Subject: [lmap] Which devices does LMAP target?

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:59 +0100

Dear all,

draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements-00 mentions:

    Thus, this document proposes
    an overall architecture, with emphasis on the functional and security
    requirements for the protocols connecting the elements of the
    architecture, that will make it possible to build measurement
    capabilities into home and enterprise edge routers, personal
    computers, mobile devices and other edge devices.

Does LMAP really target my home devices? My set top box, PC, tablet, 
smartphone
Or is LMAP is limited to the modem/router?
And if this is only the modem/router, do we want to make a difference 
between an ISP managed device (typically a branch office) and my own 
private device?

Some more discussions, on the mailing list or during the BoF, on this 
topic would be appreciated.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:32:04 -0400

FWIW, this strikes me as a fairly important question for understanding the extent to which existing protocols/building blocks can be reused for LMAP. If we expect a measurement agent to be embedded or embeddable in every cheap piece of CPE out there, that may constrain the complexity of the protocol logic for both receiving test schedules and reporting test results. Whether we want  all measurement agent implementations to be so constrained and/or whether an extensibility mechanism is possible that allows for more sophisticated logic in more sophisticated devices (PC, tablet, smartphone, etc.) would be good to figure out.

Alissa

On Mar 7, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Does LMAP really target my home devices? My set top box, PC, tablet, smartphone
> And if this is only the modem/router, do we want to make a difference between an ISP managed device (typically a branch office) and my own private device?
> 
> Some more discussions, on the mailing list or during the BoF, on this topic would be appreciated.
> 
> Regards, Benoit
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:46:49 +0000

personally I hope LMAP functionality can be embedded in lots of edge and end devices.
this drives the need for large-scale and simplicity of the standardised interfaces (between Controller & Measurement Agent and MA-Collector).
I guess that the complexity can be beyond LMAP - the 'sophisticated' or 'extensions' are in the Controller (how it decides what tests should be done, when) and in the tools that interpret the Collected results. But this guess certainly needs checking /figuring out, as Alissa says, during the prospective WG

phil
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper [[email-masked]]
Sent: 11 March 2013 15:32
To: Benoit Claise
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lmap] Which devices does LMAP target?

Alissa

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:56:14 +0100

> FWIW, this strikes me as a fairly important question for understanding the extent to which existing protocols/building blocks can be reused for LMAP. If we expect a measurement agent to be embedded…

Alissa,

can you give an example where measurement agents running on more
sophisticated devices may be doing something substantially different
compared to measurement agents running on embedded hardware? I am
looking for a motivational example to understand why additional
features on the control and reporting protocol would be needed for
different classes of devices.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: James Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:00:46 -0400

I mention for reference that SamKnows has been doing Android Smartphone
based mobile testing in other jurisdictions and they are also supporting
our FCC work to deploy a mobile program based on a client application
running on the handset to do upload, download, latency (UDP) and packet
loss running against measurement servers also used with fixed testing.

The testing schedule and payloads were (among other things) elements that
evolved from the fixed program, as Alissa suggests.

We are moving towards modified approaches to pushing data up from the
client to the data stores because of changes we made in our privacy review.
 We will be likely moving from the CSV data format with a whitebox specific
host id to a JSON flat file with active test metric and other context
information saved without any unique identifier.

So as Alissa suggests, from my experience we did end up moving toward
modifying both test scheduling, payload size or other changes to the test
metric, and data packaging and saving out to the network.  I would think
there are IPPM and LMAP issues that would be implicated by the scope
extending edge to edge.

Outside of that we've discussed in-home as an area of interest and I think
there's expectations among some in the space that in-home elements might
interact with standards based measurement.

Again my personal views, but hope that's helpful..

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:

> FWIW, this strikes me as a fairly important question for understanding the
> extent to which existing protocols/building blocks can be reused for LMAP.
> If we expect a measurement agent to be embedded or embeddable in every
> cheap piece of CPE out there, that may constrain the complexity of the
> protocol logic for both receiving test schedules and reporting test
> results. Whether we want  all measurement agent implementations to be so
> constrained and/or whether an extensibility mechanism is possible that
> allows for more sophisticated logic in more sophisticated devices (PC,
> tablet, smartphone, etc.) would be good to figure out.
>
> Alissa
>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:25:04 -0400

Hi Juergen,

I was actually thinking of it the other way around -- that it may be more feasible to add, for example, a full-featured NETCONF server to a PC or tablet environment than to cheap CPE. So designing for the widest range of possible devices may have implications for the selection of protocols to use for controller<-->MA (and MA<-->collector). Or it may not, but it's worth a bit of discussion.

Alissa

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:10:38 -0400

+1

I believe that the cases where the these tests are initiated from the end points is far more interesting in the mid/long term. They also provide more insightful results. 

Netconf, for example, may be a great protocol for network devices but I am not sure how common it is on end devices like tablets, mobile phones, and laptops. 

Ciao
Hannes