Subject: [ippm] traceroute metrics and traceroute storage issues

From: "STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:57:52 +0200

Dear Matt and Henk,

My opinion is that traceroute format and storage issues are not in the scope of the IPPM WG.

I consider that traceroute metrics definitions issues are IPPM topics. The draft (section 7) say that "Round-trip delay metrics, Connectivity metrics, Loss metrics" are relevant metrics for traceroute. This section should be enhanced and should detail the methodology. 

Regards

Emile

________________________________

De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Carsten Schmoll
Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2005 12:36
À : [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [ippm] traceroute as WG work item?

Dear Sandra, Mark, all,

I think that it is a worthwhile attempt to focus traceroute output into a 
standards format. I further fully agree that it is vital to include more
data into the information model than just the one that the traceroute
command itself can deliver. 

Allthough this topic cannot be seen as an urgent problem I think it is 
worth contacting projects who already did work on putting traceroute 
data into some (proprietary) database or other kind of storage.

If these would join the work it could be really successful.

Finally let me suggest that I'd vote for a human readable format,
so there still would be the chance to work on results by using 
scripts (even if it involves an XML paerser lib as well).

If so then one importatnt step is also how to store multiple
traceroute results together in one block of information in 
a meaningful way. If this is achieved successfully, one can think
about deriving a MIB or IPFIX template as well depending on
the need of the community.

At first though I agree that it is vital to find a critical mass of
motivated people to put this action forward.

Kind regards,
Carsten.

Mark Allman wrote:

Hi Sandra-

	When you exchange measurements, you most probably want to have more
	precise information on how such measurements were carried out.
	Especially, I would like to know what options have been used to run the
	traceroute or what default values (e.g. Max-TTL value or Probe Data
	Size) are used by the specific traceroute.
	Such information would not be included with the three lines you propose.

Sure.  Although, it easily could be.  The lines were meant to convey the
ease with which one can generate the right raw and meta data such that
all this proposed effort boils down to is defining a format.
 
And, I agree with all of the above... that in some system for sharing
folks have to define how the information is exchanged (at least how the
meta-data is exchanged -- it is not clear to me that we need to
re-encode actual measurements).  I completely agree -- and have even
published positions on such issues.  I think it is vital work for the
research community to share measurements.
 
So, let me try one more time to say that I don't think this work is
harmful somehow.  I just don't think it is a wonderfully compelling use
of IETF resources either.  And, I still very much worry about the energy
level for this one (which seems to be basically nil within the WG).
 
Also note, that my strong argument for a detail of this scheme (e.g.,
XML vs. binary) should not be confused together with my high level
feeling that this is not a hugely important IETF topic.
 
allman

PS- I will also note that I am not the best judge of what is compelling
    IETF work.  I think the IETF wastes a lot of effort on corners that
    either don't need to be worried about at all or can safely be worked
    out independent of the standards process.

________________________________

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

-- 
"The difference between theory and practice is that in theory 
 theory and practice are the same but in practice they are not."
 
Dipl.Ing. Carsten Schmoll                Fraunhofer Institute FOKUS
[email-masked]      National Research Institute
Fraunhofer FOKUS / dept. METEOR          for Open Communication Systems
Tel: +49-30-3463-7136                    Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31
Fax: +49-30-3463-8000                    D-10589 Berlin, Germany
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm