From yaakov_s@rad.com Sun Nov 1 06:35:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB723A65A6 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:35:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.648 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.650, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jYDgL30paJxT for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:35:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from antivir1.rad.co.il (mx1-q.rad.co.il [80.74.100.136]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077DF3A659C for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:35:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from exrad4.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.47]) by antivir1.rad.co.il with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2009 16:35:53 +0200 Received: from exrad4.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.47]) by exrad4.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.47]) with mapi; Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:35:52 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: IETF IPPM WG Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:35:51 +0200 Thread-Topic: draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 Thread-Index: AcpYwapSY+CcKN08QU+uBrO76QIvcQ== Message-ID: <48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26exrad4adradcoil_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:35:59 -0000 --_000_48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26exrad4adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I read the aforementioned draft with interest, as I believe that it is impo= rtant to have a way of quantifying the burstiness of packet loss. I must admit to having read it too quickly, as I am traveling and wanted to= get some comments in before the upcoming meeting. While I believe that the metrics defined are a good first step, I must admi= t to feeling unsatisfied with them. I simply am not sure that the concept of burstiness has been captured suffi= ciently well. Yes, the duration of a packet burst and the frequency of bursts are nice to= have, but first we need to quantify how bursty the loss is - if it is not bursty = then these two metrics are meaningless. For this purpose the draft proposes loss-pair-counts and bi-packet-loss-rat= io, but loss-pair-counts are too raw and bi-packet-loss-ratio doesn't seem to d= escribe the right thing. Another minor gripe I have with the methodology is the introduction of time= . I think of burstiness in terms of packet (transmit) sequence number. Is it really necessary to introduce a time scale ? It seems to complicate t= hings. What did I expect as a metric ? Well, I have become used to the use of Gilb= ert-Elliott models, where there are two states - loss and non-loss, with easily measured probab= ilities of transitions between the states, and probabilities of loss or not in either state. These= probabilities seem to capture well the subjective idea of burstiness, but it takes a while to get= used to them. Intuitively, after defining the probability of loss, we need to describe th= e higher moments or cumulants. So a simple derived metric would be the probability of consecutive packets = being lost divided by the PLR^2, the probability of three consecutive packets lost divided by PLR^3, etc. As a complement one could do the probability of two randomly chosen distant= packets both being lost divided by PLR^2, etc. Can someone map the metrics described in the draft to these ideas ? Y(J)S --_000_48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26exrad4adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I read the aforementioned draft with interest, as I be= lieve that it is important to have a way of quantifying the burstiness of packet = loss.

I must admit to having read it too quickly, as I am traveling and wanted to get some comments in before the upcoming meeting.

 

While I believe that the metrics defined are a good fi= rst step, I must admit to feeling unsatisfied with them.

I simply am not sure that the concept of burstiness ha= s been captured sufficiently well.

 

Yes, the duration of a packet burst and the frequency = of bursts are nice to have,

but first we need to quantify how bursty the loss is &= #8211; if it is not bursty then these two metrics are meaningless.

For this purpose the draft proposes loss-pair-counts a= nd bi-packet-loss-ratio,

but loss-pair-counts are too raw and bi-packet-loss-ra= tio doesn't seem to describe the right thing.

 

Another minor gripe I have with the methodology is the introduction of time.

I think of burstiness in terms of packet (transmit) se= quence number.

Is it really necessary to introduce a time scale ? It = seems to complicate things.

 

What did I expect as a metric ? Well, I have become us= ed to the use of Gilbert-Elliott models,

where there are two states – loss and non-loss, = with easily measured probabilities of transitions

between the states, and probabilities of loss or not i= n either state. These probabilities seem to

capture well the subjective idea of burstiness, but it= takes a while to get used to them.

 

Intuitively, after defining the probability of loss, w= e need to describe the higher moments or cumulants.

So a simple derived metric would be the probability of consecutive packets being lost divided by the PLR^2,

the probability of three consecutive packets lost divi= ded by PLR^3, etc.

As a complement one could do the probability of two ra= ndomly chosen distant packets both being lost

divided by PLR^2, etc.

 

Can someone map the metrics described in the draft to = these ideas ?

 

Y(J)S

 

--_000_48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26exrad4adradcoil_-- From duffield@research.att.com Tue Nov 3 13:40:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D3B28C122 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:40:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5J8FlYaetmS3 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:40:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yellow.research.att.com (mail-dark.research.att.com [192.20.225.112]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2602A28C0EB for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:40:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from njfpsrvexg3.research.att.com (newman-o.research.att.com [135.207.26.11]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E550F3715; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com ([135.207.176.38]) by njfpsrvexg3.research.att.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:41:01 -0500 Received: from njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com ([135.207.26.12]) by njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com ([135.207.26.12]) with mapi; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:41:01 -0500 From: "DUFFIELD, NICHOLAS G (NICK)" To: 'Yaakov Stein' , IETF IPPM WG Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:41:00 -0500 Thread-Topic: draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 Thread-Index: AcpYwapSY+CcKN08QU+uBrO76QIvcQEC/Qsg Message-ID: <4505FA7960878D4EB29CE0FDAADCB2D50E72FC58D2@njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il> 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-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2009 21:41:01.0295 (UTC) FILETIME=[563717F0:01CA5CCE] Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:40:42 -0000 Yaakov, > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf=20 > Of Yaakov Stein > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:36 AM > To: IETF IPPM WG > Subject: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 >=20 > I read the aforementioned draft with interest, as I believe that it is=20 > important to have a way of quantifying the burstiness of packet loss. >=20 > I must admit to having read it too quickly, as I am traveling and=20 > wanted to get some comments in before the upcoming meeting. Thanks for finding the time to review the draft before the upcoming IETF me= eting. Please see responses inline below: >=20 >=20 >=20 > While I believe that the metrics defined are a good first step, I must=20 > admit to feeling unsatisfied with them. >=20 > I simply am not sure that the concept of burstiness has been captured=20 > sufficiently well. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Yes, the duration of a packet burst and the frequency of bursts are=20 > nice to have, >=20 > but first we need to quantify how bursty the loss is - if it is not=20 > bursty then these two metrics are meaningless. We are not trying to reproduce some other definitions of burstiness, e.g., = those based on moments (or cumulants), such as the index of dispersion of c= ounts.=20 The metrics of duration and frequency of loss episodes directly characteriz= e the (loss) experience of traffic flows, and can be related to application= requirements and SLAs. They are transparent, easy to implement, do not dep= end on a reference model, and are meaningful whether or not the underlying = loss patterns are bursty.=20 (As an aside, one could formulate a test for the presence or absence of bur= stiness based on the metric values, according to whether they are together = consistent with Poissonian loss). >=20 > For this purpose the draft proposes loss-pair-counts and=20 > bi-packet-loss- ratio, The "end products" of this draft are the metrics in Section 6: 1. Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-Stream-Ratio (the packet loss ra= te)=20 2. Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-Stream-Episode-Duration (the los= s episode duration)=20 3. Type-P-One-way-Bi-Packet-Loss-Geometric-Stream-Episode-Frequency (the fr= equency at which loss episode start) >=20 > but loss-pair-counts are too raw >=20 For exposition, we organized some of the intermediate quantities as what we= termed proto-metrics in Section 5, in order to avoid repeated definitions = in the end product metrics of Section 6. But these could be rolled up toget= her in implementations. We can add a statement that the proto-metrics thems= elves need not be reported. > and bi-packet-loss-ratio doesn't seem to > describe the right thing. Bi-packet-loss-ratio is the average loss as reported using the metric metho= dology. Although it is not the central new metric of this effort (it doesn'= t inform on burstiness) we believe it is still useful to have the ability t= o report average loss in the burst loss measurement framework, since it mak= es the burst-loss metrics standalone for the measurement of average loss. >=20 >=20 > Another minor gripe I have with the methodology is the introduction of > time. >=20 > I think of burstiness in terms of packet (transmit) sequence number. >=20 > Is it really necessary to introduce a time scale ? It seems to complicate > things. >=20 If people want to know the temporal duration and frequency of loss episodes= , then time is useful. >=20 >=20 > What did I expect as a metric ? Well, I have become used to the use of > Gilbert-Elliott models, >=20 > where there are two states - loss and non-loss, with easily measured > probabilities of transitions As mentioned above, the metrics here are model independent. On the other ha= nd, the metric values that would be obtained if applied to a Gilbert-Elliot= loss process can be related to the parameters of the model. We can detail = this in the draft if that would be of interest. >=20 > between the states, and probabilities of loss or not in either state. > These probabilities seem to >=20 > capture well the subjective idea of burstiness, but it takes a while to > get used to them. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Intuitively, after defining the probability of loss, we need to describe > the higher moments or cumulants. >=20 > So a simple derived metric would be the probability of consecutive packet= s > being lost divided by the PLR^2, The metrics in the draft in fact work directly with the probabilities of th= e loss or transmission for two consecutive packets. In particular, the loss= -pair-counts, to which you earlier referred, are, when divided by the numbe= r of probe pairs, the measured probabilities of these pair events. >=20 > the probability of three consecutive packets lost divided by PLR^3, etc. In principle, higher order moments could be used to obtain a more detailed = statistical picture of the burstiness. However, higher order moments are su= bject to greater statistical estimation error, and are in any case not need= ed to answer the basic question as we see it: how frequent and how long are= loss episodes? This last point also applies to the "distant packets" matte= r following. >=20 > As a complement one could do the probability of two randomly chosen > distant packets both being lost >=20 > divided by PLR^2, etc. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Can someone map the metrics described in the draft to these ideas ? >=20 In summary, we can detail the connection to specific models in future versi= ons on the draft. >=20 >=20 > Y(J)S >=20 >=20 Nick From Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Tue Nov 3 23:40:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D66328C1DC for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:40:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W7gWbEeFXVk6 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DDC28C1DD for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:40:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2009 08:40:38 +0100 Received: from S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.12]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:40:38 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:40:37 +0100 Message-ID: <151C164FE2E066418D8D44D0801543A502788EBA@S4DE8PSAAQA.mitte.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: <4505FA7960878D4EB29CE0FDAADCB2D50E72FC58D2@njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 Thread-Index: AcpYwapSY+CcKN08QU+uBrO76QIvcQEC/QsgABSrDUA= References: <48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il> <4505FA7960878D4EB29CE0FDAADCB2D50E72FC58D2@njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com> From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2009 07:40:38.0451 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A457030:01CA5D22] Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:40:25 -0000 Nick,=20 [snip] =20 [Yaakov]> What did I expect as a metric ? Well, I have become used to = the use of > Gilbert-Elliott models, >=20 > where there are two states - loss and non-loss, with easily measured > probabilities of transitions [Nick]: As mentioned above, the metrics here are model independent. On = the other hand, the metric values that would be obtained if applied to a = Gilbert-Elliot loss process can be related to the parameters of the = model. We can detail this in the draft if that would be of interest. [Ruediger]: Whether related to Gilbert Elliot or modelling in general, a = more informative statement on applicability of the metrics is indeed = useful.=20 Regards, Ruediger Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH=20 Zentrum Technik Einf=FChrung=20 Technik Internet Backbone, TE142-19 R=FCdiger Geib Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7 64297 Darmstadt Tel.: 06151/6282747 Fax: 0251/7985109 Deutsche Telekom Netzproduktion GmbH=20 Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Steffen Roehn (Vorsitzender)=20 Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrung: Dr. Bruno Jacobfeuerborn (Vorsitzender), Albert = Matheis, Klaus Peren=20 Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 14190=20 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn=20 USt-IdNr.: DE 814645262 From vinayakh@gmail.com Thu Nov 5 04:47:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCAB3A6AAA for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:47:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nUCt-bQ0uIum for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:47:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAF63A68D1 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:47:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 25so3831eya.51 for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:47:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xCemeyLDaDTKQBZWrQVUyZkCu/xkb06dUZEDzm21bAw=; b=U691xSvs2qq0p52mehci2tFvKf53IYgvxvk4ae0eZ5EIxly5gwZ5ZC1PjfoD8qP1+L ILxRrDuheDnuHx4NkjlYFLigzFg/UUnsLtSqawMam5VY4otLRJjEZ30W47+y9fA2IgZM u1VkIlja5/HQRd2IV9Tx0+ZKtdl5ZUUny4ELU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ebp5+4tcVDfE66sMJ7zMTlbOxlCfPpgyXoCItr/Q0o+Pf+lqbjSY3a7PDjF5S5qOTq Dcz8GYWw6SVbFQW9SsgNYq7GUO6c3XCtvfsUcMuJpYSnV7bYvjASw7cJ8rtHJ/BW2lWK j93CeM3DIuWsUKXujkcUIJARxzLG8dvSk2zFM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.88.201 with SMTP id a51mr954074wef.154.1257425273244; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:47:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il> References: <48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:17:53 +0530 Message-ID: <38940f3c0911050447l28b1773dn49ea715eea2a6538@mail.gmail.com> From: Vinayak Hegde To: Yaakov Stein Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:47:36 -0000 On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > I read the aforementioned draft with interest, as I believe that it is > important to have a way of quantifying the burstiness of packet loss. [Snip] I agree to what Yaakov has said with regards to time. When I think for burstiness, I would like to have a metric which can be scaled to multiple packets in succession, so while this draft might start with a pair of packets, it might be inadequate. The reason being, I would like to have a better sample with higher resolution of measurement. Quantification of bursty loss will be more accurate in terms of percentage when more packets are involved in succession. Also the order of loss of individual packets in a stream (a bunch of packets used for measurement) might not be important, what would matter is the aggregate sample such as there was a loss of 1 packet on average when 10 bursts of 10 packets were used as compared to a loss of 1 loss-pair per 10 loss-pair packets. The only counterexample that I can think of is when some packets are more important that others and there is a periodic 'SYNC' packet send in a stream. The loss of the SYNC packet would be higher as compared to other packets if it is a periodic loss every X interval. Additional comments: In section 4., a geometric distribution is mentioned. It is not clear to me why a geometric distribution might be used between successive time (exponential backoff/damping oscillations). any precedent for this ? In section 4.3 / 4.4 What are the use cases for m <= n Why would m be <= n is not immediately clear. In section 4.7 Should there be a reference to asymmetric losses ? For example in a video conferencing app with two participant there is loss in one direction but not the other leading to loss in video/audio quality. In section 5.1 Why is there a differentiation between (1,0) and (0,1) packets. In burstiness, shouldn't the aggregate statistics matter and not the order of loss ? Finally the selection function is mentioned in several places in the draft. A couple of examples of each with real-life scenarios could be useful. -- Vinayak From duffield@research.att.com Thu Nov 5 08:12:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9159228C1FC for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:12:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 917dx3CeQF+h for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:12:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yellow.research.att.com (mail-dark.research.att.com [192.20.225.112]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4979F28C1F5 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:12:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from njfpsrvexg3.research.att.com (newman-o.research.att.com [135.207.26.11]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6AFF43A6; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:12:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com ([135.207.176.38]) by njfpsrvexg3.research.att.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:12:28 -0500 Received: from njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com ([135.207.26.12]) by njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com ([135.207.26.12]) with mapi; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:12:28 -0500 From: "DUFFIELD, NICHOLAS G (NICK)" To: IETF IPPM WG Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:12:28 -0500 Thread-Topic: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 Thread-Index: AcpeFjibkQbJ5ZoHRPSgootKOY5XvwAG6RGw Message-ID: <4505FA7960878D4EB29CE0FDAADCB2D50E72FC58DE@njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <38940f3c0911050447l28b1773dn49ea715eea2a6538@mail.gmail.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-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2009 16:12:28.0792 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5795780:01CA5E32] Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:12:07 -0000 Vinayak, Thanks for reading the draft. Responses are inline below: > -----Original Message----- > From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf=20 > Of Vinayak Hegde > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:48 AM > To: Yaakov Stein > Cc: IETF IPPM WG > Subject: Re: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 >=20 > On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote: > > I read the aforementioned draft with interest, as I believe that it=20 > > is important to have a way of quantifying the burstiness of packet loss= . > [Snip] >=20 > I agree to what Yaakov has said with regards to time. When I think for=20 > burstiness, I would like to have a metric which can be scaled to=20 > multiple packets in succession, so while this draft might start with a=20 > pair of packets, it might be inadequate. The reason being, I would=20 > like to have a better sample with higher resolution of measurement. > Quantification of bursty loss will be more accurate in terms of=20 > percentage when more packets are involved in succession. Also the=20 > order of loss of individual packets in a stream (a bunch of packets=20 > used for measurement) might not be important, what would matter is the=20 > aggregate sample such as there was a loss of 1 packet on average when=20 > 10 bursts of 10 packets were used as compared to a loss of 1 loss-pair=20 > per 10 loss-pair packets. >=20 I think we draft authors may have created some unmet expectations as to wha= t this draft is trying to achieve, by too liberal use of the term "burstine= ss". A more accurate idea of the work would be conveyed by saying it define= s "loss episode metrics", specifically, the average length of loss episodes= , and the average number of loss episodes per unit time. The focus on time is because we want to relate the durations of episodes to= the temporal requirements of applications. Metrics scaled by packet count = rather than time are not so useful because the packet rates of probe and ap= plication traffic are in general different. A great advantage of using average loss episode metrics (duration and frequ= ency) is that they do not require measurement of complete loss bursts (nor = loss patterns as in RFC 3357). They only require measurement of the frequen= cies of the 4 possible outcomes from two successive packets, and these can = be estimated from sampling.=20 If there is WG interest is trying to formulate metrics which capture genera= l multipacket statistical detail of loss episodes, this could be considered= as a different WG item. This would be necessary for metrics of loss episod= es other than the average properties (e.g. variance of episode duration). H= owever, that is outside the scope of this draft, which is the simplest incr= ement from RFC 2680 that provides metrics that inform of properties loss ep= isodes, instead of just an average packet loss rate.=20 > The only counterexample that I can think of is when some packets are=20 > more important that others and there is a periodic 'SYNC' packet send=20 > in a stream. The loss of the SYNC packet would be higher as compared=20 > to other packets if it is a periodic loss every X interval. >=20 > Additional comments: >=20 > In section 4., a geometric distribution is mentioned. It is not clear=20 > to me why a geometric distribution might be used between successive=20 > time (exponential backoff/damping oscillations). any precedent for=20 > this ? >=20 The probes (=3D packet pairs) are sampling the bi-packet outcomes. So you c= an think of the geometric distribution as giving rise to (discrete) Poisson= probing at the packet pair level, analogous to the single packet Poisson p= robing for one-way loss measurement in RFC 2680. Geometric sampling in gene= ral is described in RFC 2330. > In section 4.3 / 4.4 What are the use cases for m <=3D n Why would m be=20 > <=3D n is not immediately clear. Consider a set of evenly spaced times at which probe pairs could be sent. F= rom these times and (random) subset of size m <=3D n is selected, e.g., by = means of the geometric sampling just discussed. >=20 > In section 4.7 Should there be a reference to asymmetric losses ? For=20 > example in a video conferencing app with two participant there is loss=20 > in one direction but not the other leading to loss in video/audio=20 > quality. The metrics in the draft are one way metrics. >=20 > In section 5.1 Why is there a differentiation between (1,0) and (0,1)=20 > packets. In burstiness, shouldn't the aggregate statistics matter and=20 > not the order of loss ? In estimating the frequencies of episodes from the samples, it is more accu= rate to count both the "episode start" samples (0,1) and the "episode end" = samples (1,0). >=20 > Finally the selection function is mentioned in several places in the=20 > draft. A couple of examples of each with real-life scenarios could be=20 > useful. OK; we will elaborate in next version. >=20 > -- Vinayak Nick > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From henk@ripe.net Sat Nov 7 20:53:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26BF3A698A for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:53:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.459 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x2Jj2yRUrbp2 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3769E3A69A5 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 20:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1N6zmJ-0004CT-Hi for ippm@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:53:33 +0100 Received: from host-112-185.meeting.ietf.org (henk.vpn.ripe.net [193.0.21.33]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCB12F583 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 05:53:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4AF64EC5.1030706@ripe.net> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:53:25 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d593623c4aa6e99feb8c607945603c579e Subject: [ippm] [Fwd: ippm WebEx Meeting Invitation] X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:53:10 -0000 IPPM group, Webex details for the IETF IPPM session can be found below. Henk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ippm WebEx Meeting Invitation Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:47:26 -0800 From: Alexa Morris To: Matthew J Zekauskas , Henk Uijterwaal References: <223097208.1257648127398.JavaMail.nobody@jsj2wl001.webex.com> Please forward this to the ippm mail list. **** You can forward this email invitation to attendees **** Hello , IETF Secretariat invites you to attend this online meeting. Topic: ippm at IETF 76 Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 Time: 12:45 pm, Japan Time (Tokyo, GMT+09:00) Meeting Number: 969 386 891 Meeting Password: ippm ------------------------------------------------------- To join the online meeting (Now from iPhones too!) ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=130168492&UID=0&PW=NYTNjNDRiMzc0&RT=MiM0OQ%3D%3D 2. Enter your name and email address. 3. Enter the meeting password: ippm 4. Click "Join Now". To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=130168492&UID=0&PW=NYTNjNDRiMzc0&ORT=MiM0OQ%3D%3D ------------------------------------------------------- To join the audio conference only ------------------------------------------------------- To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the meeting, or call the number below and enter the access code. Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 866-699-3239 Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-792-6300 Toll-free dialing restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf Access code:969 386 891 ------------------------------------------------------- For assistance ------------------------------------------------------- 1. Go to https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/mc 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". You can contact me at: amorris@amsl.com 1-510-492-4081 To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=130168492&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=k0nLPisFjnOBQXm7pdQozmxM5YmbBlBJVnLZr0p5Pbs=&RT=MiM0OQ%3D%3D The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your computer by going tohttps://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/ systemdiagnosis.php Sign up for a free trial of WebEx http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial http://www.webex.com IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, do not join the session. ----------- Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538 Phone: +1.510.492.4089 / Fax: +1.510.492.4001 Email: amorris@amsl.com Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS) Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning www.amsl.com -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From henk@ripe.net Sat Nov 7 21:36:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7CB3A6867 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:36:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.968, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mu5Em0-mF2sl for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:36:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A07D3A67A4 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:36:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1N70Rk-0005OR-Hq for ippm@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:36:22 +0100 Received: from host-112-185.meeting.ietf.org (henk.vpn.ripe.net [193.0.21.33]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E703E2F583 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:36:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4AF658CE.1040601@ripe.net> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:36:14 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d54b44959260505b4f8d21f757f7976b52 Subject: [ippm] [Fwd: Fwd: (Forward to attendees) Meeting rescheduled: ippm at IETF 76] X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:36:02 -0000 Update, now with the right time and day. Henk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: (Forward to attendees) Meeting rescheduled: ippm at IETF 76 Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:16:35 -0800 From: Alexa Morris To: Henk Uijterwaal , Matthew J Zekauskas References: <173847554.1257654300237.JavaMail.nobody@jsj2wl001.webex.com> and the revised invitation for attendees... Begin forwarded message: > *From: *IETF Secretariat > > *Date: *November 7, 2009 8:25:00 PM PST > *To: *amorris@amsl.com > *Subject: **(Forward to attendees) Meeting rescheduled: ippm at IETF 76* > *Reply-To: *amorris@amsl.com > > **** You can forward this email invitation to attendees **** > > Hello , > > IETF Secretariat changed the date for this online meeting. > > Topic: ippm at IETF 76 > Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 > Time: 12:45 pm, Japan Time (Tokyo, GMT+09:00) > Meeting Number: 969 386 891 > Meeting Password: ippm > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the online meeting (Now from iPhones too!) > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to > https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=130168492&UID=0&PW=NYTNjNDRiMzc0&RT=MiM0OQ%3D%3D > > > 2. Enter your name and email address. > 3. Enter the meeting password: ippm > 4. Click "Join Now". > > To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: > https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=130168492&UID=0&PW=NYTNjNDRiMzc0&ORT=MiM0OQ%3D%3D > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the audio conference only > ------------------------------------------------------- > To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the > meeting, or call the number below and enter the access code. > Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 866-699-3239 > Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-792-6300 > Toll-free dialing restrictions: > http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > Access code:969 386 891 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > For assistance > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/mc > 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". > > You can contact me at: > amorris@amsl.com > 1-510-492-4081 > > To update this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft > Outlook), click this link: > https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=130168492&UID=0&ICS=MRS2&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=k0nLPisFjnOBQXm7pdQozmxM5YmbBlBJVnLZr0p5Pbs=&RT=MiM0OQ%3D%3D > > > > > WebEx will automatically setup Meeting Manager for Windows the first > time you join a meeting. To save time, you can setup prior to the > meeting by clicking this link: > https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/meetingcenter/mcsetup.php > > > The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files > requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in > the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on > your computer by going to > https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/systemdiagnosis.php > > Sign up for a free trial of WebEx > http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial > > http://www.webex.com > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows > audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during > the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically > consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, do > not join the session. ----------- Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538 Phone: +1.510.492.4089 / Fax: +1.510.492.4001 Email: amorris@amsl.com Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS) Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning www.amsl.com -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From henk@ripe.net Sun Nov 8 22:13:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE2B3A69D0 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:13:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.940, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i5LrFg20n-Cy for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355C13A68CF for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1N7NVb-0004qP-Eu for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:13:53 +0100 Received: from host-16-231.meeting.ietf.org (henk.vpn.ripe.net [193.0.21.33]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D065E2F583 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:13:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4AF7B318.4020306@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:13:44 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5147e05040ecf3a8365eb172b2ffb2709 Subject: [ippm] Updated agenda for tomorrow X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:13:39 -0000 IPPM group, Here is the next iteration of the agenda for tomorrow: 1. Administrativia (Chairs, 5') 2. Status of drafts and milestones (Chairs, 10') 3. Reporting drafts. a. draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-04.txt Status of this draft (chairs, 5') b. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-00 The new WG item, status and developments (Al Morton, 5') 4. Metrics composition drafts status. (Al Morton, 10') 5. TWAMP features (10') a. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03 (Morton, Ciavattone) b. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-02 (Morton, Chiba) 6. Advancing Metrics along the standards path (Geib, 20') http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-geib-ippm-metrictest-01.txt 7. TCP Throughput Testing (Barry Constantine, 20') http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt 8. Burst Loss Metrics/Dick Duffield (20') 9. AOB Comments are still welcome. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From henk@ripe.net Sun Nov 8 22:22:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05E63A6AEA for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:22:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id umS7ajUwa5ql for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1843A6AE2 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1N7NeJ-00048V-GF for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:22:53 +0100 Received: from host-16-231.meeting.ietf.org (henk.vpn.ripe.net [193.0.21.33]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA45D2F592 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:22:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4AF7B535.7000205@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:22:45 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5393c815aedda09dc35c3a24338f3d107 Subject: [ippm] Details for those presenting tomorrow X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:22:31 -0000 IPPM Group, As you know, tomorrow's meeting will be on Webcast. In order to make this run as smooth as it should go: 1. If you have slides, please send me a copy BEFORE Tuesday 11:00 local time. (That is 3am CET and about 7pm MONDAY in the US.). We need the slides so remote participants can participate. Do not assume that I still have time to upload things after 11am. 2. If you are presenting through WebEx, please log in to WebEx some 10 to 15 minutes before the meeting starts. Instructions have been sent around. 3. If you are presenting locally, please use your own laptop. (I only have one with me and need it to manage the meeting). 4. Finally, my co-chair isn't here, so I really need a scribe and jabber monitor for this session. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From henk@ripe.net Mon Nov 9 17:53:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B443A69BC for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:53:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.894, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fJMNz9dldQHj for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777FA3A68E0 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1N7fvT-0001HZ-UN for ippm@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:53:49 +0100 Received: from host-112-185.meeting.ietf.org (henk.vpn.ripe.net [193.0.21.33]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F0A2F583 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:53:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4AF8C7A6.6040002@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:53:42 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d54810511b8b90460af799e47d4fcc2b7d Subject: [ippm] Meeting materials have been uploaded X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:53:24 -0000 Hi all, All slides for today are on the tools site: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/76/materials.html there are less slide packs than talks. This is correct. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From ljorgenson@apparentnetworks.com Tue Nov 10 07:52:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953C93A6AFB for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:52:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.858 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.858 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.741, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2DGjo-brL-jd for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:52:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from JSRVR18.jaalam.net (relay2.apparentnetworks.net [209.139.228.52]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13193A6973 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:52:19 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: ac108108-00000700000007a0-7e-4af98c4917d1 Received: from jsrvr8.jaalam.net ([172.16.128.105] RDNS failed) by JSRVR18.jaalam.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:52:41 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:52:46 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: missed update meeting time for on-line Thread-Index: AcpgriVwiA+o1vJ+Tp+8tM6auXi4JABbyakg References: From: "Loki Jorgenson" To: X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [ippm] missed update meeting time for on-line X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:52:20 -0000 Regrets to have missed the meeting on-line yesterday - I receive the digests and did not see the updated meeting time (moving it up by 24 hours from now) buried behind the first announcement. I look forward to notes from the meeting. Loki Jorgenson Apparent Networks t 604 433 2333 ext 105 m 604 250-4642 -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ippm-request@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:00 To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: ippm Digest, Vol 66, Issue 4 Today's Topics: 1. [Fwd: ippm WebEx Meeting Invitation] (Henk Uijterwaal) 2. [Fwd: Fwd: (Forward to attendees) Meeting rescheduled: ippm at IETF 76] (Henk Uijterwaal) From mchiba@cisco.com Wed Nov 11 11:13:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CA33A6403 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:13:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UDhxJH4kV+TI for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:13:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A7B3A6869 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:13:55 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAMab+kqrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbADFWpgVhDwE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,724,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="269660879" Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2009 19:14:23 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nABJEND8024691 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:14:23 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:14:23 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:14:23 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <38940f3c0911050447l28b1773dn49ea715eea2a6538@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 Thread-Index: AcpeFjhavZLqqeUGSm+lhK2SeVtxHQE6/RKw References: <48E7911F78327A449A9FB956376672862E72AD26@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il> <38940f3c0911050447l28b1773dn49ea715eea2a6538@mail.gmail.com> From: "Murtaza Chiba (mchiba)" To: "IETF IPPM WG" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2009 19:14:23.0678 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DBB45E0:01CA6303] Subject: [ippm] draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:13:56 -0000 I took a look at the draft and it was hard to understand the concepts without diagrams. Also, I am not sure about the reasons to use geometric v/s the non-geometric form. Lastly, I could not understand the formulae very well, are these based on standard probability functions, do I need to read some other document? I agree with a previous reviewer that the concepts need more examples to make it understandable. Regards, -murtaza From sandrine.vaton@telecom-bretagne.eu Thu Nov 12 01:05:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC1228C15B for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:05:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IXMKd7e7qFZI for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:05:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.115.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4A128C10F for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:05:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2009.11.10) with ESMTP id nAC95SL7021648; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:05:28 +0100 Received: from courrier.enst-bretagne.fr (smtps.enst-bretagne.fr [10.29.90.4]) by coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2009.11.10) with ESMTP id nAC95Mjd021607; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:05:26 +0100 Received: from pc-info-013.priv.enst-bretagne.fr (pc-info-013.priv.enst-bretagne.fr [10.29.172.13]) (user=vaton mech=PLAIN bits=0) by courrier.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/2009.05.22) with ESMTP id nAC95K7L015803 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:05:20 +0100 Message-ID: <4AFBCFD0.2040703@telecom-bretagne.eu> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:05:20 +0100 From: Sandrine VATON Organization: =?UTF-8?B?VMOpbMOpY29tIEJyZXRhZ25l?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ippm@ietf.org, Christian Callegari Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at enst-bretagne.fr X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:21:29 -0800 Subject: [ippm] TRAC: 1st International Workshop on TRaffic Analysis and Classification X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: sandrine.vaton@telecom-bretagne.eu List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:09:15 -0000 Dear colleagues, On behalf of the technical program committee we would like to invite you to submit your papers to TRAC 2010. Co-chairs: Christian Callegari (Univ. Pisa), Sandrine Vaton (TELECOM Bretagne). TRAC 2010 1st International Workshop on TRaffic Analysis and Classification ACM and IEEE sponsored (pending) June 28. - July 2. 2010, Caen, France http://netgroup.iet.unipi.it/trac2010 co-located with IWCMC 2010 (http://iwcmc.com ) CALL FOR PAPERS Brief description ----------------- The evolution of the Internet in the last few years has been characterized by dramatic changes to the way users behave, interact and utilize the network. The rapid introduction of new categories of applications such as network games and peer-to-peer, the increasing presence of malicious traffic, and the widespread use of encryption techniques, make the measurement, analysis and classification of Internet traffic a challenging task. The research community and many network operators are responding to these changes by designing and deploying traffic measurement and classification architectures of increasing complexity. Such activities are pivotal for researchers, developers, service managers and providers, as well as for end users involved in the evolution of the networks. Traffic classification and analysis mechanisms belong to the wide set of tools that helps the allocation, control and management of resources in IP networks. Following the development and the evolution of Internet applications, new efficient classification techniques are highly desirable to support advanced capabilities as regards network monitoring, network resource management, anomaly detection, and network auditing. This workshop is intended to serve as a forum for scientists and engineers in academia and industry to exchange and discuss their experiences and research results about all aspects of traffic classification and analysis. Topics of interest ------------------ The workshop is soliciting high quality papers discussing original and innovative experimental activities, unpublished and not currently submitted for publication elsewhere, on topics, including but not limited to, the following:

 • Traffic classification algorithms and techniques • Platforms for on-line, real-time traffic classification
 • Comparisons among traffic classification techniques
 • Privacy-preserving classification techniques
 • Identification and classification of encrypted traffic
 • Classification algorithms for anomaly detection
 • Impact of sampling on network traffic classification • Applications of traffic classification
 • Data-reduction techniques for traffic traces
 • Anonymization tools and their effects on traffic classification
 • Interfaces and architectures for the storage of traffic traces • Traffic measurements, analysis and modeling
 • Packet classification at ultra-high link rates (terabits)
 • Fast table look-up
 • Internet measurements and accounting support in switches/routers • Advanced algorithms for deep packet inspection at high speed • High speed packet processing Important Dates --------------- Papers submission deadline: December 15, 2009 Notification of decision: March 15, 2010 Camera-ready deadline: April 1, 2009 -- Sandrine VATON Maître de Conférences / Associate Professor TELECOM Bretagne, Technopôle Brest-Iroise CS 83818 - 29238 Brest Cedex 3 - France Tel: 02 29 00 10 29 / +33 2 29 00 10 29 Fax: 02 29 00 12 82 / +33 2 29 00 12 82 From henk@ripe.net Mon Nov 16 00:03:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5093A68CE for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:03:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJ0UxMpfeJZz for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F1E3A6887 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1N9wYf-0006Yw-0K for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:03:38 +0100 Received: from geir-3.local (henk.vpn.ripe.net [193.0.21.33]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE982F583 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:03:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B00FD3A.4050206@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:20:26 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipp >> IETF IPPM WG" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---- X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5a823901930199c809e12534881a5848d Subject: [ippm] Draft Minutes X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:03:43 -0000 IPPM group, Please find below the draft minutes of last week's meeting. They are a merger of notes submitted by Erik and Matt (thanks, gentlemen), all errors are probably mine :-) (I'm pretty bad at making minutes). Comments welcome, Henk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IPPM-WG @ IETF 76 ================= Chair: Henk Uijterwaal Scribes: Erik Burger Matt Zekauskas (remote participant) 1. Administrativia. The Chair opened the meeting with the usual stuff. The co-chair could not make the meeting and sent his apologies. Erik Burger voluntered as scribe. The agenda was approved without changes, the speakers for items 4 through 8 will all present through WebEx. 2. Status of drafts and milestones The chair gave an overview of drafts not discussed today: * draft-ietf-ippm-more-twamp-03.txt: published as RFC5618 * draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-13.txt: RFC5644 * draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-04.txt: this draft passed WGLC, it is now on the chair's desk and will be passed to the IESG shortly. * draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-08.txt: Ready for WGLC right after this meeting. 3. Reporting drafts. (Al Morton) a. draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-04.txt: see previous item. b. draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-metrics-00 This draft became a WG item, comments received on the individual submission version have been included in the -00 version. The author is looking for more readers. 4. Metrics composition drafts status. (Al Morton) * draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg * draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition Looking for WGLC on framework draft, Henk says this will be done soon. Spatial composition updated based on what agreed to. Resolved a comment on an early session. Resolved a case to compute e2e performance for multiple segments of a path even if e2e routing is not working. This case is now mentioned. Ruediger Geib said he had some comments that he will post to the list. 5. TWAMP features a. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03 (Morton, Ciavattone) Al briefly outlined the proposed changes that the draft makes to the protocol. It is essentially ready to go to WGLC but the readership has been small. As this makes significant changes to the protocol, a review would be good. Unfortunately, the folks active in the initial version have all moved to other things. The chairs will discuss this further. b. draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-02 (Morton, Chiba) This draft is ready to go to WGLC. 6. Advancing Metrics along the standards path (Geib, 20') http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-geib-ippm-metrictest-01.txt Ruediger presented this draft. Comments from the floor: Matt Mathis: How aggregated was path measurement taken from? It is on the backbone of a major provider, thus heavily aggregated. MM said we need a statistician to understand what happens when temporal resolution taken to low values. Focus was on delay, just a little on packet loss and jitter. Al: ideally think about test plans for validation while developing the metrics on throughput. Is there interest in the work group for this draft? Al, Reza, Rudi, Gerard have been working on the draft. At the SF meeting, 4 others expressed interest but they haven't commented. Henk will chase them. Ruediger is interested in doing live testing, but then sees issue with shipping equipment around the world. There are some possibilities though, to be investigated. 7. TCP Throughput Testing (Barry Constantine, 20') http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-constantine-ippm-tcp-throughput-tm-00.txt This is potential new work, presented to see if there is interest. Barry gave an overview of the draft. Comments: Reudiger: It is OK to standardize methods and metrics, but probably not pass/fail metrics. He does not like idea of putting monitoring system on that constantly loads network. Barry: Intention is for this to be internal, turn-up testing. Not targeted for constant monitoring. Take to list for interest as a WG item. 8. Burst Loss Metrics/Dick Duffield (20') http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics-01.txt This draft was presented by Nick. Comments. Matt Mathis: Has not read draft; however, it sounds like the assumption is the narrowest link is the link likely to be lossy. That may not be true. Nick will do another draft. Submit to WG for consideration. 9. AOB No other business came up. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From duffield@research.att.com Wed Nov 18 09:44:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E9A3A67C0 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:44:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZKNowGAuQOHz for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:44:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yellow.research.att.com (mail-dark.research.att.com [192.20.225.112]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384CF3A69A6 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:44:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from njfpsrvexg3.research.att.com (newman-o.research.att.com [135.207.26.11]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC8D9BE7; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com ([135.207.176.38]) by njfpsrvexg3.research.att.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:41 -0500 Received: from njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com ([135.207.26.12]) by njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com ([135.207.26.12]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:41 -0500 From: "DUFFIELD, NICHOLAS G (NICK)" To: 'Henk Uijterwaal' , "ipp >> IETF IPPM WG" Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:44:41 -0500 Thread-Topic: [ippm] Draft Minutes Thread-Index: Acpmk1th314sRh9HSAa2IpE0kL3c5gB4U+Mw Message-ID: <4505FA7960878D4EB29CE0FDAADCB2D50E72FC590E@njfpsrvexg4.research.att.com> In-Reply-To: <4B00FD3A.4050206@ripe.net> 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-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2009 17:44:41.0343 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE8060F0:01CA6876] Subject: Re: [ippm] Draft Minutes X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:44:57 -0000 > 8. Burst Loss Metrics/Dick Duffield (20') > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duffield-ippm-burst-loss-metrics- > 01.txt >=20 > This draft was presented by Nick. Comments. >=20 > Matt Mathis: Has not read draft; however, it sounds like the > assumption is > the narrowest link is the link likely to be lossy. That may not be > true. A comment on Matt's comment: in the draft there's no assumption about where= loss occurs. I guess Matt has in mind probing with back-to-back packet pai= rs (or trains) and measuring the stretch or compression in order to estimat= e bandwidth.=20 The draft methodology is different; the separation between the packets in a= pair is the temporal resolution at which different loss episodes are to be= distinguished. >=20 > Nick will do another draft. Submit to WG for consideration. > We'll clarify the difference in the next draft. Nick From henk@ripe.net Mon Nov 30 02:49:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFB03A683B for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:49:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.276 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.091, BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HntNRXiRtuaL for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:49:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ripe.net [193.0.19.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC48F3A6915 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NF3ot-00033X-VO for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:49:27 +0100 Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net (ayeaye.ripe.net [193.0.1.103]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB83C2F583 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:49:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from henk.vpn.ripe.net ([193.0.21.33] helo=guest-67.ripe.net) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NF3ot-0004vw-Sj for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:49:27 +0100 Message-ID: <4B13A337.7050501@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:49:27 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ippm >> IETF IPPM WG" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5a7d6f2402b2b74e5e0c2ca044f8ba72e Subject: [ippm] Preparing for a WGLC draft draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:49:42 -0000 IPPM group, At the last IPPM WG meeting, the authors stated that the draft: TWAMP Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-03.txt is considered to be ready for WGLC by the authors. However, the draft does introduce considerable changes in the protocol but has seen very little feedback from the group. In order to proceed with the document, we like to ask everybody interested in the topic to read the document. If you have read the document in the past, then please say so on the list. This doesn't have to be an extensive review, even a 1 line message "yes, I've read the document and it looks fine" is already quite helpful. If you haven't read the document, then please put it on your reading stack for your Xmas vacation. Early January 2010, we'll decide how to proceed with this document. Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken From henk@ripe.net Mon Nov 30 02:54:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732D328C0E1 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:54:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.309 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p3Uf9S5rwYwS for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ripe.net [193.0.19.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4CB3A6A40 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from herring.ripe.net ([193.0.1.203]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NF3tQ-0006wZ-Rj for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:54:08 +0100 Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net (ayeaye.ripe.net [193.0.1.103]) by herring.ripe.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF90F2F583 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:54:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from henk.vpn.ripe.net ([193.0.21.33] helo=guest-67.ripe.net) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NF3tQ-0004yt-P5 for ippm@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:54:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4B13A450.8000502@ripe.net> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:54:08 +0100 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RIPE-Signature: e0cdef1f45f89a40ad608d255b27e7d5afcbf61d7b0f06de3928461ba7ba7a26 Subject: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-02 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:54:17 -0000 IPPM WG, This is a WGLC for the draft: Individual Session Control Feature for TWAMP draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-02 The draft has been discussed extensively in this group, comments from the last reviews have been included and the draft appears to be stable by now. We like to start a WGLC in order to move it forward. Please raise any remaining issues by Monday, January 4, 8:00 UTC. An URL for the draft is: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-02.txt Matt & Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H.L.Mencken