Subject: [ippm] New Liaison Statement, "Reply to ITU-T SG12 LS - Harmonization of IP Capacity and Latency"

From: Liaison Statement Management Tool <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 08:49:42 -0700

Title: Reply to ITU-T SG12 LS - Harmonization of IP Capacity and Latency
Submission Date: 2019-04-25
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1641/

From: Scott Mansfield <[email-masked]>
To: A. C. Morton <[email-masked]>, ITU-T SG12 TSB <[email-masked]>
Cc: Scott Mansfield <[email-masked]>,Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]>,IP Performance Measurement Discussion List <[email-masked]>,Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>,Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>,Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>,[email-masked],Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>,David Sinicrope <[email-masked]>,[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked]
Response Contacts: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>,Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]>,Tommy Pauly <[email-masked]>
Technical Contacts: [email-masked]
Purpose: For information

Referenced liaison: LS - Harmonization of IP Capacity and Latency Parameters: Revision of Draft Rec. Y.1540 on IP packet transfer performance parameters and New Annex A with Lab Evaluation Plan (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1632/)

Body: IETF IPPM working group thanks ITU-T SG12 for your liaison describing 

results from your evaluation of IP Capacity and Latency Metrics and  

methods of measurement. The harmonization of these measurements

is welcome in our industry.

We have the following comments on the preliminary results, and the 

evaluation plan:

After noting the efficacy of UDP measurements in your results, we 

can state that UDP transport is the basis for most IPPM measurement 

implementations, and IPPM's measurement protocols.

When assessing IP Capacity and Latency, there should be no attempt 

to determine the technology involved in the path, such as AQM. The 

method should measure the path as a black box.

The presence of packet-marking-sensitive technologies, such as 

Diff-serv queues add complexity to IP Capacity and Latency.

There is not yet a metric that characterizes the BW-Delay product 

in the IPPM-literature.

Live network testing may be affected by Network operator policy, it 

could change from the lab measurements - the test traffic is part 

of the background traffic. OTOH, the operator could be prioritizing 

test traffic, especially their own authorized testing.

We also suggest to include QUIC-based measurements in your Lab 

evaluation, if possible.

Where a model or post-processing needs to be applied to the

measurements, this aspect must also be specified, especially for transport

with multiple connections (averaging the connection performance).

Some of the IPPM WG participants who indicated their interest in 

November 2019 have begun to share their comments informally, as 

planned.

Please keep the IPPM WG informed of your progress, especially if there

are ways in which IPPM WG participants assist further.

Regards,

IPPM Chairs

Bill Cerveny ([email-masked]) 

Brian Trammell ([email-masked])

Tommy Pauly ([email-masked])
Attachments:

No document has been attached