Subject: [lmap] FW: [nmrg] 31st NMRG meeting - 1st NMRG workshop on large scale network measurements

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 08:22:34 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 3:32 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] 31st NMRG meeting - 1st NMRG workshop on large scale network measurements

Hi,

the slides presented on Monday have been uploaded to the IETF interim meetings tracker. You can find the material here:

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2013/10/14/nmrg/proceedings.html

Thanks to everybody who participated in this meeting.

/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/>
_______________________________________________
nmrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:49:48 +0200

Dear all,

I attended this NMRG meeting. Great content.

A couple of high level points:
- perfSonar, RIPE atlas, samknows, bismark, grenouille, etc: which one 
to chose? It's not easy.
   That stresses the need for LMAP standardization :-)
- I liked very much this paper/presentation, which attempts to 
categorize the measurement agents: "Router-based and client-based 
platforms for performance measurement and censorship detection", by 
Alessio Botta

         1. Server-based,
             ISP-based
             service-based
             core-based
         2. router-based
         3. host-based
             client-based
             web-based
                     plugin-based
                     embedded

- When the control protocol, reporting protocol, and performance metrics 
will be standardized, the next task will be to have a standardized 
capability discovery. Maybe 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssdext/charter/ might help.
- I like the fact that two research projects (mPlane and Leone) are 
actively participating in the group. mPlane was presented
- There is an interesting paper (Designing Active Measurements for 
YouTube, Saba Ahsan) that tests the top videos from the youtube page. 
I've always wondering what could be a good universal test for all MAs, 
taking into account that we will have many MAs. Maybe that's a solution?

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Jérôme Benoit <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 06:10:19 +0200

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 08:22:34 +0000 in
<[email-masked]>,

> Thanks to everybody who participated in this meeting.

OK at a first run. 

But after a review, how do handle measurement data abstraction ?
Just review the RIPE data representation of tracerouting
measurement ... how as the state state it stand, it will handle router
load-balancing - it's just a binary tree with two state along the
discovered path - ? 

Can I be in an irreverence wheel beside the current WG LMAP
orientation ? 

"Availability should also be considered.  While the loss of some
MAs ... etc." 

How many MAs are relevant to a specific measurement to be runt to give
exploitable datas ? --> should be a configurable specific to a
measurement. 

How would you anonimyze data from a specific MA ? 

I take the global architecture from the current draft : 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-framework/

If I'm just mistaken about the current work on LMAP, just tell me to
shout "down" the volume : 

MA and MP should not the differentiated, it's just the same agent
inside the measurement system that just do different things. That the
all beauty to design an MA that just permit to do end to end
measurement, MAs *all* plays different roles inside the measurement
system, just like the end to end exchange protocol designed by
researcher, engineer at IETF. 

If you miss by design the the end to end design goal aspect of the
LMAP architecture ... you just miss the Internet design .... and
missing the Internet design inside a measurement system that should
assess the quality of end to end communication inside a
commuted/switched packet network design that cherish end to end
exchange is just like missing to design a wheel on a car (ok, enough of
sophisms to sustain my point of view) : 

Do not do differentiate MA and MP functionalities inside the
Large-Scale measurement system, it's just a design mistake that will
go so far far away from the UDP or TCP design choices. 

First of all, a packet is a packet, its being NATed, its being QoSed,
its being emitted from the CPE, its being proxyed ... I just do not
care, it's just a another information : MA should care about the
different aspect of emission or reception traceability, what I think
the LMAP should just care is about end to end aspects of gathering
metrics about a very simple packet emission and reception. 
How do you conceive just a ICMP, UDP, TCP ping measurement between two
MAs in the current Internet network in the G8 countries inside the
current LMAP framework ? ('cause, do not mistake on the economic aspect
of the LMAP work, it's just for the G8 countries where BW is not the
bottleneck, technically and financially, all the other countries
just have to sit and wait for an affordable BW to begin with, yes
I'm digressing and who cares ?). So to design an LMAP that will fit
different goals, just : 

- do not miss end to end aspects of current running Internet; 
- do not miss end to end aspects of current running Internet; 
- do not miss end to end aspects of current running Internet in G8
  countries.

repeat:
begin with simple IPPM measurements and ask yourself : how I
implement it inside the LMAP point by point, technical aspect by
aspect, design choice by design choice ?; 
goto repeat; 
then 
factorize design aspects, measurements by measurements. 

What I'm just telling you : take the conception problem from the other
side. That's all :)

Have a lot of fun. 

I will try to stay in background to review everything I can
from LMAP and IPPM WGs, in details. Not just from the an high and
comfortable place : criticize work and do not participate :)

Cheers. 

-- 
Jérôme Benoit aka fraggle
OpenPGP Key ID : 9FE9161D
Key fingerprint : 9CA4 0249 AF57 A35B 34B3 AC15 FAA0 CB50 9FE9 161D

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:05:14 +0000

Hi Jerome, 

Can you clarify what you are exactly commenting about? 

I am confused because you respond with a message which has content and subject line related to the NMRG workshop, but your comments seem to be rather about the LMAP architecture. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> J?r?me Benoit
> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:10 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [lmap] FW: [nmrg] 31st NMRG meeting - 1st NMRG workshop on
> large scale network measurements
> 
> > the slides presented on Monday have been uploaded to the IETF interim
> meetings tracker. You can find the material here:
> >
> Just review the RIPE data representation of tracerouting measurement ...
> how as the state state it stand, it will handle router load-balancing -
> it's just a binary tree with two state along the discovered path - ?
> 
> Can I be in an irreverence wheel beside the current WG LMAP orientation
> ?
> 
> "Availability should also be considered.  While the loss of some MAs ...
> etc."
> 
> MA and MP should not the differentiated, it's just the same agent inside
> the measurement system that just do different things. That the all
> beauty to design an MA that just permit to do end to end measurement,
> MAs *all* plays different roles inside the measurement system, just like
> the end to end exchange protocol designed by researcher, engineer at
> IETF.
> 
> If you miss by design the the end to end design goal aspect of the LMAP
> architecture ... you just miss the Internet design .... and missing the
> Internet design inside a measurement system that should assess the
> quality of end to end communication inside a commuted/switched packet
> network design that cherish end to end exchange is just like missing to
> design a wheel on a car (ok, enough of sophisms to sustain my point of
> view) :
> 
> Do not do differentiate MA and MP functionalities inside the Large-Scale
> measurement system, it's just a design mistake that will go so far far
> away from the UDP or TCP design choices.
> 
> different aspect of emission or reception traceability, what I think the
> LMAP should just care is about end to end aspects of gathering metrics
> about a very simple packet emission and reception.
> bottleneck, technically and financially, all the other countries just
> have to sit and wait for an affordable BW to begin with, yes I'm
> digressing and who cares ?). So to design an LMAP that will fit
> different goals, just :
> 
> begin with simple IPPM measurements and ask yourself : how I implement
> it inside the LMAP point by point, technical aspect by aspect, design
> choice by design choice ?; goto repeat; then factorize design aspects,
> measurements by measurements.
> 
> I will try to stay in background to review everything I can from LMAP
> and IPPM WGs, in details. Not just from the an high and comfortable
> place : criticize work and do not participate :)
> 
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> --

---

From: Jérôme Benoit <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:55:06 +0100

Le Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:05:14AM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) a écrit:
> Hi Jerome, o

Hello.
> Can you clarify what you are exactly commenting about? 

When time permit, I will do. 

> I am confused because you respond with a message which has content and subject line related to the NMRG workshop, but your comments seem to be rather about the LMAP architecture. 

Mainly because there's talks about measurement system from the end
point inside.

Cheers.