay change knee. > =20 > These commonalities seem to be sufficient to enable a single extension = to OWAMP and TWAMP > to accommodate all of them. I suspect this might not require a protocol extension. Just an = application flag to indicate what patterns you want for different kinds = of analysis. (If you want sizes of packets to change within the same = train, that would require a protocol extension. I have not looked at all = of those techniques to see if that is required or not.) jeff > =20 > Y(J)S > =20 > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm --Apple-Mail-9-445373296 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On Jul 25, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Yaakov = Stein wrote:

I am really sorry to have brought up the = "secret sause" issue,
but would like to point out, as Steve = said, that there are MANY capacity measurement = techniques,
including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, = nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, AGI, PTR, ASSOLO, TOPP, = MoSeab.
 
These all send trains of N = packets of size S and spacings (either constant delta between them or = something else)
and measure delay changes or packet = loss. They all need to repeat the measurement at different = rates,
so observe when a delay change = knee.
 
These commonalities seem to = be sufficient to enable a single extension to OWAMP and = TWAMP
to accommodate all of = them.

I suspect = this might not require a protocol extension. Just an application flag to = indicate what patterns you want for different kinds of analysis. (If you = want sizes of packets to change within the same train, that would = require a protocol extension. I have not looked at all of those = techniques to see if that is required or = not.)

jeff

 
In-Reply-To: <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:02:02 -0400 Message-Id: References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> To: Jeff W. Boote X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:02:11 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B7258153-4C24-4683-88F3-5B9C419A9365 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> I am really sorry to have brought up the "secret sause" issue, >> but would like to point out, as Steve said, that there are MANY = capacity measurement techniques, >> including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, AGI, = PTR, ASSOLO, TOPP, MoSeab. >> =20 >> These all send trains of N packets of size S and spacings (either = constant delta between them or something else) >> and measure delay changes or packet loss. They all need to repeat the = measurement at different rates, >> so observe when a delay change knee. >> =20 >> These commonalities seem to be sufficient to enable a single = extension to OWAMP and TWAMP >> to accommodate all of them. >=20 > I suspect this might not require a protocol extension. Just an = application flag to indicate what patterns you want for different kinds = of analysis. (If you want sizes of packets to change within the same = train, that would require a protocol extension. I have not looked at all = of those techniques to see if that is required or not.) I wasn't able to make it online to listen in this morning, so perhaps I = am missing the right amount of context. But a comment to add anyway: Having written one of these tools (yaz) and having investigated many of = the others in a lab setting, I suspect that the issue may not admit a = single extension to [OT]wamp to accommodate them all. Some of the tools = require feedback from the receiver, others do not. Some tools adapt = packet size in different probing rounds, others do not. Some target = consistent spacings within a probing round, others vary spacings within = a round. There are probably classes of apps that you can create, and = within those classes there are many similarities, but if you look = globally across them, there's significant diversity in approach. Cheers- Joel --Apple-Mail=_B7258153-4C24-4683-88F3-5B9C419A9365 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I am really sorry to have brought up the = "secret sause" issue,
but would like to point out, as Steve = said, that there are MANY capacity measurement = techniques,
including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, = nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, AGI, PTR, ASSOLO, TOPP, = MoSeab.
 
These all send trains of N = packets of size S and spacings (either constant delta between them or = something else)
and measure delay changes or packet = loss. They all need to repeat the measurement at different = rates,
so observe when a delay change = knee.
 
These commonalities seem to = be sufficient to enable a single extension to OWAMP and = TWAMP
to accommodate all of = them.

I suspect = this might not require a protocol extension. Just an application flag to = indicate what patterns you want for different kinds of analysis. (If you = want sizes of packets to change within the same train, that would = require a protocol extension. I have not looked at all of those = techniques to see if that is required or = not.)

I wasn't able to = make it online to listen in this morning, so perhaps I am missing the = right amount of context.  But a comment to add = anyway:

Having written one of these tools (yaz) = and having investigated many of the others in a lab setting, I suspect = that the issue may not admit a single extension to [OT]wamp to = accommodate them all.  Some of the tools require feedback from the = receiver, others do not.  Some tools adapt packet size in different = probing rounds, others do not.  Some target consistent spacings = within a probing round, others vary spacings within a round.  There = are probably classes of apps that you can create, and within those = classes there are many similarities, but if you look globally across = them, there's significant diversity in = approach.

Cheers-
Joel

= --Apple-Mail=_B7258153-4C24-4683-88F3-5B9C419A9365-- From boote@internet2.edu Mon Jul 25 10:15:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2395D21F8B68 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:15:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RiE4vkqxciGR for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mailstore01.merit.edu (int-mailstore01.merit.edu [207.75.116.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076F721F8B66 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by int-mailstore01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0053059A57; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:15:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at int-mailstore01.merit.edu Received: from int-mailstore01.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (int-mailstore01.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4I8k+bLzrTzk; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.5.109] (174-126-25-37.cpe.cableone.net [174.126.25.37]) by int-mailstore01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4514A3059A4F; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:15:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-28-446963344 From: "Jeff W. Boote" In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:15:28 -0600 Message-Id: References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> X-Mailtags: { "mailTagsKeyWords" : ["IETF", "EMAILLIST"]} To: Joel Sommers X-Mailtags-Uuid: 1B1907F9-0074-4B2E-B708-F5835C2FF697 X-Keywords: IETF EMAILLIST X-Mailtags-Timestamp: 2011-07-25 11:15:28 -0600 X-Mailtags-Version: 2.5 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:15:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail-28-446963344 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Joel Sommers wrote: >>> I am really sorry to have brought up the "secret sause" issue, >>> but would like to point out, as Steve said, that there are MANY = capacity measurement techniques, >>> including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, AGI, = PTR, ASSOLO, TOPP, MoSeab. >>> =20 >>> These all send trains of N packets of size S and spacings (either = constant delta between them or something else) >>> and measure delay changes or packet loss. They all need to repeat = the measurement at different rates, >>> so observe when a delay change knee. >>> =20 >>> These commonalities seem to be sufficient to enable a single = extension to OWAMP and TWAMP >>> to accommodate all of them. >>=20 >> I suspect this might not require a protocol extension. Just an = application flag to indicate what patterns you want for different kinds = of analysis. (If you want sizes of packets to change within the same = train, that would require a protocol extension. I have not looked at all = of those techniques to see if that is required or not.) >=20 > I wasn't able to make it online to listen in this morning, so perhaps = I am missing the right amount of context. But a comment to add anyway: >=20 > Having written one of these tools (yaz) and having investigated many = of the others in a lab setting, I suspect that the issue may not admit a = single extension to [OT]wamp to accommodate them all. Some of the tools = require feedback from the receiver, others do not. Some tools adapt = packet size in different probing rounds, others do not. Some target = consistent spacings within a probing round, others vary spacings within = a round. There are probably classes of apps that you can create, and = within those classes there are many similarities, but if you look = globally across them, there's significant diversity in approach. If you treated each round as a new OWAMP test session, everything you = say here is possible with the existing protocol. My comment about = changing size of packets was within a single train, that is not = currently in the protocol but spacing can be changed within the train = (or session). And multiple sessions can be managed using a single = control connection. I would not say the OWAMP protocol is the 'easiest' or most strait = forward way of doing any one of these techniques. The only real = advantage I see in potentially using OWAMP is that you could leverage = the existing installed base of OWAMP servers out there to do this = analysis without having to deploy another server-side tool. And, you = could leverage the combined desires of all of these tools to create more = demand for OWAMP deployments. Individually, each of these tools (owamp = included) has much less chance of getting wide-spread acceptance from = the system-admin collective. jeff >=20 > Cheers- > Joel >=20 --Apple-Mail-28-446963344 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I am really sorry to have brought up the = "secret sause" issue,
but would like to point out, as Steve = said, that there are MANY capacity measurement = techniques,
including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, = nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, AGI, PTR, ASSOLO, TOPP, = MoSeab.
 
These all send trains of N = packets of size S and spacings (either constant delta between them or = something else)
and measure delay changes or packet = loss. They all need to repeat the measurement at different = rates,
so observe when a delay change = knee.
 
These commonalities seem to = be sufficient to enable a single extension to OWAMP and = TWAMP
to accommodate all of = them.

I suspect = this might not require a protocol extension. Just an application flag to = indicate what patterns you want for different kinds of analysis. (If you = want sizes of packets to change within the same train, that would = require a protocol extension. I have not looked at all of those = techniques to see if that is required or = not.)

I wasn't able to = make it online to listen in this morning, so perhaps I am missing the = right amount of context.  But a comment to add = anyway:

Having written one of these tools (yaz) = and having investigated many of the others in a lab setting, I suspect = that the issue may not admit a single extension to [OT]wamp to = accommodate them all.  Some of the tools require feedback from the = receiver, others do not.  Some tools adapt packet size in different = probing rounds, others do not.  Some target consistent spacings = within a probing round, others vary spacings within a round.  There = are probably classes of apps that you can create, and within those = classes there are many similarities, but if you look globally across = them, there's significant diversity in = approach.

If you = treated each round as a new OWAMP test session, everything you say here = is possible with the existing protocol. My comment about changing size = of packets was within a single train, that is not currently in the = protocol but spacing can be changed within the train (or session). And = multiple sessions can be managed using a single control = connection.

I would not say the OWAMP protocol = is the 'easiest' or most strait forward way of doing any one of these = techniques. The only real advantage I see in potentially using OWAMP is = that you could leverage the existing installed base of OWAMP servers out = there to do this analysis without having to deploy another server-side = tool. And, you could leverage the combined desires of all of these tools = to create more demand for OWAMP deployments. Individually, each of these = tools (owamp included) has much less chance of getting wide-spread = acceptance from the system-admin = collective.

jeff

List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:15:38 -0000 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E73002EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://blog.dustintrammell.com/2008/11/17/how-not-to-write-a-protocol-speci= fication/ --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E73002EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://blog.dustintrammell.com= /2008/11/17/how-not-to-write-a-protocol-specification/

 

 

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E73002EXRAD5adradcoil_-- From dave.mcdysan@verizon.com Mon Jul 25 10:28:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDB821F8BD3 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.924 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.876, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6deQvp8OrTUa for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sacmail2.verizon.com (sacmail2.verizon.com [192.76.84.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD99521F8BC1 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpi03.verizon.com (fldsmtpi03.verizon.com [166.68.71.145]) by sacmail2.verizon.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id p6PHSVYT017154 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:28:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mcdysan, David E" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,263,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="100461756" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb04.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.191]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2011 17:28:30 +0000 Received: from fhdp1lumxc7v11.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.1.72]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.191]) with mapi; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:28:30 -0400 To: Ippm Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:28:29 -0400 Thread-Topic: Links to IRTF CSO and SDNP Bar Bof Thread-Index: AcxK8EVNKg8hfPjbRqa3vhb6nSr+ow== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.1.0.101012 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ippm] Links to IRTF CSO and SDNP Bar Bof X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:28:54 -0000 QXMgSSBtZW50aW9uZWQgaW4gdG9kYXkncyBtZWV0aW5nOg0KDQpDcm9zcyBTdHJhdHVtIE9wdGlt aXphdGlvbiAoQ1NPKSBJUlRGIHdpa2kgcGFnZSBpcyBub3cgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGFzDQpmb2xsb3dz Og0KaHR0cDovL3RyYWMudG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZ3JvdXAvaXJ0Zi90cmFjL3dpa2kvY3NvcmcN Cg0KDQpUaGUgQ3Jvc3MgU3RyYXR1bSBPcHRpbWl6YXRpb24gKENTTykgY29vcmRpbmF0aW9uIG1l ZXRpbmcgd2lsbCBiZSBoZWxkIGFzDQpmb2xsb3dzOg0KVGltZTogMjA6MDAtMjE6MDAgcG0sIEp1 bHkgMjcgKFdlZG5lc2RheSkNClJvb206IDMwMUENCg0KDQpUaGUgU29mdHdhcmUgRGVmaW5lZCBO ZXR3b3JraW5nIFByb3RvY29sIChTRE5QKSBiYXIgQm9GIGlzIGxvY2F0ZWQgaW4gdGhlDQpIaWx0 b24gUXVlYmVjIChhdHRhY2hlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURiB2ZW51ZSkgb24gdGhlIDFzdCBmbG9vciBp biBhIHJvb20NCmNhbGxlZCCp+ENvdXJ2aWxsZan3IG9uIFR1ZWRheSBldmVuaW5nJ3MgQmFyIEJP RiBmcm9tIDE4OjAwLTE5OjMwLg0KDQpEYXZlDQoNCg0K From dave.mcdysan@verizon.com Mon Jul 25 10:29:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D006721F8B78 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:29:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.924 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.876, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0othIzUwComO for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sacmail2.verizon.com (sacmail2.verizon.com [192.76.84.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B181B21F8B66 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpi03.verizon.com (fldsmtpi03.verizon.com [166.68.71.145]) by sacmail2.verizon.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id p6PHTgvf018028 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:29:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mcdysan, David E" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,263,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="100462931" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb04.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.191]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2011 17:29:41 +0000 Received: from fhdp1lumxc7v11.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.1.72]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.191]) with mapi; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:29:41 -0400 To: "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:29:37 -0400 Thread-Topic: Links to IRTF CSO and SDNP Bar Bof Thread-Index: AcxK8G9FKu9EyXFoQyW/QUmanqx0iQ== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.1.0.101012 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ippm] FW: Links to IRTF CSO and SDNP Bar Bof X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:29:42 -0000 QXMgSSBtZW50aW9uZWQgaW4gdG9kYXkncyBtZWV0aW5nOg0KDQpDcm9zcyBTdHJhdHVtIE9wdGlt aXphdGlvbiAoQ1NPKSBJUlRGIHdpa2kgcGFnZSBpcyBub3cgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGFzDQpmb2xsb3dz Og0KaHR0cDovL3RyYWMudG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZ3JvdXAvaXJ0Zi90cmFjL3dpa2kvY3NvcmcN Cg0KDQpUaGUgQ3Jvc3MgU3RyYXR1bSBPcHRpbWl6YXRpb24gKENTTykgY29vcmRpbmF0aW9uIG1l ZXRpbmcgd2lsbCBiZSBoZWxkIGFzDQpmb2xsb3dzOg0KVGltZTogMjA6MDAtMjE6MDAgcG0sIEp1 bHkgMjcgKFdlZG5lc2RheSkNClJvb206IDMwMUENCg0KDQpUaGUgU29mdHdhcmUgRGVmaW5lZCBO ZXR3b3JraW5nIFByb3RvY29sIChTRE5QKSBiYXIgQm9GIGlzIGxvY2F0ZWQgaW4gdGhlDQpIaWx0 b24gUXVlYmVjIChhdHRhY2hlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURiB2ZW51ZSkgb24gdGhlIDFzdCBmbG9vciBp biBhIHJvb20NCmNhbGxlZCCp+ENvdXJ2aWxsZan3IG9uIFR1ZWRheSBldmVuaW5nJ3MgQmFyIEJP RiBmcm9tIDE4OjAwLTE5OjMwLg0KDQpEYXZlDQoNCg0K From dave.mcdysan@verizon.com Mon Jul 25 10:30:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054BD21F8BDA for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:30:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.924 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.876, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BfOpnqMzqah2 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sacmail2.verizon.com (sacmail2.verizon.com [192.76.84.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BBD21F8BD5 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpi03.verizon.com (fldsmtpi03.verizon.com [166.68.71.145]) by sacmail2.verizon.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id p6PHUhrC018755 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:30:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Mcdysan, David E" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,263,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="100464489" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb04.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.191]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2011 17:30:43 +0000 Received: from fhdp1lumxc7v11.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.1.72]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.191]) with mapi; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:30:42 -0400 To: "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:30:39 -0400 Thread-Topic: Links to IRTF CSO and SDNP Bar Bof Thread-Index: AcxK8JLpcKs4K5AlS7qk3hvTkFqmlw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.1.0.101012 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ippm] Links to IRTF CSO and SDNP Bar Bof X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:30:44 -0000 QXMgSSBtZW50aW9uZWQgaW4gdG9kYXkncyBtZWV0aW5nOg0KDQpDcm9zcyBTdHJhdHVtIE9wdGlt aXphdGlvbiAoQ1NPKSBJUlRGIHdpa2kgcGFnZSBpcyBub3cgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGFzDQpmb2xsb3dz Og0KaHR0cDovL3RyYWMudG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZ3JvdXAvaXJ0Zi90cmFjL3dpa2kvY3NvcmcN Cg0KDQpUaGUgQ3Jvc3MgU3RyYXR1bSBPcHRpbWl6YXRpb24gKENTTykgY29vcmRpbmF0aW9uIG1l ZXRpbmcgd2lsbCBiZSBoZWxkIGFzDQpmb2xsb3dzOg0KVGltZTogMjA6MDAtMjE6MDAgcG0sIEp1 bHkgMjcgKFdlZG5lc2RheSkNClJvb206IDMwMUENCg0KDQpUaGUgU29mdHdhcmUgRGVmaW5lZCBO ZXR3b3JraW5nIFByb3RvY29sIChTRE5QKSBiYXIgQm9GIGlzIGxvY2F0ZWQgaW4gdGhlDQpIaWx0 b24gUXVlYmVjIChhdHRhY2hlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURiB2ZW51ZSkgb24gdGhlIDFzdCBmbG9vciBp biBhIHJvb20NCmNhbGxlZCCp+ENvdXJ2aWxsZan3IG9uIFR1ZWRheSBldmVuaW5nJ3MgQmFyIEJP RiBmcm9tIDE4OjAwLTE5OjMwLg0KDQpEYXZlDQoNCg0K From henk@uijterwaal.nl Mon Jul 25 23:50:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088AC11E807D for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:50:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DhQ6QhiyZiSx for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr14.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr14.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3485411E807C for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr14.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6Q6nurw037584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:49:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E2E6393.4080902@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:49:55 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E73002@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E73002@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [ippm] the rant against xWAMP that I mentioned X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 06:50:30 -0000 On 25/07/2011 19:14, Yaakov Stein wrote: > http://blog.dustintrammell.com/2008/11/17/how-not-to-write-a-protocol-specification/ Thanks for posting this, Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Jul 26 00:20:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B78321F8B89 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:20:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yozAeC4SGr-Y for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26EEF21F8B87 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6Q7KE2w047749 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:20:14 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E2E6AAD.9070109@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:20:13 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:20:47 -0000 On 25/07/2011 19:15, Jeff W. Boote wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Joel Sommers wrote: > >>>> I am really sorry to have brought up the "secret sause" issue, >>>> but would like to point out, as Steve said, that there are MANY capacity >>>> measurement techniques, >>>> including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, AGI, PTR, >>>> ASSOLO, TOPP, MoSeab. >>>> >>>> These all send trains of N packets of size S and spacings (either constant >>>> delta between them or something else) >>>> and measure delay changes or packet loss. They all need to repeat the >>>> measurement at different rates, >>>> so observe when a delay change knee. The something else is what worries me. There is an infinite number of possible patterns, how can we ever accomodate them all? (Yes, I can see a registry of patterns and exchange the parameters during setup, but is this really the way we want to go?). >>>> >>>> These commonalities seem to be sufficient to enable a single extension to >>>> OWAMP and TWAMP >>>> to accommodate all of them. >>> >>> I suspect this might not require a protocol extension. Just an application >>> flag to indicate what patterns you want for different kinds of analysis. (If >>> you want sizes of packets to change within the same train, that would require >>> a protocol extension. I have not looked at all of those techniques to see if >>> that is required or not.) I think that there are 2 generic cases: in the first case, it is known in advance what packets have to be sent by *WAMP and the results can be analyzed later. In the second case, this is not known, one does some measurements, analyzes and runs a next batch of measurements. To implement this, I think we should add things to the protocol that allows one to do the former, but not the latter. The latter can be done with multiple sessions. This leaves one question: can we specify today what requirements we have for setting up packet trains. > I would not say the OWAMP protocol is the 'easiest' or most strait forward way > of doing any one of these techniques. The only real advantage I see in > potentially using OWAMP is that you could leverage the existing installed base > of OWAMP servers out there to do this analysis without having to deploy another > server-side tool. I agree to some extend. For a known technique, yes, fine. But I don't think we can extend *WAMP to a degree where it can accomodate every pattern in a packet train. If somebody comes up with a new idea, I'd suggest that he tries it in an environment where he can deploy his own tools and show that it works, before adding extensions to *WAMP. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From boote@internet2.edu Tue Jul 26 00:39:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D90121F8C15 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:39:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZHhA5DT2fQ3T for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mailstore01.merit.edu (int-mailstore01.merit.edu [207.75.116.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EF621F8C12 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by int-mailstore01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7473056544; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 03:39:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at int-mailstore01.merit.edu Received: from int-mailstore01.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (int-mailstore01.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f-Ejr+yS4IKl; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 03:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.5.101] (174-126-25-37.cpe.cableone.net [174.126.25.37]) by int-mailstore01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C862C3055C2D; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 03:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Jeff W. Boote" In-Reply-To: <4E2E6AAD.9070109@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:39:06 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3D5D4623-398F-49AF-9D9A-E37EB4A80BA0@internet2.edu> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> <4E2E6AAD.9070109@uijterwaal.nl> X-Mailtags: { "mailTagsKeyWords" : ["IETF", "EMAILLIST"]} To: Henk Uijterwaal X-Mailtags-Uuid: 1B1907F9-0074-4B2E-B708-F5835C2FF697 X-Keywords: IETF EMAILLIST X-Mailtags-Timestamp: 2011-07-26 01:39:06 -0600 X-Mailtags-Version: 2.5 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:39:10 -0000 On Jul 26, 2011, at 1:20 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > On 25/07/2011 19:15, Jeff W. Boote wrote: >>=20 >> On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Joel Sommers wrote: >>=20 >>>>> I am really sorry to have brought up the "secret sause" issue, >>>>> but would like to point out, as Steve said, that there are MANY = capacity >>>>> measurement techniques, >>>>> including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, = AGI, PTR, >>>>> ASSOLO, TOPP, MoSeab. >>>>>=20 >>>>> These all send trains of N packets of size S and spacings (either = constant >>>>> delta between them or something else) >>>>> and measure delay changes or packet loss. They all need to repeat = the >>>>> measurement at different rates, >>>>> so observe when a delay change knee. >=20 > The something else is what worries me. There is an infinite number of > possible patterns, how can we ever accomodate them all? (Yes, I can > see a registry of patterns and exchange the parameters during setup, = but > is this really the way we want to go?). I would not think so... >>>>>=20 >>>>> These commonalities seem to be sufficient to enable a single = extension to >>>>> OWAMP and TWAMP >>>>> to accommodate all of them. >>>>=20 >>>> I suspect this might not require a protocol extension. Just an = application >>>> flag to indicate what patterns you want for different kinds of = analysis. (If >>>> you want sizes of packets to change within the same train, that = would require >>>> a protocol extension. I have not looked at all of those techniques = to see if >>>> that is required or not.) >=20 > I think that there are 2 generic cases: in the first case, it is known = in > advance what packets have to be sent by *WAMP and the results can be = analyzed > later. In the second case, this is not known, one does some = measurements, > analyzes and runs a next batch of measurements. To implement this, I = think > we should add things to the protocol that allows one to do the former, = but not > the latter. The latter can be done with multiple sessions. This = leaves > one question: can we specify today what requirements we have for = setting up > packet trains. >=20 >> I would not say the OWAMP protocol is the 'easiest' or most strait = forward way >> of doing any one of these techniques. The only real advantage I see = in >> potentially using OWAMP is that you could leverage the existing = installed base >> of OWAMP servers out there to do this analysis without having to = deploy another >> server-side tool.=20 >=20 > I agree to some extend. For a known technique, yes, fine. But I = don't think > we can extend *WAMP to a degree where it can accomodate every pattern = in > a packet train. If somebody comes up with a new idea, I'd suggest = that > he tries it in an environment where he can deploy his own tools and > show that it works, before adding extensions to *WAMP. Perhaps I'm not understanding, but I don't see why accommodating every = pattern is difficult... In fact, I think it is likely already supported. = The send schedule is completely generic in OWAMP. You can send any = pattern you want as long as all the packet sizes in the session are the = same. Send schedules are specified in OWAMP by specifying the amount of = time you want between each successive packet as a list. It is a little = cumbersome to type in from a command line tool if you have long packet = train patterns, but that only requires application flags to make it = easier for humans, not changes to the protocol. And would be trivial for = a custom OWAMP client that was attempting to do this analysis. jeff >=20 > Henk >=20 > --=20 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl > http://www.uijterwaal.nl > Phone: +31.6.55861746 > = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >=20 > There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. > (John Glanfield, on an engineering = project) > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Tue Jul 26 00:59:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E1521F893E for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:59:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pQoqgxGsAHEl for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1A721F8853 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he110889.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.92.130]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 Jul 2011 09:59:11 +0200 Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.5.233]) by HE110889.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::841f:f92c:15ca:8526%16]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:59:11 +0200 From: To: Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:59:10 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ippm] "secret sauce" Thread-Index: AcxLZJAPuR/EcTxSSfSKRdC+e1Y9bwAAt1pw Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D093919D94B@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> <4E2E6AAD.9070109@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4E2E6AAD.9070109@uijterwaal.nl> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:59:21 -0000 Hi Henk, I don't know the tools. Are they all measuring the overall available bandwi= dth (or the total spare bandwidth) or do some only measure, whether a defined bandwidth of X Mbit/s is available? Regards, Ruediger -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hen= k Uijterwaal Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:20 AM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" On 25/07/2011 19:15, Jeff W. Boote wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Joel Sommers wrote: > >>>> I am really sorry to have brought up the "secret sause" issue, >>>> but would like to point out, as Steve said, that there are MANY capaci= ty >>>> measurement techniques, >>>> including pathChirp, pathLoad, pipechar, nettimer, Spruce, Yaz, AGI, P= TR, >>>> ASSOLO, TOPP, MoSeab. >>>> >>>> These all send trains of N packets of size S and spacings (either cons= tant >>>> delta between them or something else) >>>> and measure delay changes or packet loss. They all need to repeat the >>>> measurement at different rates, >>>> so observe when a delay change knee. The something else is what worries me. There is an infinite number of possible patterns, how can we ever accomodate them all? (Yes, I can see a registry of patterns and exchange the parameters during setup, but is this really the way we want to go?). >>>> >>>> These commonalities seem to be sufficient to enable a single extension= to >>>> OWAMP and TWAMP >>>> to accommodate all of them. >>> >>> I suspect this might not require a protocol extension. Just an applicat= ion >>> flag to indicate what patterns you want for different kinds of analysis= . (If >>> you want sizes of packets to change within the same train, that would r= equire >>> a protocol extension. I have not looked at all of those techniques to s= ee if >>> that is required or not.) I think that there are 2 generic cases: in the first case, it is known in advance what packets have to be sent by *WAMP and the results can be analyz= ed later. In the second case, this is not known, one does some measurements, analyzes and runs a next batch of measurements. To implement this, I think we should add things to the protocol that allows one to do the former, but = not the latter. The latter can be done with multiple sessions. This leaves one question: can we specify today what requirements we have for setting up packet trains. > I would not say the OWAMP protocol is the 'easiest' or most strait forwar= d way > of doing any one of these techniques. The only real advantage I see in > potentially using OWAMP is that you could leverage the existing installed= base > of OWAMP servers out there to do this analysis without having to deploy a= nother > server-side tool. I agree to some extend. For a known technique, yes, fine. But I don't thi= nk we can extend *WAMP to a degree where it can accomodate every pattern in a packet train. If somebody comes up with a new idea, I'd suggest that he tries it in an environment where he can deploy his own tools and show that it works, before adding extensions to *WAMP. Henk -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project= ) _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Jul 26 01:18:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFD621F8A55 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:18:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.411 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hboBZDs+MO+3 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBC721F869D for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6Q8Hc4p025353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:17:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E2E7821.70208@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:17:37 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> <4E2E6AAD.9070109@uijterwaal.nl> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D093919D94B@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D093919D94B@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:18:11 -0000 Hi Ruediger, > I don't know the tools. Are they all measuring the overall available bandwidth > (or the total spare bandwidth) or do some only measure, whether a defined > bandwidth of X Mbit/s is available? Actually, I'm not sure either but I don't think it matters much. The issue is (at least, I think it is) that there are techniques for measuring capacity related parameters using packet trains (with various properties of the trains). So-far, these parameters have been measured with custom tools sending the packet trains. That creates deployment issues. The question is if and how *WAMP should be extended to send these packets instead. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Jul 26 01:31:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6E821F8B78 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:31:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qPGewuEeOKKT for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD98C21F8B77 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr16.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6Q8V0TA058823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:31:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E2E7B43.4030407@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:30:59 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jeff W. Boote" References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> <4E2E6AAD.9070109@uijterwaal.nl> <3D5D4623-398F-49AF-9D9A-E37EB4A80BA0@internet2.edu> In-Reply-To: <3D5D4623-398F-49AF-9D9A-E37EB4A80BA0@internet2.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:31:33 -0000 On 26/07/2011 09:39, Jeff W. Boote wrote: > Perhaps I'm not understanding, but I don't see why accommodating every > pattern is difficult... In fact, I think it is likely already supported. The > send schedule is completely generic in OWAMP. You can send any pattern you > want as long as all the packet sizes in the session are the same. Send > schedules are specified in OWAMP by specifying the amount of time you want > between each successive packet as a list. It is a little cumbersome to type > in from a command line tool if you have long packet train patterns, but that > only requires application flags to make it easier for humans, not changes to > the protocol. And would be trivial for a custom OWAMP client that was > attempting to do this analysis. I think that these techniques have in common that they vary the interval between packets or the size of the packets. You are right that the send schedule can be arbitary (it is too long ago since I looked at this protocol in detail) so that would solve half the problem. The size I'm not sure about and I can predict that at some point somebody will come up with a pattern where size and interval both vary. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From acmorton@att.com Tue Jul 26 05:27:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D14321F8B00 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:27:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RwjjE6rMfHI0 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B171821F8AF6 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:27:09 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1311683228!29712070!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 6786 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2011 12:27:08 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-11.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 12:27:08 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QCRXJt015809 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:27:33 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QCRW1t015802 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:27:32 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QCR6Me001864 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:27:06 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QCR422001852 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:27:05 -0400 Message-Id: <201107261227.p6QCR422001852@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-106-89.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.106.89](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20110726122704gw100e4l7ce>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:27:04 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.106.89] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:27:52 -0400 To: Henk Uijterwaal , "Jeff W. Boote" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <4E2E7B43.4030407@uijterwaal.nl> References: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC903E72CD5@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <9323BB97-069F-4D83-BCAC-210E115D6263@internet2.edu> <4E2E6AAD.9070109@uijterwaal.nl> <3D5D4623-398F-49AF-9D9A-E37EB4A80BA0@internet2.edu> <4E2E7B43.4030407@uijterwaal.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] "secret sauce" X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:27:10 -0000 At 04:30 AM 7/26/2011, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > Perhaps I'm not understanding, but I don't see why accommodating every > > pattern is difficult... In fact, I think it is likely already > supported. The > ...snip... > > the protocol. And would be trivial for a custom OWAMP client that was > > attempting to do this analysis. > >I think that these techniques have in common that they vary the interval >between packets or the size of the packets. You are right that the send >schedule can be arbitary (it is too long ago since I looked at this protocol >in detail) so that would solve half the problem. The size I'm not sure >about and I can predict that at some point somebody will come up with >a pattern where size and interval both vary. Already doing it, Henk, in a prototype system. :-) Al >Henk From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Jul 26 05:56:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D76A21F8ABE for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:56:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AxEJWfjGsLaF for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D08621F8AA8 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr15.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6QCu5Bf095528 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:56:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E2EB964.8060109@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:56:04 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <4E2D29AD.8020006@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <4E2D29AD.8020006@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4E2D29AD.8020006@uijterwaal.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-03 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:56:37 -0000 IPPM group, This starts a WGLC for the draft: IPPM standard advancement testing draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest-03 Please review the draft and raise any issues by Monday, August 29, 8:00 UTC. This is indeed longer than usual, due to the current meeting and the vacation period. An URL for the draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-metrictest/ Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl RIPE NCC http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From henk@uijterwaal.nl Tue Jul 26 05:59:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC2621F8B26 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:59:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.436 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GXg3oUG1cP2K for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDE121F8B21 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 05:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr9.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6QCx62E078820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:59:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <4E2EBA1A.1080508@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:59:06 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: [ippm] Adopt draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 as a WG document X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:59:40 -0000 IPPM group, This is a formal proposal to adopt Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2679 on the Standards Track draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-01 as a WG document. Please review the draft and raise any objections by Monday, August 29, 8:00 UTC. A URL for the draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morton-ippm-testplan-rfc2679/ Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From dave.mcdysan@verizon.com Tue Jul 26 13:41:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDF121F86C2 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:41:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.261 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.338, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s1MmntBPFYeG for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe04.verizon.com (fldsmtpe04.verizon.com [140.108.26.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA9521F86AD for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe04.verizon.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2011 20:41:19 +0000 From: "Mcdysan, David E" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,271,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="101324493" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb03.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.190]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2011 20:41:16 +0000 Received: from fhdp1lumxc7v11.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.1.53]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.190]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:41:16 -0400 To: "ippm@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:41:11 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Sdnp] Bar BOF New Room Assignment Thread-Index: AcxL1F3TZbBbB7wQQ/uKtc0OyErSVA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.1.0.101012 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ippm] FW: [Sdnp] Bar BOF New Room Assignment X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:41:28 -0000 On Tuesday7/26/11 4:36 PM, "Thomas Nadeau" wrote: > Due to higher than expected demand, we need to move the room. The >time slot remains the same. Please see below: > >Secretariat Use Only: >Assigned Room: 2101 >Assigned Date: 07/26/2011 >Assigned Start Time: 18:20:00 >Assigned End Time: 19:45:00 >_______________________________________________ >SDNP mailing list >SDNP@lucidvision.com >http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp From acmorton@att.com Tue Jul 26 14:49:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F6421F8793 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.512, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YMwRbVZVSmMw for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:49:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB7D11E809A for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:49:20 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1311716956!29771011!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 6833 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2011 21:49:17 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-5.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 21:49:17 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QLnfaq011102 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:49:42 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QLncE1011018 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:49:38 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QLnCr1018188 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:49:12 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QLn8Cd018125 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:49:08 -0400 Message-Id: <201107262149.p6QLn8Cd018125@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-187-96.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.187.96](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20110726214907gw100e4lave>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:49:08 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.187.96] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:49:53 -0400 To: "Mcdysan, David E" , "ippm@ietf.org" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [ippm] FW: [Sdnp] Bar BOF New Room Assignment X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:49:21 -0000 Hi Dave,

Thanks for the room update.

I looked at the slides for the BoF:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=3D0B_6oAS5De4aUMTU1MTAyMWQtZGI0Yy00MTdmLTlhY= 2UtY2Q5MmYwN2MxY2Ix&hl=3Den_US&invite=3DCKmruw8&pli=3D1

The only connection between IPPM Capacity measurement work I saw was
a desire to constrain delay (which might really be transaction time
and therefore related to throughput) on slide 4:
Difficult to guarantee service functionality (in
particular, delay) to users

and Resource Management on Slide 23:
Potential integration with other resources
management (ALTO, LISP, NETCONF, YANG,
IPFIX, etc=85)
where we could provide methods for path capacity measurement.

This connection seems rather limited to me, so I'll pass on
attending in-person, but feel free to make these points and
connections in discussion if you go...

Al

At 04:41 PM 7/26/2011, Mcdysan, David E wrote:


On Tuesday7/26/11 4:36 PM, "Thomas Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> wrote:

>    Due to higher than expected demand, we need to move the room.  The
>time slot remains the same.  Please see below:
>
>Secretariat Use Only:
>Assigned Room: 2101
>Assigned Date: 07/26/2011
>Assigned Start Time: 18:20:00
>Assigned End Time: 19:45:00
>_______________________________________________
>SDNP mailing list
>SDNP@lucidvision.com
> http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
From steve.baillargeon@ericsson.com Thu Jul 28 06:56:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A5421F8BF1 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:56:56 -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=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fge1Eu5-7iAi for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD45421F8BE7 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6SDuq0x030742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:56:53 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.59]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:56:52 -0400 From: Steve Baillargeon To: Henk Uijterwaal , Matthew J Zekauskas Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:56:50 -0400 Thread-Topic: Supplement to RFC5136 Thread-Index: AcxNLjLkNdBIbnGaQEWLxdGIWJRguw== Message-ID: <4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF0E0A9C1EEA@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF0E0A9C1EEAEUSAACMS0701e_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:32:12 -0700 Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" , "Chimento, Philip F." Subject: [ippm] Supplement to RFC5136 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:56:56 -0000 --_000_4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF0E0A9C1EEAEUSAACMS0701e_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Matt, Hi Henk As discussed during the meeting, I suggest the following items for the new = draft supplementing RFC5136 Defining Network Capacity: * Add short description of the various capacity methods in an appendi= x (up to certain limit) but without any benchmarking * Capture a synthesis or summary of the methods in the main text * Use a simple black box approach with inputs like packet size, sourc= e inter-packet intervals for a given train, destination inter-packet interv= als for a given train, etc... and outputs like capacity results and/or next= rates to evaluate, etc to describe the generic method to evaluate the capa= city metrics. This way I think we should get a solid reference that will drive the requir= ed changes to the TWAMP and OWAMP protocol as needed. Let me leave with a quote from Leslie Daigle (Chief Internet Technology Off= icer): "We have a bad track record of predicting the future of the Internet= . This is why we specify the building blocks and not the buildings". Regards Steve B --_000_4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF0E0A9C1EEAEUSAACMS0701e_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Matt, Hi Henk
As discussed during the meeting, I suggest the following items for the= new draft supplementing RFC5136 Defining Network Capacity:
  • Add short description of the various capacity methods in an appendix (u= p to certain limit) but without any benchmarking
  • Capture a synthesi= s or summary of the methods in the main text
  • Use a simple black bo= x approach with inputs like packet size, source inter-packet intervals for = a given train, destination inter-packet intervals for a given train, etc...= and outputs like capacity results and/or next rates to evaluate, etc to de= scribe the generic method to evaluate the capacity metrics.
 
This way I think we should get a solid reference that will drive the r= equired changes to the TWAMP and OWAMP protocol as needed.
 
Let me leave with a quote from Leslie Daigle (Chief Internet Technolog= y Officer): "We have a bad track record of predicting the future of th= e Internet. This is why we specify the building blocks and not the building= s".
 
Regards
Steve B
 
 
 
 --_000_4383945B8C24AA4FBC33555BB7B829EF0E0A9C1EEAEUSAACMS0701e_--