From cpignata@cisco.com Mon Apr 2 05:15:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6641521F87F2 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HyDKpWQ9Xe18 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C5621F88B3 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:15:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=cpignata@cisco.com; l=2684; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1333368907; x=1334578507; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=OYUOMJbNTo5I9t0Siy5f1tNWGDgL8tuNh5Tnro8CH2g=; b=bR2SLsz8tJeACXtVUNqP9KPLcwJSMfVosJGwBH+Cn1yRy7gbhiYv8l7n ouuBnjKYIUf8Y6Qs5YoKaPdH7k3RVBmPkCNPAei1MbgULOW1/2ONkvc/1 DkOKle9ZXfToEz2bx88T43xJSCmI43QS+RJA3dLfxs2yPLaAuV4ZvJzVn 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 203 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAHmXeU+Q/khN/2dsb2JhbABDuRyBB4IJAQEBAwEBAQEPAVsLBQcECxEEAQEBJwcnHwkIBhMih2IFC594lmkEkDljBI5ohnmFcIhXgWiCaQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,357,1330905600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="134017022" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2012 12:15:05 +0000 Received: from [64.103.30.99] ([64.103.30.99]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q32CF49E019469; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:15:04 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0DB2A916-6B4B-4658-A2C4-A2341B0EF0D2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 From: Carlos Pignataro In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90432C289@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:15:05 +0200 Message-Id: <8C3ABD74-9E86-4794-8E39-565F635EE4CB@cisco.com> References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201203271340.q2RDe9dW016967@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90432C289@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> To: Yaakov Stein X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:15:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0DB2A916-6B4B-4658-A2C4-A2341B0EF0D2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii No additional documents to review, but please find one comment inline. On Mar 27, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > Other than draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m, which we have discussed before,=20 > I would suggest looking into the work proposed in MPLS on = performance-based path selection=20 > (e.g., draft-atlas-mpls-te-express-path). >=20 > Had we been ready earlier, we would have taken a look at what became > RFC 6374 and 6375, but that is now water under the bridge. >=20 > I checked the OAM proposal in trill (draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-oam)=20 > and it is pure FM OAM, with no PM features. At least for now. Even though it is not in the documents, there were some discussions = about passive performance metrics in OAM discussions (traceflow, IIRC = even trill). So I think this is an area to snoop for how things = progress. Thanks, -- Carlos. >=20 > Y(J)S >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Al Morton > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 15:41 > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pmol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate >=20 > At 11:49 AM 1/23/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> Probably going beyond the name of the document is desirable - looking >> into the content for strings like 'performance metrics', 'performance >> monitoring', etc. could reveal things that are missed by just = scanning >> the titles. >=20 > So, now that we've all had a chance to wade through docs in our > normal working areas: >=20 > Has anyone seen a draft we should be reviewing/considering? >=20 > Let us all know, and we'll take the next steps, > Al >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol >=20 --Apple-Mail=_0DB2A916-6B4B-4658-A2C4-A2341B0EF0D2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk95mEkACgkQtfDPGTp3USz11wCfTfk5TiQTrhIZjN7P22FhA4v8 MFEAoLTant9bHIxRKDI8bqLMiXkyJwL2 =5+JG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_0DB2A916-6B4B-4658-A2C4-A2341B0EF0D2-- From acmorton@att.com Mon Apr 2 05:50:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B90921F85C0 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:50:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lw1D49RoSf5P for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8D521F8567 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:50:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 180a97f4.0.210972.00-377.560360.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:50:12 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4f79a0841a0694af-82d73cd424c829b67370b03281f4b839c9e513a7 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q32Co8xo014786 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:50:09 -0400 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q32Co41a014733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:50:05 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:49:42 -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 q32CngEo014631 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:49:42 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.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 q32Cnc0r014503 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:49:39 -0400 Message-Id: <201204021249.q32Cnc0r014503@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (ds135-16-251-225.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.225](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120402124646gw1004orn5e>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:46:46 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.225] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:50:46 -0400 To: Carlos Pignataro , Yaakov Stein From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <8C3ABD74-9E86-4794-8E39-565F635EE4CB@cisco.com> References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201203271340.q2RDe9dW016967@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90432C289@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <8C3ABD74-9E86-4794-8E39-565F635EE4CB@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=b3MHB_GQ4iAA:10 a=HGOELgx6o6gA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=AlZLDW7aEELZ-Kah0hoA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10] Cc: "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:50:14 -0000 At 08:15 AM 4/2/2012, Carlos Pignataro wrote: >...Even though it is not in the documents, there were some >discussions about passive performance metrics in OAM discussions >(traceflow, IIRC even trill). So I think this is an area to snoop >for how things progress. I agree, is anyone following trill on a regular basis? Nice work published on April 1st, Carlos! Al From yaakov_s@rad.com Mon Apr 2 07:22:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E227421F84C4 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:22:03 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iNwNe74C0n7f for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:22:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay01.rad.co.il [62.0.23.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491A621F849A for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay01 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Apr 2012 16:56:17 +0300 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 17:10:31 +0300 From: Yaakov Stein To: Carlos Pignataro Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate Thread-Index: AQHNDB9BT1u7vUDtwU+tVtkGc/SkNpZ+N7rggAkSNoCAAFJTUA== Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:10:29 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC904333932@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201203271340.q2RDe9dW016967@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90432C289@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <8C3ABD74-9E86-4794-8E39-565F635EE4CB@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <8C3ABD74-9E86-4794-8E39-565F635EE4CB@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.17.140.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Commtouch-Refid: str=0001.0A020208.4F79B35F.00B4,ss=1,fgs=0 Cc: "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:22:04 -0000 Carlos Yes, I was afraid of that (which I why I said "At least for now"). We definitely have to follow this work. Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Pignataro [mailto:cpignata@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 15:15 To: Yaakov Stein Cc: Al Morton; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pmol@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate No additional documents to review, but please find one comment inline. On Mar 27, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > Other than draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m, which we have discussed before, I=20 > would suggest looking into the work proposed in MPLS on=20 > performance-based path selection (e.g., draft-atlas-mpls-te-express-path)= . >=20 > Had we been ready earlier, we would have taken a look at what became=20 > RFC 6374 and 6375, but that is now water under the bridge. >=20 > I checked the OAM proposal in trill (draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-oam) and=20 > it is pure FM OAM, with no PM features. At least for now. Even though it is not in the documents, there were some discussions about p= assive performance metrics in OAM discussions (traceflow, IIRC even trill).= So I think this is an area to snoop for how things progress. Thanks, -- Carlos. >=20 > Y(J)S >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf=20 > Of Al Morton > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 15:41 > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); pmol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate >=20 > At 11:49 AM 1/23/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> Probably going beyond the name of the document is desirable - looking=20 >> into the content for strings like 'performance metrics', 'performance=20 >> monitoring', etc. could reveal things that are missed by just=20 >> scanning the titles. >=20 > So, now that we've all had a chance to wade through docs in our normal=20 > working areas: >=20 > Has anyone seen a draft we should be reviewing/considering? >=20 > Let us all know, and we'll take the next steps, Al >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol > _______________________________________________ > PMOL mailing list > PMOL@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol >=20 From vinayakh@gmail.com Sun Apr 8 12:30:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0698E21F8505 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMuNbj3UGbDH for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451DA21F84FD for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so2280475vbb.31 for ; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 12:30:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rRlUxZiuqpkkLT+DuIELekWBBsHgOuHnkgEjEKUuW+0=; b=SEYGQxOwlWe0zFRv+xGZd5qHWqNo+B1QkAmuz+vJeXrkX+Xvn8zslgtYBUgZB6NbEI veN5Z5/PqxlWjCXdC9JJiYa9mlKN5M6xc8w5HFFmIlrvmHgqUvcr/afqvexoaE0wavkO kpwuojWDhAQRx4wWNKDUBU9Bq3aQxOuu+0+AMQ2J+43UP0JiD//yToxmdq2gPGVG8eTi hAzSIKjG2zZDGcekJ2zvGb9SaCgSSqe6r6STMMrTloUCQk5TqwD9MMkTp48veCHz9pRI AcorMNiyVyqPYWwpOkaIxANyX+or+k2Ornodcu6ZO+uZ79Bqmee+W8dkhntQwELGNK1b sbWQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.148.71 with SMTP id o7mr2429194vcv.34.1333913454771; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 12:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.36.148 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:30:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201203271340.q2RDe9dW016967@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90432C289@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <201203271540.q2RFeAH5019723@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 01:00:54 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vinayak Hegde To: Al Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:30:56 -0000 Comments on draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m/) These comments are for the -01 version on this draft. 1. Doesn't reference prior work in IPPM by RFC number (in the References section). This is important as the approaches for passive measurement seem to borrow heavily from the concepts of the IPPM drafts (active measurements) IPPM Delay http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2679 IPPM Loss http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2680 2. The draft does not take into out-of-order packet arrivals which is possible in a real world scenario. Would the counters be updated or how will they be switched off. Are there any conditions for timeouts. If so, they are not explicitly mentioned. 3. Adding more implementation details of how colouring is done will be done will help as it one of the main proposals of the draft. It has not be covered in sufficient detail - only a few sentences mention that certain DSCP bits be set but elsewhere the draft mentions that several "colours" can be used in traffic flows. 4. In sections 6.3 monitoring nodes when there is periodic reading of counters, it seems that the implicit upper bound on timeout of 5 minutes as counters are read every 5 minutes. Also there are time synchnoisation issues when multiple intermediate elements are involved in measurement. 5. The authors should elaborate on the data collection methods from various routers since such measurements may be near real-time to enable reactions from people monitoring the network. Scalability concerns apply here when multiple monitoring nodes are needed. Skipping the other draft as I do not know the nuances of underlying protocols and it references other drafts which are also in transition. Regards Vinayak On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > I can review both drafts by this weekend. > > Regards > Vinayak > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Al Morton wrote: >> >> Any volunteers to review? >> >> >> >> At 10:57 AM 3/27/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote: >>> >>> Other than draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m, which we have discussed before, >>> I would suggest looking into the work proposed in MPLS on >>> performance-based path selection >>> (e.g., draft-atlas-mpls-te-express-path). >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PMOL mailing list >> PMOL@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From acmorton@att.com Mon Apr 9 07:03:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77B221F8736 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 07:03:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.429, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WYXzhLVxvfOU for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 07:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com [209.65.160.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACE421F8734 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 07:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 92ce28f4.0.226982.00-463.602526.nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:03:22 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4f82ec2a0a1bdcdd-0200ceba4cd0f1a7fbed13872b2940da1c07b2d5 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q39E3KeS016017 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:03:21 -0400 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q39E3E3x015980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:03:15 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:02:38 -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 q39E2cUC030800 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:02:38 -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 q39E2TwT030202 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:02:30 -0400 Message-Id: <201204091402.q39E2TwT030202@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (martym.mt.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120409135932gw1004or3de>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 13:59:32 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:03:38 -0400 To: Vinayak Hegde From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: References: <201201161446.q0GEkPPo010569@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <201203271340.q2RDe9dW016967@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC90432C289@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <201203271540.q2RFeAH5019723@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=dit6Jc5sqrAA:10 a=HGOELgx6o6gA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=zQP7CpKO] X-AnalysisOut: [AAAA:8 a=Hq4sK8U8LJ12gXVHFWQA:9 a=B-dm8D38xdZv-cEGGWAA:7 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=Hz7IrDYlS0cA:10 a=lZB] X-AnalysisOut: [815dzVvQA:10 a=sc5h9c8DAOi4Ijew:21 a=31BAk16h__crEIgP:21] Cc: "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:03:23 -0000 Thanks, Vin! I will forward your review to opsawg, and CC your address. Al At 03:30 PM 4/8/2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote: >Comments on draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m >(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m/) > >These comments are for the -01 version on this draft. > >1. Doesn't reference prior work in IPPM by RFC number (in the >References section). This is important as the approaches for passive >measurement seem to borrow heavily from the concepts of the IPPM >drafts (active measurements) > >IPPM Delay http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2679 >IPPM Loss http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2680 > >2. The draft does not take into out-of-order packet arrivals which is >possible in a real world scenario. Would the counters be updated or >how will they be switched off. Are there any conditions for timeouts. >If so, they are not explicitly mentioned. > >3. Adding more implementation details of how colouring is done will be >done will help as it one of the main proposals of the draft. It has >not be covered in sufficient detail - only a few sentences mention >that certain DSCP bits be set but elsewhere the draft mentions that >several "colours" can be used in traffic flows. > >4. In sections 6.3 monitoring nodes when there is periodic reading of >counters, it seems that the implicit upper bound on timeout of 5 >minutes as counters are read every 5 minutes. Also there are time >synchnoisation issues when multiple intermediate elements are involved >in measurement. > >5. The authors should elaborate on the data collection methods from >various routers since such measurements may be near real-time to >enable reactions from people monitoring the network. Scalability >concerns apply here when multiple monitoring nodes are needed. > >Skipping the other draft as I do not know the nuances of underlying >protocols and it references other drafts which are also in transition. > >Regards >Vinayak > >On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Vinayak Hegde wrote: > > I can review both drafts by this weekend. > > > > Regards > > Vinayak > > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Al Morton wrote: > >> > >> Any volunteers to review? > >> > >> > >> > >> At 10:57 AM 3/27/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote: > >>> > >>> Other than draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m, which we have discussed before, > >>> I would suggest looking into the work proposed in MPLS on > >>> performance-based path selection > >>> (e.g., draft-atlas-mpls-te-express-path). > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PMOL mailing list > >> PMOL@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From acmorton@att.com Mon Apr 9 07:11:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pmol@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D37921F8736; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 07:11:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.667 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.629, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, SARE_WEOFFER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KwB1GZIcmtVL; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com [209.65.160.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405D821F871E; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 40ee28f4.0.230930.00-497.614085.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:11:17 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4f82ee0566290b58-2cad6eb82c02b886279e967eac455db82a466348 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q39EBGuE023088; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:11:16 -0400 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q39EB9Y8023068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:11:11 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:10:30 -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 q39EATtP020090; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:10:30 -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 q39EARvq020008; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:10:27 -0400 Message-Id: <201204091410.q39EARvq020008@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (martym.mt.att.com[135.16.251.71](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120409140729gw1004or3ee>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:07:29 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.71] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 10:11:31 -0400 To: opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m@tools.ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=dit6Jc5sqrAA:10 a=PGkD3MPGI9wA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=ULWbJayO_MKlLpVnT7EA:9 a=] X-AnalysisOut: [5sxecbfyaHv68ll3pjwA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10] X-AnalysisOut: [ a=HlLFuPE95S0A:10] Cc: "pmol@ietf.org" Subject: [PMOL] Performance Metrics Directorate Review of draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m X-BeenThere: pmol@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance Metrics Directorate list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:11:22 -0000 OPSAWG,

Vinayak Hegde, a member of the Performance Metrics Directorate,
has reviewed the subject draft.

We offer this early review as part of our directorate mission.
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/performance-metrics.html

regards,
Al
directorate admin

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Comments on draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m
( http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m/)

These comments are for the -01 version on this draft.

1. Doesn't reference prior work in IPPM by RFC number (in the
References section). This is important as the approaches for passive
measurement seem to borrow heavily from the concepts of the IPPM
drafts (active measurements)

IPPM Delay http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2679
IPPM Loss http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2680

2. The draft does not take into out-of-order packet arrivals which is
possible in a real world scenario. Would the counters be updated or
how will they be switched off. Are there any conditions for timeouts.
If so, they are not explicitly mentioned.

3. Adding more implementation details of how colouring is done will be
done will help as it one of the main proposals of the draft. It has
not be covered in sufficient detail - only a few sentences mention
that certain DSCP bits be set but elsewhere the draft mentions that
several "colours" can be used in traffic flows.

4. In sections 6.3 monitoring nodes when there is periodic reading of
counters, it seems that the implicit upper bound on timeout of 5
minutes as counters are read every 5 minutes. Also there are time
synchnoisation issues when multiple intermediate elements are involved
in measurement.

5. The authors should elaborate on the data collection methods from
various routers since such measurements may be near real-time to
enable reactions from people monitoring the network. Scalability
concerns apply here when multiple monitoring nodes are needed.