gmane.ietf.bmwg

WG adoption: Traffic Management Draft

Fernando Calabria (fcalabri — 2013-05-14T16:30:51

Hello BMWG,
With discussion at the previous IETF-86 session, we're now asking the BMWG mailing list for reviews, comments and indication of support for the following draft:

Traffic Management Benchmarking
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01




+ support ..


Rgds

Adoption of traffic management draft

Vijay K. Gurbani — 2013-05-13T22:26:29

Sarah: I support the adoption of draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-
management as a chartered work item.  With the need for services that
purport to switch data-centers or server farms or VPNs depending on
traffic patterns, a draft such as this could provide some
repeatability to better understand traffic management.

Thanks,

- vijay

Re: WG adoption: Traffic Management Draft

Jacob Rapp (jarapp — 2013-05-13T21:29:03

I support this draft. It is important to get traffic-management benchmarking consistent.

I have read 01 and have some more comments as well:
Main comment:
For congestion management(6.4.1) tests there should be some considerations for marking (ECN) vs. a dropping.

--
Jacob

From: Sarah Banks <sbanks< at >aerohive.com<mailto:sbanks< at >aerohive.com>>
Date: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:25 PM
To: "bmwg< at >ietf.org<mailto:bmwg< at >ietf.org>" <bmwg< at >ietf.org<mailto:bmwg< at >ietf.org>>
Subject: [bmwg] WG adoption: Traffic Management Draft

Hello BMWG,
With discussion at the previous IETF-86 session, we're now asking the BMWG mailing list for reviews, comments and indication of support for the following draft:

Traffic Management Benchmarking
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01

Co-author Barry Constantine sent an email to the BMWG list on April 19th, when he submitted the aforementioned -01 revision of the draft, with great notes describing the update:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current

Re: WG adoption: Traffic Management Draft

Reinhard Schrage — 2013-05-13T11:12:29

Hello Sarah & bmwg,

 


Pls take this email as my full support for adopting 


‘[bmwg] draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt’


into the RFC repository as a chartered work item.

I have been involved in numerous traffic management benchmark scenarios and find the outlined draft very useful.

 

 

Best regards

Reinhard Schrage

t:             +49 (0) 5137 909540

m:           +49 (0) 172  26.36.046

 <mailto:reinhard< at >schrageconsult.com> reinhard< at >schrageconsult.com

 

From: bmwg-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sarah Banks
Sent: 30 April 2013 08:25
To: bmwg< at >ietf.org
Subject: [bmwg] WG adoption: Traffic Management Draft

 

Hello BMWG, 

With discussion at the previous IETF-86 session, we're now asking the BMWG mailing list for reviews, comments and indication of support for the following draft:





Traffic Management Benchmarking

 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-m

Re: draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt

Shishio Tsuchiya — 2013-05-13T02:48:54

As I posted on mailing list,I support this draft as WG item.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg02748.html

I read 01,I have comments.
Is it possible to add measurement method that how to calculate configured shaping rate on devices?

There are some implementations for ethernet shaping.
1)count Data,FCS,Ethernet header
2)count Data,FCS,Ethernet header,Preamble + SFD,Inter Frame Gap

If the packet length was changed,2) result is constant but 1) would be differed without configuration change.


Regards,
-Shishio




(2013/04/19 21:24), MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL) wrote:

Comments on draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01

Gilles Forget — 2013-05-11T11:00:00

Hello,

I want to mention my support for this draft.

I'm involved with traffic management issues in my work and I'm convinced that this document will become a useful guide for the industry.    

I was involved in version 00 review and my comments are incorporated in the current version.
I plan to follow this draft and bring more comments along the way.

I recommend BMWG to adopt this draft as a chartered work item.

Thanks.

Gilles Forget, CCNP.
T : 450-473-5718
C : 514-895-8212
< at > : gilles.forget< at >sympatico.ca

Politique de Confidentialite des Courriels | Email Confidentiality Warning




_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

WG adoption: Traffic Management Draft

Sarah Banks — 2013-04-30T06:25:16

Hello BMWG,
With discussion at the previous IETF-86 session, we're now asking the BMWG mailing list for reviews, comments and indication of support for the following draft:

Traffic Management Benchmarking
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01

Co-author Barry Constantine sent an email to the BMWG list on April 19th, when he submitted the aforementioned -01 revision of the draft, with great notes describing the update:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg02758.html

Please read the draft and provide opinions on whether BMWG should adopt it as a chartered work item, by May 20th, 2013<x-apple-data-detectors://3>.

As always, please send all comments to the bmwg-list.

Thanks,
Sarah
BMWG co-chair

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

Publication Request and Shepherding Form for IMIX draft

MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL — 2013-04-29T17:36:51

BMWG,

Following Joel's WG consensus call, Lucien Avramov volunteered to 
be the document shepherd for the IMIX draft, and he completed the
shepherd's form (attached). The IETF Last Call started last Monday,
and is still in progress.

Usually I send these forms to the WG, and that step
was delayed about a week, but here it is now.

In the future, Sarah and I will ask for other volunteers to 
learn more about the IETF process through the role of shepherd,
and the shepherd role will be expanding a bit, too.  For now,
I thank Lucien for his willingness to serve the BMWG in this
capacity (your work as shepherd is just beginning, Lucien!).

regards,
Al
bmwg co-chair
This is a Publication Request & document shepherding form for 
   
IMIX Genome: Specification of variable packet sizes for additional testing
draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-04

using the shepherding form dated 24 February 2012, now available from
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Pro

New Co-Chair

MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL — 2013-04-29T17:01:57

BMWG,

A long time ago (IAGFFA), Kevin Dubray asked me to join him as co-chair.

With the concurrence of our Area Directors, Sarah Banks will now join me 
as co-chair. She has accepted all the new responsibilities that the co-chair 
position entails. 

I'm very pleased to make this announcement, and I hope you'll join me
in welcoming Sarah in her new role.

Al
bmwg co-chair

WG Adoption: power benchmarking draft

MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL — 2013-04-29T16:03:24

BMWG,

Following discussion and support at our session during IETF-86,
we now ask the BMWG mailing list for review & indications of
support for the following draft:

Benchmarking Power usage of networking devices
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-bmwg-power-usage-04

Please read the draft and weigh-in on whether BMWG should adopt this 
draft as one of its chartered work items, by May 20, 2013.

Please send all comments to the bmwg-list.

thanks and regards,
Al
bmwg co-chair

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

2013-04-27T17:13:36

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science


We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on  
the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP 
( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia 
from University of Georgia, USA.


We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper 
with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous 
fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: 

(1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa
(2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic
(3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance
(4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model 
(5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer
(6). Laptop is an example for a super computer
(7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware


Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning.  However, it 
was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without

Last Call: (IMIXGenome:Specification of variable packet sizes for additionaltesting)to Informational RFC

The IESG — 2013-04-22T18:57:17

The IESG has received a request from the Benchmarking Methodology WG
(bmwg) to consider the following document:
- 'IMIX Genome: Specification of variable packet sizes for additional
   testing'
  <draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-04.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf< at >ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-05-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg< at >ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   Benchmarking Methodologies have always relied on test conditions with
   constant packet sizes, with the goal of understanding what network
   device capability has been tested.  Tests with constant packet size
   reveal device capabilities but differ significantly from the
   conditions encountered in operational deployment, and so additional
   tests are sometimes conducted with a mixture of packet sizes, or

Re: draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt

MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL — 2013-04-19T12:24:11

Thanks Barry, Tim, and Ram.

BMWG Folks can find an html-ized version here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01


I ask that BMWG'ers take a look with an eye to adopting this
as a work item (official call to follow).

Al
bmwg chair

From: bmwg-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Constantine
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:45 AM
To: bmwg< at >ietf.org
Subject: [bmwg] draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt

Hi BMWG,

The new individual submission was posted today and we worked hard to incorporate many comments from Al, Gilles, and Shane received on the list.

The central focus of this revision was to augment the verification aspect of the first draft with capacity benchmarking for each traffic management area.

An example would include the area of traffic shapers; the capacity benchmarking section specifies various combinations of stress test including:

-          Single shaper per port, all ports active

-          Multiple shapers per p

draft-constantine-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt

Barry Constantine — 2013-04-19T11:44:54

Hi BMWG,

The new individual submission was posted today and we worked hard to incorporate many comments from Al, Gilles, and Shane received on the list.

The central focus of this revision was to augment the verification aspect of the first draft with capacity benchmarking for each traffic management area.

An example would include the area of traffic shapers; the capacity benchmarking section specifies various combinations of stress test including:

-        Single shaper per port, all ports active

-        Multiple shapers per port, single port active

-        Combination of the first two; multiple shapers per port and all ports active

We hope that this version aligns to the charter of the BMWG and that the group would accept this as a formal work item as discussed in Orlando.

Thank you,
Barry Constantine
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

Traffic Management Benchmarking Alignment

Barry Constantine — 2013-03-26T12:47:22

Hi Folks,

First off, thanks to those that read this draft and provided feedback; the co-authors are working on some key revisions and hope to submit individual draft version 1 in mid-April.

One key point that Al made was that the work needed refinement to not only address traffic management verification testing, but to extend into the core scope of BMWG which includes capacity benchmarking, etc.

Our plan to accomplish this is summarized below and any feedback before we make the revisions will be appreciated.

Currently the draft is divided into several sections, each a specific traffic management function:


*        Buffer / Queue testing

*        Policing tests

*        Shaping tests

*        Congestion Management tests

Each individual test provides the test method and metrics that need to be measured in order to properly compare different vendor's performance.

What we propose to add is a scalability test to each individual section, which tests each traffic management function to the rated limits;

Re: Power Benchmarking

Vishwas Manral — 2013-03-18T22:29:18

Hi Lucien/ Jacob/ Sangjin,

I thank you for your detailed comments and acknowledge them. I understand
your concerns you raise around NEPI and the points you raise around Typical
operating power.

We will get back to you after discussing this among the co-authors.

Thanks,
Vishwas
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Lucien Avramov (lavramov) <
lavramov< at >cisco.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

Re: Draft Minutes for IETF-86

MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL — 2013-03-18T08:00:17

Thank you, Sangjin, for more details on your comment.
I will amend the meeting report.

Al
bmwg chair

Re: Draft Minutes for IETF-86

Sangjin Jeong — 2013-03-18T07:12:05

Hello Al,

Regarding the Power Benchmarking document, what I mentioned
during bmwg session was not included in the draft minutes (detailed part).

Here is a summary of my comment.

- The operating conditions of linecards (active, idle, sleep, etc) may
affect the power consumption of the device. So, it might be useful to
consider the operating conditions for more accurate power benchmarking.

Best regards,
Sangjin

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8:13 PM, MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)
<acmorton< at >att.com> wrote:

Draft Minutes for IETF-86

MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL — 2013-03-17T11:13:02

BMWG,

The first draft if our meeting summary is here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-bmwg

non-editorial comments to the list, please.
editorial comments to me. 
There's at least one Easter Egg for you to find...

Thanks to Barry Constantine for excellent work as 
Official Note Taker!

There may be a short pause in chair activity while 
I travel to another meeting and get it organized
(today), but I'd like to thank everyone who participated
for an extremely productive session that was supported
by people doing their homework (writing the drafts they
promised, reading drafts and posting comments on the list).

It works. It's both rewarding and exciting!

happy benchmarking,
Al
bmwg chair

Re: consensus called WGLC on IMIX Genome Draft

MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL — 2013-03-15T14:24:49

Thanks for your review Joel.

BMWG,

Who would like to volunteer to serve as Document Shepherd?
As a first step, it means filling out the document shepherd's template,
needed to accompany the draft at "Publication Requested" state.

Please contact me off-list,
Al
bmwg chair

consensus called WGLC on IMIX Genome Draft

joel jaeggli — 2013-03-15T14:08:00

I've reviewed the discussion on this draft through it's revisions back 
to IETF 80. I don't believe there are any criticisms remaining that 
would be considered blocking.

As noted (minutes 85) SOB states that that this method is not likely to 
be used to produce representation of the real world, the real world is 
not consistent. I think that we can be abundantly aware of the 
limitations and find utility in this representation.

Seeing no additional concerns during the WGLC. I'm prepared to call  
this document done and ready to advance.

Please find a shepherd for it and we'll move on.

Thanks
Joel

On 3/6/13 2:17 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: