From andreas.a.johnsson@ericsson.com Mon Jul 2 02:31:21 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 387E421F8BAF for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 02:31:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 r0yjaJB8p+Bu for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 02:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CB921F89D5 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7fc16d000005db2-2c-4ff16a6b5bf8 Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E6.39.23986.B6A61FF4; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 11:31:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSCMS0363.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.82]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 11:31:23 +0200 From: Andreas Johnsson A To: "pmol@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 11:31:22 +0200 Thread-Topic: [PMOL] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac1V7lr+atPYo/JtSy6K9jigPkQNXACQXZJQ Message-ID: <3B05069A569E6F4AB6397B968734EBEA52499253DC@ESESSCMS0363.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <201206291156.q5TBuuUP010672@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201206291156.q5TBuuUP010672@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW5O1kd/g647TBarN71nc2D0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxo09f5gKZspX/Pu1hL2BcYpkFyMnh4SAicTZ2S/YIGwxiQv3 1gPZXBxCAqcYJe7+aAdLCAnMZ5Q40OILYrMJWEms79rGDGKLCChLrFl4mamLkYODRUBFYssR f5CwsICHxLWbF6FKPCUefZ/JDFIiImAksfkwD0iYVyBc4s3uV0wQ0+0kjm9vBLM5Bewlbnyd wgpiMwKd8/3UGrA4s4C4xK0n85kgzhSQWLLnPDOELSrx8vE/qHpRiTvt6xkh6nUkFuz+xAZh a0ssW/iaGWKvoMTJmU9YJjCKzkIydhaSlllIWmYhaVnAyLKKUTg3MTMnvdxIL7UoM7m4OD9P rzh1EyMwFg5u+a26g/HOOZFDjNIcLErivNZb9/gLCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRq YGQ9cL7nslXlGvsQfuP139e/k/mkar/YbJ3LApZLuik3Up0N/Q9+/l8TzlL21ch47aoZC5Z8 PhQzJULtQmjxVk8pxfoZP9Y9flQsummBptOXqlU7T4r5SqrobziyVFf+dOahRUx8KjZ3oqfk ijHuvCD6McT3+DvH+pMaelNWyR0NUrtUtruwyVKJpTgj0VCLuag4EQA+AKMTUwIAAA== Subject: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00.txt 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 Jul 2012 09:31:21 -0000 Hi, I have tried to put together a short review. Please see my comments below (= and please provide further comments). Best regards, Andreas Johnsson ----- Comments on draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00.txt. 1) The draft describes a new active measurement protocol with the aim of me= asuring delay, jitter and loss over an IP path. The protocol is similar to = TWAMP (RFC5357), however the measurement setup is performed in a TCP-like m= anner instead of using a specific control plane. Despite its similarities t= o TWAMP there are no references nor does the draft contain a comparison.=20 2) The draft includes a description on how to calculate statistics based on= time stamps obtained by the protocol. The metrics are delay, jitter and lo= ss. An advice is to use RFC 6390 section 5.4.5 guidelines for describing th= e metrics.=20 3) The draft does not reference prior art in IPPM (or elsewhere) related to= delay, jitter or loss. Suggested documents are=20 IPPM Delay (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2679) IPPM Loss (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2680) IPPM Delay variation (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3393.txt) ITU-T Y.1540 (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1540-200711-S) 4) I would like the authors to elaborate on their delay calculation method.= The draft assumes that the forward delay is always equal to the reverse de= lay. How often is this the case? 5) The jitter calculations are based upon the delay calculations. Since the= delay is calculated as the RTT (minus the time a packet spends at the PM r= esponder) divided by 2, the jitter will be the same in both directions. Doe= s this really reflect what is happening on the path? Please elaborate on th= is. -----Original Message----- From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al = Morton Sent: den 29 juni 2012 13:58 To: pmol@ietf.org Subject: [PMOL] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00.txt After reading the abstract, I just said "wow". Would anyone volunteer to review this in a timely way? Al pmol admin >From: internet-drafts@ietf.org >To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >Subject: I-D Action: draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00.txt >X-Test-IDTracker: no >X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21p1 >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:40:50 -0700 >X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 >Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts=20 >directories. > > > Title : Flow-based Performance Measurement > Author(s) : Lishun Sun > Wendong Wang > Fang Yu > Filename : draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2012-06-29 > >Abstract: > The performance measurements of service flow are becoming significant > important for administrators monitoring the fitness of the network. > This memo defines an end-to-end application-based performance > measurement method, which is achieved by generating synthetic > measurement packets, injecting them to the network and analyzing the > statistics carried in the measurement packets. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00 > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or=20 >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt _______________________________________________ PMOL mailing list PMOL@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From aakhter@cisco.com Mon Jul 30 08:50:14 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 153D021F8462; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:50:14 -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 p3oYDwXr9-Ij; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B9521F8491; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:50:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=aakhter@cisco.com; l=4974; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1343663413; x=1344873013; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=YMN1j7ayExurZfDFxuWcbpcnRjbr2uP/iQ4mA+VTTXc=; b=e4b4bNxCMM0wKtTVTPqdzHwpRv0x61KvD2TMGAwykkzhOYNyt3svv5+m F3M0bSFv/+ljUpeyxqjTAwBBsYOVbtjDIubo/YhljdnM0gi8eU3k9JR14 QNGA7bez51dBvghWYdIqP8nIRKn36QreTtGmruht/KmZYs3a2MeBh8y+8 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAMesFlCtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFuVaBB4IgAQEBBBIBJz8MBAIBCBEEAQELFBAyHQgBAQQBDQUIGodrmnmfdYtQFIVuYAOLMZBfh2CBZoJfgVY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,679,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="106668134" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2012 15:50:11 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6UFoAls010322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:50:10 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.162]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:50:10 -0500 From: "Aamer Akhter (aakhter)" To: "Jan Novak (janovak)" , "'ipfix@ietf.org'" , "'opsawg@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02 Thread-Index: Ac0zc8BXTR41oCKqTcOQDS4l95WyzAEhILoQDYLiRuA= Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:50:09 +0000 Message-ID: <75C0E47A1889264493A2DCB2869AC0960F50A853@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> References: <201205161453.q4GErZNl015927@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [64.102.41.104] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19070.006 x-tm-as-result: No--47.978000-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Hendrik Scholz , "'pmol@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [PMOL] Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02 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, 30 Jul 2012 15:50:14 -0000 Hi Jan, Thank-you for the review. Please find my comments below. We Hendrik and I w= ill be publishing -03 shortly.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Jan Novak (janovak)=20 Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:58 AM To: Aamer Akhter (aakhter); ipfix@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Cc: Al Morton; pmol@ietf.org Subject: Comments on draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02 Hi Amer, I have reviewed your draft draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-ipfix-02.txt. There seems to be a lot of text overlap with your methodology document - se= ction 1,3, 4 could probably be abbreviated or omitted leaving the document = just with raw IPFIX IE specifications or just add the IE specification as s= ub-sections or a new section into the first document ??=20 AA> I agree that there is overlap, but it was retained for readability. But= I see your point regarding keeping the focus on the IEs in the IPFIX versi= on of the draft. Will strip some of the detail in the IPFIX version. Section 2 uses definitions from RFC5610 - I think those you use there are d= efined in RFC5102 as DataTypeSemantic, units and range while RFC5610 specifies how this information should be exported - here you are de= fining the IE itself so you should use the definitions from RFC5102 AA> I think I had used RFC5610 as it seemed to be a bit more specific about= it (eg rangeBegin and rangeEnd rather than just range). But we are fine e= ither way depending on feedback. Also the methodology documents already speaks in terms of IPFIX IEs while y= ou are trying to specify some performance metrics - the methodology could h= ave names and an exact definitions of the metric and then a reference which= IE represents the particular metric AA> will update the methodology doc with exact definitions and reference th= e IEs.=20 RFC5102 section 2.1 specifies a template for IEs with a MUST so the MUST en= tries should be literally followed in your IEs spec - namely name, elementID, description, dataType and status. RFC5102 section 2.1 specifies MAY entries for the template - like DataTypeS= emantic, units, name - might be preferable to follow the naming as well You interchanged ElementId with name - ElementId should be the numerical ID= of the particular IE, while name of the IE is actually missing AA> Jan, can you look again? I see name (eg. perfPacketExpected) and Elemen= t ID (eg. TBDperfPacketExpected). The TBDperfPacketExpected is actually a p= lace holder for the IANA defined value. Is there still a problem? Instead of using Observation Point - wouldn't be the scope of the element a= ppropriate ?? Or if not then scope should be actually added - are the metri= cs (like perfPacketLoss) applicable to all the traffic seen by the UUT (or = more specifically passing through the Observation Point) or to just individual flows ?? This should also be part of the parti= cular metric definition. AA> We're open to adding scope (as defined as which set of packets would th= is be applicable to). Would you agree that this is more of a methodology it= em than a IE item? Will your IEs be enterprise IEs or IANA ones ?? AA> The idea is to ask for IANA allocation. Section 4.1.2 - Units packets ?? AA> fixed Section 4.1.3 - there is a mis-match between the definition and the range - it should be limited to 0 - 100 + a value when the rate is unknown This d= efinition is also missing in section 4.1.3 of your methodology AA> there is a discussion going on regarding how to represent the unknown.= =20 AA> For the moment, I'll mark the high end as 0x64 (100d). But there also n= eeds to be agreement on how to represent float16, or we go directly to floa= t32. Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2 - the values are just numbers/ids so units shouldn't = be octets but "none" ?? AA> agree. Copy-paste errors. The IPFIX guys here have had few discussions regarding IE definitions explo= sions with all the needs like this - have you thought using RFC6313 now (st= ructured data) ?? AA> only in the case of the unknown-- which has been purposely left out of = this document as there is another doc working on that. Is there a specific = set of IEs that would be suited to structured data? I am not sure I would use RFC2321 as a reference work :-). AA> someone checked :-) huic-ipfix-sipfix is not a work in progress - the ID expired 3 years ago. AA> This was merely to acknowledge prior work. I can take it out if needed. ie-doctors is a WG doc version 2 now - draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-02.txt AA> hopefully the xml tool will resolve this. pmol-metrics-framework is RFC 6390 AA> removed from ipfix draft, fixed in methodology draft. The document would benefit from running it through spell checker. AA> thanks and done :-) Rgds, Jan The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young ....=20 and the strong envy them. Dr. Johnson