Subject: [lmap] Data Model, Communication, Framework: Pre-Requisites?

From: Joachim Fabini <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:51:13 +0200

Having followed part of the preliminary mailing list discussions, two 
questions (coming from the IPPM corner):

1. Has there been any prior LMAP discussion on 
quering/requesting/logging/enforcing measurement pre-, intermediate- and 
post-measurement conditions? It's a security- and privacy-sensitive 
matter of control, which can end up in denial-of-service. Where would 
this functionality fit best in the architecture?
Exemplary use case from practical experience: VDSL line with dedicated, 
QoS-enabled VoIP profile. Whenever a VoIP call is ongoing (IPTV 
activated, etc.), dedicated capacity is reserved for the QoS-enabled 
service, which substantially decreases remainging capacity available for 
Internet traffic (data).

Depending on the use case the Controller might be required to disable, 
activate or log status of such (non-)QoS-enabled services during test in 
the MA, leading to paranoic situations where users can not call 
emergency services because ISPs test his connection. I believe that an 
active call ending and terminating within a VDSL-data measurement 
without being explicitly logged will generate a lot of confusion.
There are many more situations I can think of and believe that these 
should be considered at an early stage in an abstract manner.

2. Is the definition of a test parameter control interfaces (MA test 
capabilities negotiation and configuration) a matter of IPPM or LMAP (or 
coordinated) definition?

regards
Joachim

-- 
---------------------------------------
Dr. Joachim Fabini
Institute of Telecommunications
Vienna University of Technology
Favoritenstraße 9/389
A-1040 Vienna, Austria

Tel:    +43 1 58801-38813
Fax:    +43 1 58801-38898
mailto: [email-masked]
---------------------------------------

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:14:04 +0100

1. The basic approach that has been discussed is that the MA will have knowledge of cross-traffic on the same broadband line. Therefore it can avoid testing during these times. The exact framework needs to be flexible enough to define a strategy for this avoidance that is sufficient for the sort of example you describe (e.g. not testing for X seconds after activity to allow the VoIP capacity to be unreserved). We are currently saying that the back-off/interrupt strategy will be unique to each test and can be coded into the test design and/or configurable Measurement Task options. Making this sort of back-off and rescheduling capability a generic  part of the Instruction information would be very complex and that is why we are trying to avoid that approach.

2. the parameter control is done in the LMAP instruction (see the Measurement Task Configuration part of the Information Model draft). Which parameters are configurable is define in a registry which is an output of IPPM.

Trevor.

Trevor Burbridge
Network Infrastructure & Innovation | BT Innovate & Design
Tel: 01473 645115
Fax: 01473 640929

This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you.
We monitor our email system, and may record your emails. 
British Telecommunications plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England no: 1800000 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>Joachim Fabini
>Sent: 30 July 2013 10:51
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [lmap] Data Model, Communication, Framework: Pre-Requisites?
>
>_______________________________________________
>lmap mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap