From rschrage@schrageconsult.net Sun Sep 2 12:28:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2BB21F8466; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 12:28:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q4ZMfnbzby8A; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 12:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailoutvans02.telekom-dienste.de (mailoutvans02.telekom-dienste.de [62.153.159.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B0121F8460; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 12:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fwd04.aul.t-online.de (fwd04.aul.t-online.de ) by mailoutvans02.telekom-dienste.de with smtp id 1T8FqJ-00046n-S3; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 21:28:23 +0200 Received: from ReinhardLaptop (TEZTw2ZZotFy6xCnr2xXDZL3unMoIOey3MSKpJ0wmM1mqR0J1mSue2mkLT84MgH5W4OwZMUJmK@[91.4.1.66]) by fwd04.webpage.t-com.de with esmtp id 1T8FqI-113QJc0; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:28:22 +0200 From: "Reinhard Schrage" To: , References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D771989330@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <50244EBF.7010709@internet2.edu> <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D14DD77A228@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D14DD77A228@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 21:28:22 +0200 Message-ID: <002d01cd8941$1de09730$59a1c590$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac12ivfeUwStqsPCSreOgERWfwQNCAANZyggBJxuw9A= Content-Language: en-gb X-ID: TEZTw2ZZotFy6xCnr2xXDZL3unMoIOey3MSKpJ0wmM1mqR0J1mSue2mkLT84MgH5W4OwZMUJmK X-TOI-MSGID: fcece860-4aba-4793-baf3-8c091e91b12d Cc: ietf@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 02 Sep 2012 19:28:28 -0000 I kind of like the idea of a liaison, as due to the work already done in the IETF there is no need to re-invent already proven standards and procedures and both sides may actually benefit. Any actions already in place / planned? Best regards Reinhard Schrage t: +49 (0) 5137 909540 m: +49 (0) 172 26.36.046 reinhard@schrageconsult.com -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Sent: 10 August 2012 08:34 To: matt@internet2.edu Cc: ietf@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum Matt, I've read the liaision statement. The BBF informs us, that they plan to "create a standard set of Broadband performance metrics to address on-going regulatory, and consumer performance information needs." BBF asks for guidance and support. From the document I couldn't identify the architecture. I personally think IPPM members may volunteer to suggest IETF metrics to BBF. But to me that requires that the architecture is clearly defined (by BBF). Regards, Ruediger -----Original Message----- From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Matthew J Zekauskas Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:59 AM To: IETF IPPM WG Subject: [ippm] Fwd: Liaison Statement from the Broadband Forum FYI, if folks here want to review. Ron wants comments to ietf@ietf.org. --Matt ------------------- Folks, The Broadband Forum has sent a liaison statement to the IETF regarding a "New Project - Broadband Access Service Attributes and Performance Measures". Click on the following link for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1179/. Please review and send comments to this list. -------------------------- Ron Bonica vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf _______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm From trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch Sun Sep 2 23:37:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA4821F8499 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 23:37:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a+EPKobM0a+t for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 23:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A04C21F849D for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 23:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54C2D9304 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:37:09 +0200 (MEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id t6+YwTcvSsow for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:37:09 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [10.0.27.100] (cust-integra-121-161.antanet.ch [80.75.121.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FED5D9300 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:37:09 +0200 (MEST) From: Brian Trammell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:37:09 +0200 Message-Id: <8297D00C-3CD0-4B2E-BF7D-5F1ED4D7C718@tik.ee.ethz.ch> To: ippm@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: [ippm] On hybrid performance measurement X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 03 Sep 2012 06:37:13 -0000 Greetings, all, As I mentioned briefly at the microphone in Paris, I'm interested in = making (certain) IPPM metrics usable for passive and hybrid = (passive+active) measurement, in order to support real-time and = retrospective performance measurement in heterogeneous environments = (i.e., where it is not always possible to set up active performance = measurement infrastructure, and where some metrics must be derived from = already-available data sources). This work would consist of (1) selecting a set of metrics defined within = IPPM and (2) defining passive measurement methods which result in values = comparable to those determined through active measurements. = Additionally, I'd like to investigate (3) the definition of standard = export methods which would allow collection of these metrics from = (possibly widely) distributed observation points, whether passive or = active. IPFIX is the technology I lean toward here, as I have some = experience with it; this would probably consist of the definition of new = Information Elements within the IPFIX IANA registry. If there's a face-to-face meeting in Atlanta, I'd like to give a more = detailed presentation on this, in order to gauge WG interest in this = work.=20 Best regards, Brian= From grace.yufang@huawei.com Mon Sep 3 00:52:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0029F21F849C for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 00:52:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.396 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qm+Hom3+V18v for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 00:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9A621F8499 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 00:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKH28303; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 07:52:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:51:08 +0100 Received: from SZXEML417-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:51:52 +0100 Received: from SZXEML546-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.97]) by szxeml417-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.156]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 15:51:44 +0800 From: Yufang To: Henk Uijterwaal Thread-Topic: [ippm] Meeting at IETF 85 Thread-Index: AQHNgEOqy5swPgNT8UK7Ftts5kSurJd35aZA Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 07:51:43 +0000 Message-ID: <038A8B767A209346A5C39B552E514A920F9352FA@szxeml546-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <50349DDC.7020208@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <50349DDC.7020208@uijterwaal.nl> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.64.78] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: IETF IPPM WG Subject: Re: [ippm] Meeting at IETF 85 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 03 Sep 2012 07:52:04 -0000 SGkgSGVuaywNCg0KVGhlIGRyYWZ0IChodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1z dW4tdHN2d2ctZmxvd2Jhc2VkLXBtLTAwICkgaGFzIGJlZW4gZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGF0IGxhc3QgVFNW V0cgbWVldGluZywgaXQgaXMgc3RpbGwgY29uc2lkZXJlZCB0byBiZSBzdHJvbmdseSBjb3JyZWxh dGVkIHRvIHRoZSB3b3JrIGluIElQUE0gV0csIGFuZCBzb21lIHBlb3BsZSBoYXZlIGdpdmVuIG9w aW5pb25zIGFuZCBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucyBhYm91dCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgYXQgb3IgYWZ0ZXIgdGhl IG1lZXRpbmcuIFdlIHRoaW5rIGl0IHN0aWxsIG5lZWRzIHRvIGJlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBhbmQgY2xh cmlmaWVkIGF0IElFVEYgODUsIHNvIEkgYXNrIGZvciBhIGZhY2UgdG8gZmFjZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9u IGF0IHRoZSBuZXh0IElFVEYgbWVldGluZy4NCg0KQmVzdCBSZWdhcmRzLA0KDQpZdSBGYW5nDQoN Cg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRm9ybTogaXBwbS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYu b3JnIFttYWlsdG86aXBwbS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgSGVuayBVaWp0 ZXJ3YWFsDQpTZW50OiAyMDEyxOo41MIyMsjVIDE2OjUzDQpUbzogSUVURiBJUFBNIFdHDQpTdWJq ZWN0OiBbaXBwbV0gTWVldGluZyBhdCBJRVRGIDg1DQoNCklQUE0gR3JvdXAsDQoNCldlIGFyZSBj dXJyZW50bHkgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGRlY2lkZSBpZiBhIGZhY2UtMi1mYWNlIG1lZXRpbmcgYXQgdGhl IG5leHQNCklFVEYgd2lsbCBiZSBuZWNlc3NhcnkuICBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSB0b3BpY3MgdGhhdCB5 b3UgdGhpbmsgY291bGQgYmVuZWZpdA0KZnJvbSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uLCB0aGVuIHBsZWFzZSBjb250 YWN0IHRoZSBjaGFpcnMgYnkgU2VwdCA3Lg0KDQpIZW5rDQoNCi0tIA0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tDQpIZW5rIFVpanRlcndhYWwgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBFbWFpbDog aGVuayhhdCl1aWp0ZXJ3YWFsLm5sDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVpanRlcndhYWwubmwNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFBob25lOiArMzEuNi41NTg2MTc0Ng0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tDQoNClJlYWQgbXkgYmxvZyBhdCBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVpanRlcndhYWwubmwvaGVua3Nf aGFuZHMuaHRtbA0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X18NCmlwcG0gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQppcHBtQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9y Zy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2lwcG0NCg== From acmorton@att.com Mon Sep 3 06:20:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2AA21F8557 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:20:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x6rWpHPI1YEP for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4EBA21F8551 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:20:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id c9ea4405.0.52887.00-447.136765.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:20:29 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 5044ae9d652640c8-1617b434f036c5612b0044ee0b02c45b4add5019 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q83DKRwf018501 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:20:28 -0400 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q83DKOEA018462 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:20:25 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:20:15 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q83DKESG030199 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:20:14 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q83DK5Xv029491 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:20:07 -0400 Message-Id: <201209031320.q83DK5Xv029491@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-178-207.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.178.207](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120903131937gw100sspcve>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:19:39 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.178.207] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:18:11 -0400 To: ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=9v54HX73B2QA:10 a=Jfj-70XZ-rIA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=jGqiy6jZAAAA:8 a=JDjsHSkAAAAA:8 a=YlDpyLmH] X-AnalysisOut: [AAAA:8 a=qerv6Y54AAAA:8 a=X_7kIYLEbP0UOVsSOtgA:9 a=wPNLvfG] X-AnalysisOut: [TeEIA:10 a=p78EunC83D4A:10 a=EMjICKLqsV8A:10 a=Hf6muOzgCGQ] X-AnalysisOut: [A:10 a=WZiKUSCcF5cA:10 a=4kTo75K9SUlLuPM2:21 a=9HZl82LNQoi] X-AnalysisOut: [TvBYI:21] Subject: [ippm] Fwd: [anrp-select] Applied Networking Research Prize 2012 presentations at IETF-85 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 03 Sep 2012 13:20:37 -0000 FYI - the first paper & presentation will be of particular interest to IPPM participants. Al >X-Original-To: anrp-select@ietfa.amsl.com >Delivered-To: anrp-select@ietfa.amsl.com >X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com >From: "Eggert, Lars" >To: "irtf-announce@irtf.org" , > "irtf-discuss@irtf.org" > >Thread-Topic: Applied Networking Research Prize 2012 presentations at= IETF-85 >Thread-Index: AQHNibfptEBqdvEkGE2nldM83AaBDw=3D=3D >Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:38:33 +0000 >Subject: [anrp-select] Applied Networking Research Prize 2012 presentations > at IETF-85 >X-BeenThere: anrp-select@irtf.org >... > > >Hi, > >we are extremely pleased to report that for the 2012 award period of >the Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP), 20 eligible nominations >were received. Each submission was reviewed by 5-7 members of the >selection committee according to a diverse set of criteria, including >scientific excellence and substance, timeliness, relevance, and >potential impact on the Internet. > >Based on this review, three submissions were awarded an Applied >Networking Research Prize in 2012. One of these submissions was already >presenteded at IETF-84 in Vancouver, Canada. Two additional winning >papers will be presented at IETF-85 in Atlanta, USA. The awards for >IETF-85 go to: > > *** Srikanth Sundaresan *** for his measurement study of > access link performance on home gateway devices: > > Srikanth Sundaresan, Walter de Donato, Nick Feamster, Renata > Teixeira, Sam Crawford and Antonio Pescap=E8. Broadband > Internet Performance: A View From the Gateway. Proc. ACM > SIGCOMM,August 2011, Toronto, Canada. > > *** Peyman Kazemian *** for developing a general and > protocol-agnostic framework for statically checking network > specifications and configurations: > > Peyman Kazemian, George Varghese and Nick McKeown. Header > Space Analysis: Static Checking For Networks. Proc. USENIX > Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation > (NSDI), April 2012, San Jose, CA, USA. > >Srikanth and Peyman have been invited to present their findings in the >IRTF Open Meeting during IETF-85, November 4-9, 2012 in Atlanta, GA, >USA. Join them there! > >The call for ANRP nominations for the 2013 awards cycle will open in the >fall of 2012. Read more about the ANRP at http://irtf.org/anrp. > >Please subscribe to the IRTF-Announce mailing list in order to receive >future calls for ANRP nominations and join ISOC to stay informed of >other networking research initiatives: > > http://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-announce > http://isoc.org/join > >Regards, > >Lars Eggert, IRTF Chair http://irtf.org/anrp >Mat Ford, Internet Society http://isoc.org/research > >-- > >2012 ANRP Selection Committee > >Mark Allman, ICIR >Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M >Lou Berger, LabN >Olivier Bonaventure, UCL Louvain >Ross Callon, Juniper >Lars Eggert, NetApp >Olivier Festor, INRIA >Mat Ford, ISOC >Lisandro Granville, UFRGS >Andrei Gurtov, HIIT >Dan Massey, Colorado State >Al Morton, AT&T Laboratories >J=F6rg Ott, Aalto University >Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow >Stefano Previdi, Cisco >J=FCrgen Sch=F6nw=E4lder, Jacobs University Bremen >Lixia Zhang, UCLA From acmorton@att.com Mon Sep 3 06:59:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADE221F8595 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:59:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id agdYkcToMJ2E for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com [209.65.160.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F2621F8581 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 06:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 4d7b4405.0.215892.00-393.574417.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 03 Sep 2012 13:59:49 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 5044b7d50d1725c2-e16cbf77ff29c3e3420a7271c1083a4f1671f6dd Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q83DxmAi029158 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:59:48 -0400 Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q83DxjOo029143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:59:45 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:59:35 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q83DxYus004894 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:59:34 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q83DxIZO004522 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:59:27 -0400 Message-Id: <201209031359.q83DxIZO004522@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-178-207.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.178.207](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120903135852gw100sspd0e>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:58:53 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.178.207] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:57:25 -0400 To: ippm@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=9v54HX73B2QA:10 a=4LpnAmZqx04A:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=Kzd8afXCPTBlzoW6vHsA:9 a=] X-AnalysisOut: [CjuIK1q_8ugA:10] Subject: [ippm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-morton-ippm-twamp-rate-02.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 03 Sep 2012 13:59:50 -0000 IPPM, We've updated this draft to coordinate with the problem statement as it now stands. Al and Len >A new version of I-D, draft-morton-ippm-twamp-rate-02.txt >has been successfully submitted and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Filename: draft-morton-ippm-twamp-rate >Revision: 02 >Title: TWAMP Burst Rate Measurement Features >Creation date: 2012-09-03 >WG ID: Individual Submission >Number of pages: 19 >URL: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morton-ippm-twamp-rate-02.txt >Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morton-ippm-twamp-rate >Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-twamp-rate-02 >Diff: >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-morton-ippm-twamp-rate-02 > >Abstract: > This memo describes two rate-measurement features for the core > specification of TWAMP - the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol: an > optional capability where the reflector host responds with a > controlled burst of test-session packets (instead of a single > packet), and an optional test mode that requires the responder to > measure a burst of test packets and communicate the results in > truncated packet(s). Both features add the ability to control packet > size in the tested direction, enabling asymmetrical packet size > testing. There is an open question on using TCP transport instead of > UDP. > > > > > > >The IETF Secretariat From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Sep 5 06:09:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F64621F8628; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:09:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.285 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.285 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.314, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wRb+37nqTpAc; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E021821F84D7; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:09:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120905130936.17155.34639.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:09:36 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-06.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 05 Sep 2012 13:09:37 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of t= he IETF. Title : Ericsson TWAMP Value-Added Octets Author(s) : Steve Baillargeon Christofer Flinta Andreas Johnsson Svante Ekelin Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-06.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2012-09-05 Abstract: This memo describes an extension to the TWAMP test protocol for identifying and managing packet trains, which enables measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP delivery rate in the forward and reverse path directions. This memo contains the description of a working prototype. It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is currently working on the problem statement and has not reached consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets= -06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From grace.yufang@huawei.com Thu Sep 6 02:15:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E5521F855D for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 02:15:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jAczzf1ETRQ for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 02:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BE521F850D for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 02:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AJK13689; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:15:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:14:35 +0100 Received: from SZXEML433-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.61) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:15:27 +0100 Received: from SZXEML546-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.97]) by szxeml433-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.61]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:15:23 +0800 From: Yufang To: "ippm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Fwd: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHNcBNxwMkeNQvYckWgLO7p5C52x5dd0cfAgB8Fh+A= Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:15:21 +0000 Message-ID: <038A8B767A209346A5C39B552E514A920F9378D0@szxeml546-mbs.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.64.78] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "acmorton@att.com" Subject: [ippm] Fwd: [tsvwg] Fwd: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 06 Sep 2012 09:15:48 -0000 Dear all, A document(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm-00.txt ) s= ubmitted to TSVWG needs to be reviewed by IPPM Group. I'm planning to write a new version of the draft and the suggestions below = will be considered. Other comments from IPPM Group are also appreciated. Best Regards, Fang Yu -----Original Message----- From: Yufang=20 Sent: 17 Aug 2012 17:34 To: Al Morton; tsvwg@ietf.org Cc: pmol@ietf.org; Zhulei; Peter McCann; Yufang Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Fwd: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-sun-tsvwg-flowb= ased-pm-00.txt Hi Morton and Andreas,=20 Thanks for your comments. I have read the RFCs and give comments as follow. We called the method we proposed FPM. 1. The differences between TWAMP and FPM: (1) Technically, although FPM is an active measurement protocol, there exis= t much difference between TWAMP and FPM. First, TWAMP and FPM both support = the on-the-spot measurement, it means that they can perform measurement onl= ine=20 when traffic of applications is running. But TWAMP is probe based, in TWAMP= , extra probe measurement packets are injected to simulate real traffic, to= carry out measurements and sample the performance of the network. The freq= uency=20 of injected packets has great impact on the accuracy of measurements. For e= xample, if TWAMP wants to measure an application that transmits packets fre= quently, it should also injected probe measurement packets (TWAMP-test pack= ets) frequently, then it may make negative impact on the real traffic of ap= plications, otherwise it can't reflect the actual service performance if th= e TWAMP-test packets are sparsely inserted. FPM is based on the running traffic of applications, it collects the statis= tics of real traffic flow. FPM needs additional OAM packets participate in = measurement. The OAM packets are used to carry statistics of the path/flow/= application, they can be small and the inserted frequency can be lower. (2) In addition, in some cases, it needs to monitor the various time-varyin= g performance indexes of the IP network, the performance measurement should= be based on real traffic and reflect the real performance of the network.= =20 IP Performance Monitoring based on flow/applications is needed in many case= s. For example, in mobile operator's backhaul network, there must be perfor= mance monitoring mechanism to check the traffic status in the network, and = the applications/traffic are divided into multiple bearers with proper mobi= le QoS parameters (e.g. QCI). If the mobile network would manage bearers as= QoS and applications, then the performance of backhaul is more like to be = based on applications or QoS. With the status information, some strategies = can be implemented, for example, eNB can implement online congestion contro= l and bandwidth adjustment strategy based on the performance monitoring res= ult. TWAMP may be able to do flow-based measurement by specifying DSCP for the T= WAMP-test packets. But it can't well support the online measurement and len= gth of test packets is changeless and not varying as the real traffic packe= ts. The average performance indexes measured by this method may not be suit= able in these cases. =20 (3) For further detailed analysis: 1) Measurement Control=20 TWAMP actually consists of two parts: TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test. TWAMP-C= ontrol is used to initiate, start, and stop test sessions, whereas TWAMP-Te= st is used to exchange test packets between two TWAMP entities. FPM also consists of two parts: connection control and measurement process.= The Connection control consists of two parts: Connection Activation and Co= nnection Deactivation. The Connection Activation is to setup measurements, = whereas the Connection Deactivation is to stop the measurements. Actually, similar to the session initiation of TWAMP, during the Connection= Activation process of FPM, it supports the negotiation of the measurement = flow, such as the negotiation of the sender and receiver addresses and port= numbers, protocol type, periods of the measurement, DSCP in some cases. Th= ese parameters are used to extract the packets of a specific flow while the= re are several types of flow between the sender and the receiver. =20 However, the TWAMP-Control also supports the per-session encryption and aut= hentication for the control and test traffic, while the connection control = of FPM doesn't do any security mechanism in its current release (more infor= mation about security will be provided later.). For FPM doesn't use a specific control plane, and there are great differenc= es between FPM and TWAMP in security mechanism, FPM seems simpler. 2) Packets used for measurement There are eight types of packets in TWAMP besides TWAMP-Test packet. The se= rver Greeting message, Set-Up- Response message and Server-Start message ar= e used for connection setup. Request-TW-Session message and Accept-Sessions= message are used for creating test sessions. Start-Sessions message and St= art-Ack message are used for starting test sessions. Stop-Sessions message = is used to stop the session.=20 The negotiation of test Modes is carried out during the connection setup pr= ocess, if the selected Mode is not the authenticated mode and/or encrypted = mode, the encryption and authentication are also implemented. That's why TW= AMP has so many types of control packets. There are six types of packets in FPM, which include four types of control = packets (ACT, ACT-ACK, DEA, DEA-ACK) and two types of measurement packets (= FM and BR). For each measurement, the TWAMP-control messages are usually only transmitt= ed once. So packets size of these messages has little impact on the network= . But TWAMP-test packets are constantly transmitted during a test session. = So the high transmitted frequency and/or large packet size may influence th= e real traffic. As mentioned in RFC5357, the padding size of the TWAMP-test packets is at l= east 27 octets in unauthenticated mode, and at least 56 octets in authentic= ated and encrypted modes. Then the size of the TWAMP-test packets is at lea= st 56 octets in unauthenticated mode, and at least 156 octets in authentica= ted and encrypted modes. However, the size of the FPM FM packets is only 20= octets, and size of BR packets is 36 octets. Note that here the packet siz= e doesn't include the size of the IP header. In addition, the transmission of FM packets are periodical with a specific = time interval, or a certain number of traffic packets should be sent betwee= n two contiguous FM packets.=20 In theory, the transmission frequency of TWAMP-test packets should be simil= ar as the normal service packets in order to reflect the network performanc= e more accurate. So the transmission frequency of TWAMP-test packets is cer= tainly larger than that of the FM packets. As both the measurement packets size and the packets transmission frequency= of TWAMP are larger than those of FPM, TWAMP may have more negative impact= on real traffic than FPM. 3) The granularity of test flow In TWAMP, all packets of a specific control connection have the same DSCP f= ield in the IP header. Then the only granularity of the test is (SIP, DIP, = sPort, dPort, DSCP). In FMP, flow can be defined by different combinations SIP, DIP, PT, DSCP, s= Port and dPort. Three types of combinations are suggested: (SIP, DIP, PT), = or (SIP, DIP, PT, DSCP) , or (SIP, DIP, PT, sPort, dPort). Network operator= s can fetch measurement with different granularities according to their spe= cific requirements. 4) Security mechanism =20 As in TWAMP, the measurement packets are independent of the real traffic, s= o when authenticated mode and encrypted mode are selected, an independent s= ecurity mechanism needs to be established for the test. But in FPM, the measurement packets are tightly coupled with the real servi= ce packets, so the security mechanism can be shared. Then there is no neces= sary to establish a specific security mechanism for the measurement packets= . 2. Statistics The metrics in the RFCs are sampled based on a Poisson process. The Poisson= process is used to schedule the measurements. In FPM, the schedule of the FM packets is the equivalent of the schedule of= the measurements. In current version, FM packets are scheduled periodicall= y. For each pair of FM/BR packets, a statistical sample can be achieved.=20 In fact, we have just give the measurement methodology here, and the descri= ption of statistics in FPM need to be further considered and to be explaine= d in detail. =20 (1) packet reordering In RFC 4737, it listed several reasons for packet reordering and has define= d a reordering metric. It also proposed the methods how to determining whet= her or not packet reordering has occurred and how to quantify the degree of= reordering.=20 The discussion of packet reordering in FPM (section 6.2) is not for reorder= ing metric. The reordering discussed here is between the real service packe= ts and the OAM measurement packets. If reordering occurs between the FM pac= ket and the specific service packet (the FM packet may arrive earlier than = the last service packet sent before it, or later than the first service pac= ket sent after it.), it will result in statistical error of packet loss. In= TWAMP, it doesn't have such a problem. However, FPM can use the method proposed in RFC 4737 without adding any mes= sage to determine whether service packet reordering has occurred and to qua= ntify the degree of reordering. (2) packet delay RFC2679 defines a metric for one-way delay of packets across Internet paths= . The methodology proposed in this RFC is that: the Src forms a test packet= , places a timestamp in the test packet, and sends it to the Dst. The Dst t= akes a timestamp as soon as possible upon the receipt of the packet. By sub= tracting the two timestamps, an estimate of one-way delay can be computed. = =20 It is assumed that the Src and Dst are synchronized, otherwise the error an= alysis of a given implementation of the method must take into account the c= loseness of synchronization between Src and Dst.=20 This methodology can also be applied to FPM. In FPM, it also achieves the t= wo timestamps, one-way delay can be calculated by this two timestamps. But as you mentioned the assumption that the forward delay is always equal = to the reverse delay is not really proper. =20 (3) PDV/IPDV/jitter Both RFC3393 and RFC5481 suggest to avoid using the term "jitter" and stick= to delay variation, for "jitter" has a much broader than packet transfer p= erformance.=20 I think we also need to revise the related parts of our draft. For the methodology proposed in RFC3393, the IP packet delay variation (ipd= v) is the difference between the one-way-delay of the selected packets. By = subtracting the first value of One-Way-Delay from the second value the ipdv= value of the pair of packets is obtained. RFC5481 presents the formulations of IPDV and PDV: IPDV(2) =3D D(2) - D(1) =3D (R2-T2) - (R1-T1) =3D (R2-R1) - (T2-T1), PDV(i= ) =3D D(i)-D(min) The single instance of an ipdv and pdv measurement is the same in FPM. So F= PM is easy to follow the methodology defined in RFC3393 and RFC5481. =20 Above all, the definition of the statistics and calculation methods propose= d in FPM need to be further considered and the description should also foll= ow the regulations of the IPPM RFCs. However, the needed parameters have be= en already obtained by the FPM, so it can fulfill the requirements without = adding any message or field.=20 Thanks again for your comments. And I'm looking forward to more comments. W= e may give careful modification for next version. Best Regards, Fang Yu > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Morton [mailto:acmorton@att.com] =20 > Sent: 2 Aug 2012 2:27 > To: tsvwg@ietf.org > Cc: pmol@ietf.org > Subject: [tsvwg] Fwd: Re: [PMOL] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbas= ed-pm-00.txt tsvwg, When I saw this draft >Zhu Lei - Flow-based Performance Measurement (10 min) >draft-sun-tsvwg-flowbased-pm on the I-D announcement list, I asked for and received a review from the Performance Metrics Directorate. I've inserted a few of my own comments below. We try to do early review when requested by WG chairs, and since this draft is now on the tsvwg agenda we are sharing our comments with the tsvwg list. Overall, I would like to suggest that the authors examine the IPPM measurement protocols more fully and implement them to see if their need for flow-based measurement can be met without developing new protocols. Al PMDir admin >From: Andreas Johnsson A >To: "pmol@ietf.org" >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 11:31:22 +0200 > > >Hi, >I have tried to put together a short review. Please see my comments=20 >below (and please provide further comments). [ACM] =3D Al's additional 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=20 >aim of measuring delay, jitter and loss over an IP path. The=20 >protocol is similar to TWAMP (RFC5357), however the measurement=20 >setup is performed in a TCP-like manner instead of using a specific=20 >control plane. Despite its similarities to TWAMP there are no=20 >references nor does the draft contain a comparison. > >2) The draft includes a description on how to calculate statistics=20 >based on time stamps obtained by the protocol. The metrics are=20 >delay, jitter and loss. An advice is to use RFC 6390 section 5.4.5=20 >guidelines for describing the metrics. > >3) The draft does not prior art in IPPM (or elsewhere)=20 >related to delay, jitter or loss. Suggested documents are > >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) [ACM] IPPM Packet Reordering RFC 4737 >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=20 >method. The draft assumes that the forward delay is always equal to=20 >the reverse delay. How often is this the case? > >5) The jitter calculations are based upon the delay calculations.=20 >Since the delay is calculated as the RTT (minus the time a packet=20 >spends at the PM responder) divided by 2, the jitter will be the=20 >same in both directions. Does this really reflect what is happening=20 >on the path? Please elaborate on this. [ACM] In general, the statistics suggested here are not widely used, especially the jitter as delay variance. Suggest that the authors look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5481 and decide what measurement task and PDV method suits their needs. >-----Original Message----- >From: pmol-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pmol-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf=20 >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, ... > >Would anyone volunteer to review this in a timely way? > >Al >PMDir 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 > >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 significan= t > > 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 > >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > >_______________________________________________ >PMOL mailing list >PMOL@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol >_______________________________________________ >PMOL mailing list >PMOL@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Sep 6 06:38:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB0921F8628; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:38:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.383 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kya3aUAuYiag; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C315E21F8587; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:38:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120906133817.18391.37025.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 06:38:17 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-03.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 06 Sep 2012 13:38:18 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of t= he IETF. Title : Test Plan and Results Supporting Advancement of RFC 2679= on the Standards Track Author(s) : Len Ciavattone Ruediger Geib Al Morton Matthias Wieser Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-03.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2012-09-06 Abstract: This memo provides the supporting test plan and results to advance RFC 2679 on One-way Delay Metrics along the standards track, following the process in RFC 6576. Observing that the metric definitions themselves should be the primary focus rather than the implementations of metrics, this memo describes the test procedures to evaluate specific metric requirement clauses to determine if the requirement has been interpreted and implemented as intended. Two completely independent implementations have been tested against the key specifications of RFC 2679. This memo also provides direct input for development of RFC 2679bis. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679 There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From bixiaoyu@huawei.com Thu Sep 6 18:10:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6914421F869F for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 18:10:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZW7eWM7rl3G for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 18:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAD321F8699 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 18:10:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AJK71986; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:10:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:09:40 +0100 Received: from SZXEML437-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.72) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:10:15 +0100 Received: from SZXEML547-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.70]) by szxeml437-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.72]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:10:05 +0800 From: Bixiaoyu To: "henk@DOMAIN.HIDDEN" Thread-Topic: Re: [ippm] Meeting at IETF 85 Thread-Index: Ac2MlSr+HflVLeefSQWgBNKLRzQdMg== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:10:04 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.64.69] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E0E37EC5F4816A4A829BC9B437801B422C84FC92szxeml547mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:24:24 -0700 Cc: "ippm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ippm] Meeting at IETF 85 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:10:37 -0000 --_000_E0E37EC5F4816A4A829BC9B437801B422C84FC92szxeml547mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Henk We'd like to submit an individual draft to discuss the problems that we met= in practice. In RFC4656, cryptographic security mechanisms such as IPsec have been exami= ned and given up at an early stage of OWAMP protocol design, for a series o= f problems. However, with the wide deployment of IPsec and other security mechanism, th= ere are more and more practical use cases that IPsec and O/TWAMP protocols = are needed simultaneously. Thus, it becomes an important issue how to measure the IP performance over = the IPsec tunnel with O/TWAMP. One possible solution to this problem (general idea) might be to take advan= tage of the secret key derived by IKEv2 protocol, to provision the key need= ed in RFC4656 and RFC5357. And it is able to further extend the O/TWAMP protocol to support the deploy= ment of IPsec. A 00-version draft will be uploaded soon, and welcome discussions via email= . We believe that there may be other possible solutions to the underlying pro= blem. Hope that we could have a face to face discussion at Atlanta meeting. Best Regards, Emily Bi --_000_E0E37EC5F4816A4A829BC9B437801B422C84FC92szxeml547mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, Henk

 

We'd like to submit an individual draft to discuss t= he problems that we met in practice.

 

In RFC4656, cryptographic security mechanisms such a= s IPsec have been examined and given up at an early stage of OWAMP protocol design, for a series of problems.

However, with the wide deployment of IPsec and other= security mechanism, there are more and more practical use cases that IPsec and O/TWAMP protocols are needed simultaneously.

Thus, it becomes an important issue how to measure t= he IP performance over the IPsec tunnel with O/TWAMP.

 

One possible solution to this problem (general idea)= might be to take advantage of the secret key derived by IKEv2 protocol, to provision the key needed in RFC4656 and RFC5357.

And it is able to further extend the O/TWAMP protoco= l to support the deployment of IPsec.

A 00-version draft will be uploaded soon, and welcom= e discussions via email.

 

We believe that there may be other possible solution= s to the underlying problem.

Hope that we could have a face to face= discussion at Atlanta meeting.

 

Best Regards,

&nb= sp;

Emily Bi

 

--_000_E0E37EC5F4816A4A829BC9B437801B422C84FC92szxeml547mbschi_-- From henk@uijterwaal.nl Fri Sep 7 13:26:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5325621F8433 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:26:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.488 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35e-Nc28seeJ for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3C221F8432 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from geir.local (thuis.uijterwaal.nl [82.95.178.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q87KPmOv020783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:25:49 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from henk@uijterwaal.nl) Message-ID: <5049A203.5030008@uijterwaal.nl> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:28:03 +0200 From: Henk Uijterwaal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF IPPM WG References: <50349DDC.7020208@uijterwaal.nl> In-Reply-To: <50349DDC.7020208@uijterwaal.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: [ippm] Meeting at IETF 85 X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:26:21 -0000 On 22/08/2012 10:52, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > IPPM Group, > > We are currently trying to decide if a face-2-face meeting at the next > IETF will be necessary. If you have topics that you think could benefit > from discussion, then please contact the chairs by Sept 7. > > Henk > I have about 5 requests for agenda time, so there will be a meeting. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From Maha.Abdallah@lip6.fr Mon Sep 10 20:45:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADCB21F876D for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:45:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.951 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LWWwtmS5+1eP for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3302:283c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733AB21F875D for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from poleia.lip6.fr (mailtwo.desir.lip6.fr [132.227.205.24]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.14.5/lip6) with ESMTP id q8B3jaJS029688 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:45:37 +0200 (CEST) X-pt: isis.lip6.fr Received: by poleia.lip6.fr (Postfix, from userid 33) id E37AF145530; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:45:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 66.44.49.79 (SquirrelMail authenticated user abdallah) by mailtwo.lip6.fr with HTTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:45:30 +0200 Message-ID: <8a9dd151e9b43f8c66569aaec729871d.squirrel@mailtwo.lip6.fr> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:45:30 +0200 From: "Maha Abdallah" To: ippm@ietf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:45:37 +0200 (CEST) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.73 on 132.227.60.2 Subject: [ippm] NetGames 2012 - Last CFP (Only 4 Days to Deadline) & Springer's Multimedia Systems Journal : Special Issue on NetGames X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 11 Sep 2012 03:45:40 -0000 NetGames 2012 CFP The 11th Annual Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games November 22-23, 2012, Venice, Italy http://netgames2012.lip6.fr/ In co-operation with ACM SIGCOMM/SIGMM Technically sponsored by IEEE Communications Society ************************************************************************* Accepted papers in NetGames 2012 will be invited to submit an extended version of their manuscript to the Springer’s Multimedia Systems Journal (MMSJ) - Special Issue on Network and Systems Support for Games http://netgames2012.lip6.fr/MMSJ-SI ************************************************************************* IMPORTANT DATES ================ Full/Short Paper Submission Deadline: September 14, 2012, 23:59 EDT (Firm Deadline) Demo Paper Submission Deadline: September 30, 2012, 23:59 EDT Notification of Decisions: October 14, 2012 Registration/Final Paper Due: October 28, 2012 OVERVIEW ========= The 11th edition of the Annual International Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games (NetGames 2012) will be held in Venice, Italy, on November 22-23, 2012. As in previous years, NetGames brings together researchers and practitioners from both academia and industry to present the latest research results and challenges of today’s networked games, and to understand their requirements and possibilities in order to enable the next generation of networked games. NetGames will also have industry keynote and panel discussions with leading researchers and practitioners from gaming companies. Submissions are solicited on all aspects of networked games, including (but not limited to): - Scalability, cloud support, client-server, and P2P system architectures - Efficient message distribution and network protocol design - Latency issues and lag compensation techniques - Network traffic modeling, measurement, and impact on network infrastructure - System benchmarking, performance evaluation, and provisioning - Operating system enhancements, service platforms, and middleware - Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming (MMOG) - Multiplayer usability and user behavior studies - Personal communications and conferencing in games - Mobile games, resource-constrained systems, and context-based adaptation - Networks of sensors and actuators, networked haptics - Quality of service, quality of experience, and content adaptation - Dynamic and user-generated content authoring and management - Content creation: non-linear storytelling, object capturing, algorithmic creation - Security, authentication, accounting and digital rights management - Cheat detection and prevention - Social networking in multiplayer games SUBMISSIONS ============ Contributions can be submitted as full papers, posters, or demos: Full paper 6 pages Short paper 2 pages Demo 3 pages Submissions are in PDF and should follow the IEEE conference proceedings format. Full papers will be presented in the single track session, short papers will be presented as posters, while demos require actual demonstration of a working proof-of-concept or prototype. Reviews will be single-blind, authors must include their names and affiliations on the first page. Papers will be judged on their relevance, technical content and correctness, and the clarity of presentation of the research. Papers should not be under review at another venue nor previously published elsewhere. All accepted papers will be archived in the ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore, and will published in the workshop proceedings. Submission of a paper for review will be considered your agreement that at least one author will register and attend the workshop if your paper is accepted. Accepted papers in NetGames 2012 will be invited to submit an extended version of their manuscript to the Springer’s Multimedia Systems Journal (MMSJ) - Special Issue on Network and Systems Support for Games. For more details, please visit the journal's special issue web page at: http://netgames2012.lip6.fr/MMSJ-SI Workshop Chairs ================ Maha Abdallah, Pierre and Marie Curie University, France Khaled Boussetta, University of Paris 13, France Local Arrangement Chairs ========================= Claudio Palazzi, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy Sabina Rossi, Università Ca'Foscari di Venezia, Italy Industry Liaisons Chairs ========================= Dario Maggiorini, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Laura Anna Ripamonti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Technical Program Committee ============================ Grenville Armitage, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Ernst Biersack, Institute Eurecom, France Surendar Chandra, FXPAL, USA Kuan-Ta Chen, Academia Sinica, Taiwan Mark Claypool, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA Wu-chang Feng, Portland State University, USA Chris GautierDickey, University of Denver, USA Steven Gianvecchio, MITRE Corp., USA Carsten Griwodz, Simula Research Laboratory, Norway Pål Halvorsen, University of Oslo/Simula, Norway Shun-Yun Hu, Academia Sinica, Taiwan Alexandru Iosup, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Ben Leong, National University of Singapore, Singapore Martin Mauve, University of Dusseldorf, Germany Ketan Mayer-Patel, University of North Carolina at Chapell Hill, USA Richard Mortier, University of Nottingham, UK Timo Ojala, University of Oulu, Finland Wei Tsang Ooi, National University of Singapore, Singapore Marius Preda, TELECOM SudParis, France Shervin Shirmohammadi, University of Ottawa, Canada Gwendal Simon, TELECOM Bretagne, France Jouni Smed, University of Turku, Finland Jeff Yan, University of Newcastle, UK Sebastian Zander, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Steering Committee =================== Maha Abdallah, Pierre and Marie Curie University, France Grenville Armitage, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Adrian Cheok, National University of Singapore, Singapore Mark Claypool, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA Carsten Griwodz, Simula Research Laboratory, Norway Tristan Henderson, University of St Andrews, UK Sugih Jamin, University of Michigan, USA Shervin Shirmohammadi, University of Ottawa, Canada Lars Wolf, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Sep 20 09:34:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB2021F880C; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:34:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ntenT5vhdRpb; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40AD21F87FD; Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:34:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120920163443.451.34608.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:34:43 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-07.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 20 Sep 2012 16:34:44 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of t= he IETF. Title : Ericsson TWAMP Value-Added Octets Author(s) : Steve Baillargeon Christofer Flinta Andreas Johnsson Svante Ekelin Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-07.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2012-09-20 Abstract: This memo describes an extension to the TWAMP test protocol for identifying and managing packet trains, which enables measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP delivery rate in the forward and reverse path directions. This memo contains the description of a working prototype. It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is currently working on the problem statement and has not reached consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets= -07 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From mlinsner@cisco.com Fri Sep 21 06:44:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CA821F8836 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:44:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bc9f83HziYzk for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B554921F8831 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:44:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9133; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348235064; x=1349444664; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=TZOkrxgOoNQECnhIPrscMaZ7/AbTjfFHuDmdETvCF8s=; b=S+9xUBoHUQozqK8D/7wwPiehA4o93A7WyYN4d4BGpfDt5oBH5ZQjMCad 4M9nQydQs+CJS0wRiStOYb/hFInJa0irYws24fvDSWTtzmmjulehrUnsl VoBVgCuzxxzrPOTRK7B/8ev4JTKZZxaZfu0zzjBd5YMWvQZNpghNntrFD 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AogFAH1uXFCtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABFgkuqC4hiAYdqboEIgiABAQEDAQEBAQ8BKjEQDggRAQIBAlAGIgQBAQUDBhMJGYdRAwkGC5gSgSiWMA2JU4o6YoYmA5QPgVWBFYRMhTeDIYFpgwM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,462,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217";a="124005319" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Sep 2012 13:44:24 +0000 Received: from [10.116.195.126] (rtp-mlinsner-87113.cisco.com [10.116.195.126]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8LDiMrE003449 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:44:23 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:44:21 -0400 From: Marc Linsner To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [lmap] Internet LMAP Draft for Review In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3431065463_232450" Subject: [ippm] FW: [lmap] Internet LMAP Draft for Review X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:44:25 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3431065463_232450 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit This draft may be of interest to ippm as well. -Marc- From: James Miller Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:52 AM To: Subject: [lmap] Internet LMAP Draft for Review > I am pleased to share the following draft with the list and welcome feedback > and comments. I note that the announcement will be cross-posted to the FCC > Next Generation Measurement Architecture Standardization and Outreach Group > (NMASOG) mailing list ng-bbperformance@info.fcc.gov, which has a primary > source of discussion for development of the document up to this point. > Participants to that list have been directed to make any further substantive > contributions to this list going forward. We are happy to provide references > to the FCC filings that document the past conversations of that group. > > I have attached the XML and txt output of the draft for convenience. > > Warm regards, > -- > James Miller > --- > > A new version of I-D, draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements-00.txt > > has been successfully submitted by James Miller and posted to the IETF > repository. > > > > Filename: draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements > > Revision: 00 > > Title: Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance: > Use Cases, Architecture and Protocol Requirements > > Creation date: 2012-09-21 > > WG ID: Individual Submission > > Number of pages: 20 > > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements-00.txt > > Status: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements > > Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements-00 > > > > > > Abstract: > > Measuring broadband performance on a large scale is important for > > network diagnostics by providers and users, as well for as public > > policy. To conduct such measurements, user networks gather data, > > either on their own initiative or instructed by a measurement > > controller, and then upload the measurement results to a designated > > measurement server. This document describes a logical architecture > > and summarizes key requirements for protocols to connect the > > components. The system is designed to support residential and small- > > enterprise networks, using either wired or wireless networks. The > > architecture supports an extensible set of active and passive > > measurements, but the details of the metrics themselves are beyond > > the scope of this document. > > > > > > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > _______________________________________________ lmap mailing list > lmap@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap --B_3431065463_232450 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
This draft may be of interes= t to ippm as well.

-Marc-

From: James Miller <jamesmilleresquire@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:52 AM
To: <lm= ap@ietf.org>
Subject: [lmap= ] Internet LMAP Draft for Review

I am pleased to share the following draft with the l= ist and welcome feedback and comments.  I note that the announcement wi= ll be cross-posted to the FCC Next Generation Measurement Architecture Stand= ardization and Outreach Group (NMASOG) mailing list ng-bbperformance@info.fcc.gov, which has a primary source of discussion for development of the document = up to this point.  Participants to that list have been directed to make= any further substantive contributions to this list going forward.  We = are happy to provide references to the FCC filings that document the past co= nversations of that group.

I have attached the XML an= d txt output of the draft for convenience.

Warm reg= ards,
--
James Miller

 ---

A new= version of I-D, draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements-00.txt

has been s= uccessfully submitted by James Miller and posted to the IETF repository.

 

Filename:  &nbs= p;         draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements

Revision:    =           00

Title:          =             Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance: Use Cases, Architecture a= nd Protocol Requirements

Creation date:   2012-09-21

WG ID:        &nbs= p;         Individual Submission

Number of pages: 20

URL:   = ;          http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirem= ents-00.txt

Status:        = ;  http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schulzrinne-= lmap-requirements

Htmlized:      &nb= sp; http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requir= ements-00

 

 

Abstract:

   M= easuring broadband performance on a large scale is important for

   = network diagnostics by providers and users, as well for as public

  = ; policy.  To conduct such measurements, user networks gather data,

   either on their own initiative or instructed by a measurement

   controller= , and then upload the measurement results to a designated

   meas= urement server.  This document describes a logical architecture

   and summarizes key requirements for protocols to connect the

   components= .  The system is designed to support residential and small-

   enterprise networks, using either wired or wireless networks.  The

 &n= bsp; architecture supports an extensible set of active and passive

   measure= ments, but the details of the metrics themselves are beyond

   the= scope of this document.

 

       = ;            &nb= sp;             =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =            

&nb= sp;

 

The IETF Secretariat

 

_______________________________________________ lmap mailing list lmap@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/lmap
--B_3431065463_232450-- From sharam.hakimi@exfo.com Fri Sep 21 11:53:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1FFC21F871D for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:53:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.129 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PgNw4o6TjKCw for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpinqc.exfo.com (smtpinqc.exfo.com [206.162.164.97]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7563F21F871C for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spqcexc04.exfo.com ([172.16.48.171]) by smtpinqc.exfo.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:53:34 -0400 Received: from spboexc01.exfo.com ([10.10.10.16]) by spqcexc04.exfo.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:53:35 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD982A.48AA6AEC" x-cr-puzzleid: {29D364F3-29BF-4795-90E7-7B7949C4A85D} Content-class: urn:content-classes:message x-cr-hashedpuzzle: Ad4= Kac= Akfd CT2j C/lL EA8X EI1f Ef5Y FhfZ FovU GKeD IDrq ISnL JK8a JmYW K27U; 1; aQBwAHAAbQBAAGkAZQB0AGYALgBvAHIAZwA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {29D364F3-29BF-4795-90E7-7B7949C4A85D}; cwBoAGEAcgBhAG0ALgBoAGEAawBpAG0AaQBAAGUAeABmAG8ALgBjAG8AbQA=; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:54:03 GMT; cwB1AGIAcwBjAHIAaQBiAGUA Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:54:03 -0400 Message-ID: <084CDC75FEC1E640B60338273BEACDFA02070718@spboexc01.exfo.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: subscribe Thread-Index: Ac2YKnhLxqbNyASHRw6S/v1Y1CD/Fw== From: "Sharam Hakimi" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2012 18:53:35.0037 (UTC) FILETIME=[672886D0:01CD982A] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:31:19 -0700 Subject: [ippm] subscribe X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:53:36 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CD982A.48AA6AEC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CD982A.48AA6AEC Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01CD982A.48AA6AEC-- From wenjun@microsoft.com Fri Sep 21 22:26:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343EF21F8622 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:26:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WZbq8vKzdDUU for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B8221F8645 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail171-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.253) by CH1EHSOBE015.bigfish.com (10.43.70.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:26:40 +0000 Received: from mail171-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail171-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A66D140149; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:26:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: 0 X-BigFish: VS0(zzbb2dI9371Ic85ehd6eah4015Izz1202h1d1ah1d2ahz70kz17326ah8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah107ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail171-ch1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=wenjun@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ; Received: from mail171-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail171-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1348291598490310_6980; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:26:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.244]) by mail171-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E82A008F; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:26:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by CH1EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (10.43.70.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:26:37 +0000 Received: from SINEX14HUBC402.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com (157.60.220.216) by TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.3; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:26:37 +0000 Received: from SINEX14MBXC421.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.189]) by SINEX14HUBC402.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([157.60.220.216]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:26:22 +0000 From: Wenjun Hu To: "tcgn@ieee.org" , "ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de" , "cfp@mmlab.snu.ac.kr" , "ga@terena.nl" , "geni-announce@geni.net" , "tma@cost-tma.eu" , "end2end-interest@postel.org" , "ippm@ietf.org" , "imrg@irtf.org" , "performance@merlot.usc.edu" , "MOBICOM@acm.org" , "4ward-all@verkstad.net" <4ward-all@verkstad.net>, "NGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" , "SENSORNET@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG" , "SIGMOB@ACM.ORG" , "hte@mtesz.hu" Thread-Topic: CoNext 2012 Student Workshop deadline extended to Sep 25, 2012 9 PM PDT Thread-Index: AQHNmGCBEF3wDef9GU6zoeN/p+QB0ZeV0YKe Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:26:21 +0000 Message-ID: <7EB22D765D3D634E9F7B1A55EED6C2CB3AFC87A9@SINEX14MBXC421.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> References: <424C2F2D58634A4BA3AA5F9AC2F6F4BF0E90D6C7@mail1.cs.stonybrook.edu> In-Reply-To: <424C2F2D58634A4BA3AA5F9AC2F6F4BF0E90D6C7@mail1.cs.stonybrook.edu> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.168.3.89] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7EB22D765D3D634E9F7B1A55EED6C2CB3AFC87A9SINEX14MBXC421s_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:31:19 -0700 Cc: "vyas.sekar@gmail.com" , "costa@imperial.ac.uk" Subject: [ippm] CoNext 2012 Student Workshop deadline extended to Sep 25, 2012 9 PM PDT X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:33:17 -0000 --_000_7EB22D765D3D634E9F7B1A55EED6C2CB3AFC87A9SINEX14MBXC421s_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Due to requests from students, we have extended the student workshop deadli= ne to 9/25/2012 9:00:00 PM PDT. (We are running on a pretty tight reviewing schedule and this extension is = final.) We look forward to your submissions! Thanks, Paolo, Vyas, and Wenjun ________________________________ The ACM CoNEXT 2012 Student Workshop aims at providing a platform for gradu= ate students in the area of computer networks to present their ongoing rese= arch efforts. The venue also represents a unique opportunity for students t= o network with other young researchers as well as more experienced ones, re= ceive constructive feedback, guidance, tips, and learn about cutting-edge r= esearch problems being tackled by the community. The workshop will have fea= tured keynote lectures and panels from distinguished researchers in the net= working community. We encourage submissions from graduate students about research at an early = stage and for more advanced dissertation-level research. The submission sho= uld describe the research in 2 pages and indicate whether this is early-sta= ge or dissertation research for potential presentation at the ACM CoNEXT 20= 12 Student Workshop. Research that addresses non-standard topics and contro= versial problems and approaches is of particular interest. The scope of the= workshop is broad and covers all aspects of networking research. Submissions are limited to TWO (2) pages. Note that the two page limit inc= ludes ALL figures, tables but does not include references. Selected abstracts will be published in the ACM CoNEXT 2012 proceedings and= authors will be required to present their work through a poster session. S= tudents may also be given an opportunity to give an =93elevator pitch=94 to= publicize their posters at the main conference. Important Dates: Submission: September 25, 2012 Acceptance notification: October 16, 2012 Camera ready: October 31, 2012 Workshop date: December 10, 2012 Please refer the workshop website for more details: http://conferences.sigcomm.org/co-next/2012/workshops/student Looking forward to your participation in the workshop, Paolo Costa, Imperial College London Wenjun Hu, Microsoft Research Asia Vyas Sekar, Stony Brook University --_000_7EB22D765D3D634E9F7B1A55EED6C2CB3AFC87A9SINEX14MBXC421s_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Due to requests from students, we have extended the student workshop deadline = to 

9/25/2012 9:00:00 PM PDT.<= /div>

(We are running on a pretty tight reviewing schedule and this extensio= n is final.)

We look forward to your subm= issions!

Thanks,

Paolo, Vyas, and Wenjun


The ACM CoNEXT 2012 Student Workshop aims at providing a platform for = graduate students in the area of computer networks to present their ongoing= research efforts. The venue also represents a unique opportunity for students to network with other young r= esearchers as well as more experienced ones, receive constructive feedback,= guidance, tips, and learn about cutting-edge research problems being tackl= ed by the community. The workshop will have featured keynote lectures and panels from distinguished research= ers in the networking community.

We encourage submissions from graduate students about research at an early = stage and for more advanced dissertation-level research. The submission sho= uld describe the research in 2 pages and indicate whether this is early-sta= ge or dissertation research for potential presentation at the ACM CoNEXT 2012 Student Workshop. Research t= hat addresses non-standard topics and controversial problems and approaches= is of particular interest. The scope of the workshop is broad and covers a= ll aspects of networking research.

Submissions  are limited to TWO (2) pages. Note that the two page limi= t includes ALL figures, tables but does not include references.

Selected abstracts will be published in the ACM CoNEXT 2012 proceedings and= authors will be required to present their work through a poster session. S= tudents may also be given an opportunity to give an =93elevator pitch=94 to= publicize their posters at the main conference.

Important Dates:
Submission: September 25, 2012
Acceptance notification: October 16, 2012
Camera ready: October 31, 2012
Workshop date: December 10, 2012

Please refer the workshop website for more details:

http://conferences.sigcomm= .org/co-next/2012/workshops/student

Looking forward to your participation in the workshop,

Paolo Costa, Imperial College London
Wenjun Hu, Microsoft Research Asia
Vyas Sekar, Stony Brook University
--_000_7EB22D765D3D634E9F7B1A55EED6C2CB3AFC87A9SINEX14MBXC421s_-- From Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de Mon Sep 24 01:43:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D9821F85AD for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 01:43:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z0pBKm35MDjF for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 01:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A13E21F85AC for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 01:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.21]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 24 Sep 2012 10:42:59 +0200 Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.17]) by HE111629.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:42:59 +0200 From: To: Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:42:57 +0200 Thread-Topic: [lmap] Internet LMAP Draft for Review Thread-Index: Ac2X/1THlS5MFJ2TQ6KMck3rZLIeCgCHi8AgAAJs8TAAAin7IA== Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D152DADDC30@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D152DADD8D6@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D152DADDC30HE111648emea1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ippm] [lmap] Internet LMAP Draft for Review X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 24 Sep 2012 08:43:03 -0000 --_000_580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D152DADDC30HE111648emea1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Matt, all, an information: after an internal conversation I've learned that the FCC dr= aft introduced below seems to have triggered the BBF activity which resulte= d in the liaision statement of BBF to IETF/IPPM prior to the last IETF meet= ing. Regards, R=FCdiger ________________________________ From: ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mar= c Linsner Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:44 PM To: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] FW: [lmap] Internet LMAP Draft for Review This draft may be of interest to ippm as well. -Marc- From: James Miller > Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:52 AM To: > Subject: [lmap] Internet LMAP Draft for Review I am pleased to share the following draft with the list and welcome feedbac= k and comments. I note that the announcement will be cross-posted to the F= CC Next Generation Measurement Architecture Standardization and Outreach Gr= oup (NMASOG) mailing list ng-bbperformance@info.fcc.gov, which has a primary source of discussion for developmen= t of the document up to this point. Participants to that list have been di= rected to make any further substantive contributions to this list going for= ward. We are happy to provide references to the FCC filings that document = the past conversations of that group. I have attached the XML and txt output of the draft for convenience. Warm regards, -- James Miller --- A new version of I-D, draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements-00.txt has been successfully submitted by James Miller and posted to the IETF repo= sitory. Filename: draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements Revision: 00 Title: Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performanc= e: Use Cases, Architecture and Protocol Requirements Creation date: 2012-09-21 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 20 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schulzrinne-lmap= -requirements-00.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-req= uirements Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirem= ents-00 Abstract: Measuring broadband performance on a large scale is important for network diagnostics by providers and users, as well for as public policy. To conduct such measurements, user networks gather data, either on their own initiative or instructed by a measurement controller, and then upload the measurement results to a designated measurement server. This document describes a logical architecture and summarizes key requirements for protocols to connect the components. The system is designed to support residential and small- enterprise networks, using either wired or wireless networks. The architecture supports an extensible set of active and passive measurements, but the details of the metrics themselves are beyond the scope of this document. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ lmap mailing list lmap@ietf= .org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap --_000_580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D152DADDC30HE111648emea1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Matt, all,
 
an information: after an internal conversation I've learned t= hat the=20 FCC draft introduced below seems to have triggered the BBF activity which=20 resulted in the liaision statement of BBF to IETF/IPPM prior to the last IE= TF=20 meeting.
 
Regards,
 
R=FCdiger
 
From:=20 ippm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ippm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ma= rc=20 Linsner
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:44 PM
To:=20 ippm@ietf.org
Subject: [ippm] FW: [lmap] Internet LMAP Draft for= =20 Review

This draft may be of interest to ippm as well.

-Marc-

From: James Miller <jamesmilleresquire@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 12:52=20 AM
To: <lmap@ietf.org>
Subject: [lmap] Internet LMAP Draft for= =20 Review

I am pleased to share the following= =20 draft with the list and welcome feedback and comments.  I note that = the=20 announcement will be cross-posted to the FCC Next Generation Measurement= =20 Architecture Standardization and Outreach Group (NMASOG) mailing list&nbs= p;ng-bbperformance@info.fcc.gov, which has a primary so= urce of=20 discussion for development of the document up to this point.=20  Participants to that list have been directed to make any further=20 substantive contributions to this list going forward.  We are happy = to=20 provide references to the FCC filings that document the past conversation= s of=20 that group.

I have attached the XML and txt output of the draft for=20 convenience.

Warm regards,
--
James Miller

 ---

A new version of I-D, draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements-00.txt

has been successfully submitted by James Miller and posted to the IETF= =20 repository.

 

Filename:          &= nbsp;=20 draft-schulzrinne-lmap-requirements

Revision:          &= nbsp;  =20 00

Title:          &nbs= p;          =20 Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance: Use Cases, Architecture= and=20 Protocol Requirements

Creation date:   2012-09-21

WG=20 ID:           &nbs= p;     =20 Individual Submission

Number of pages: 20

URL:           =  =20 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schulzrinne-lma= p-requirements-00.txt

Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-re= quirements

Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-lmap-require= ments-00

 

 

Abstract:

   Measuring broadband performance on a large scale is impor= tant=20 for

   network diagnostics by providers and users, as well for a= s=20 public

   policy.  To conduct such measurements, user networks= =20 gather data,

   either on their own initiative or instructed by a=20 measurement

   controller, and then upload the measurement results to a= =20 designated

   measurement server.  This document describes a logic= al=20 architecture

   and summarizes key requirements for protocols to connect= =20 the

   components.  The system is designed to support=20 residential and small-

   enterprise networks, using either wired or wireless=20 networks.  The

   architecture supports an extensible set of active and=20 passive

   measurements, but the details of the metrics themselves a= re=20 beyond

   the scope of this document.

 

           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;   =20             &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   

 

 

The IETF Secretariat

 

_______________________________________________ lmap=20 mailing list lmap@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/lmap=20 --_000_580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D152DADDC30HE111648emea1_-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Sep 26 08:19:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E3D21F87E6; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:19:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4lXwtkdYiW7g; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDFC21F87C8; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:19:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120926151939.21503.59820.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:19:39 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-08.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 26 Sep 2012 15:19:40 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of t= he IETF. Title : Ericsson TWAMP Value-Added Octets Author(s) : Steve Baillargeon Christofer Flinta Andreas Johnsson Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-08.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2012-09-26 Abstract: This memo describes an extension to the TWAMP test protocol for identifying and managing packet trains, which enables measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP delivery rate in the forward and reverse path directions. This memo contains the description of a working prototype. It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is currently working on the problem statement and has not reached consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets= -08 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Sep 26 08:39:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8B721F84EC; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:39:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iewk1HM5Qyq3; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7399D21F84D7; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:39:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120926153909.25332.35018.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:39:09 -0700 Cc: ippm@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-09.txt X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 26 Sep 2012 15:39:10 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group of t= he IETF. Title : Ericsson TWAMP Value-Added Octets Author(s) : Steve Baillargeon Christofer Flinta Andreas Johnsson Filename : draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-09.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2012-09-26 Abstract: This memo describes an extension to the TWAMP test protocol for identifying and managing packet trains, which enables measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP delivery rate in the forward and reverse path directions. This memo contains the description of a working prototype. It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is currently working on the problem statement and has not reached consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets= -09 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Wed Sep 26 11:45:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08F621F85A1; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:45:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KSzz33xV4xJv; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C2B21F85A7; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120926184558.21891.82945.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:45:58 -0700 Cc: ippm mailing list , ippm chair , RFC Editor Subject: [ippm] Document Action: 'Ericsson TWAMP Value-Added Octets' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-09.txt) X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 26 Sep 2012 18:45:58 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Ericsson TWAMP Value-Added Octets' (draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-09.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets/ Technical Summary This memo describes an extension to the TWAMP test protocol for identifying and managing packet trains, which enables measuring capacity metrics like the available path capacity, tight section capacity and UDP delivery rate in the forward and reverse path directions. This memo contains the description of a working prototype. It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is currently working on the problem statement and has not reached consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics. Working Group Summary The prototype (and the first version of the draft) was presented at the March 2011 meeting, as the result of an experiment conducted by the authors. At the meeting, there was consensus that the prototype addressed a problem, though there was no consensus on what the problem exactly was. In subsequent discussion, the WG agreed to work on the problem statement, while publishing this document in order to document the work done. As the prototype evolved during the year, and people brought up ideas, the document evolved as well. There was some discussion on what should (not) be in this write-up. This has been settled. There were no objections from the IPPM working group to publishing this revision of the document. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Henk Uijterwaal is the document shepherd, the responsible AD is Wes Eddy. RFC Editor Note Please change the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" boilerplate text that will appear in the published RFC to say: "It does not represent a consensus of the IETF community." This will match the statements made in the abstract and introduction.