Subject: [bmwg] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-06.txt

From: "Cheng Hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:47:12 +0800

Hi,

I am quite interested in the Group Join Delay(6.1) and Group Leave
Delay(6.2) parts. And I am wondering if anyone has any protocol specific
results, such as for IGMP, or for PIM-SM, etc?

And, as I understand from the RFCs (RFC2236), some protocols would have some
theoretical limits for the minimal value for the delays. For example, for
IGMPv2, the leave Delay would be at least [last member query count]*[last
member query interval]. When we measure the Group Leave Delay of the
DUT/SUT, should this be also addressed?

BR

Cheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kevin Dubray
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-06.txt
>
>
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-06.txt
> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 06:43:35 -0500
> From: [email-masked]
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology Working
> Group of the
> IETF.
>
>         Title           : Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking
>         Author(s)       : H. Soor, D. Stopp, R. Daniels
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-06.txt
>         Pages           : 17
>         Date            : 31-Oct-00
>
> The purpose of this draft is to describe methodology specific to  the
> benchmarking  of  multicast IP forwarding devices. It builds upon the
> tenets set forth in RFC 2544, RFC 2432 and  other  IETF  Benchmarking
> Methodology  Working  Group  (BMWG)  efforts.  This document seeks to
> extend these efforts to the multicast paradigm.
> The BMWG  produces  two  major  classes  of  documents:  Benchmarking
> Terminology  documents  and  Benchmarking  Methodology documents. The
> Terminology documents present the benchmarks and other related terms.
> The  Methodology  documents define the procedures required to collect
> the benchmarks cited in the corresponding Terminology documents.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-06.txt

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "Debby Stopp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:02:57 -0800

Cheng -

Both the terminology & methodology documents have endeavored to steer clear
of the type of underlying protocol (ie., PIM-SM, DVMRP, etc). Instead, the
focus has been on characterizing the behaviour of the DUT when presented
w/IP multicast traffic irregardless of the underlying routing protocol.

I have re-read section 8.8 of rfc2236 -
8.8.  Last Member Query Interval

   The Last Member Query Interval is the Max Response Time inserted into
   Group-Specific Queries sent in response to Leave Group messages, and
   is also the amount of time between Group-Specific Query messages.
   Default: 10 (1 second)

   This value may be tuned to modify the "leave latency" of the network.
   A reduced value results in reduced time to detect the loss of the
   last member of a group.

I believe your point is well made; we should include, as part of the
reported metrics/test configuration, the value of the this interval,
especially since its adjustment may result in better numbers from one DUT to
the next.

Debby Stopp
IXIA

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Cheng
> Hong
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:47 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [bmwg] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-06.txt
>
>
> Hi,
>