Subject: Re: FW: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-10.txt

From: "Debby Stopp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:47:03 -0800

I'm home sick today, so I can't respond to all comments but I did notice
something from a previous thread:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hickman, Brooks" <[email-masked]>

> "Throughput measurement is defined in RFC1242 [Br91]. A search algorithm
> MUST be utilized to determine the maximum offered frame rate with a zero
> frame loss rate."
>
> RFC1242 does not specifically address multiple classes of traffic. I would
> suggest elaborating on this a little. For example, are both the multicast
> traffic AND unicast traffic varied to find the throughput or only the
> multicast traffic? While it may be inferred by defining the ratio,
> specifying how the two classes of traffic are varied may make it a little
> less confusing.

This was discussed at length back in Oct 2001 - please see thread
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/bmwg/current/thrd10.html for
details.  I believe that if you combine:
     The offered load per each DUT/SUT port MUST not exceed the maximum
     bandwidth capacity of any configured receive DUT/SUT ports.

with

     Throughput measurement is defined in RFC1242 [Br91]. A search
     algorithm MUST be utilized to determine the maximum offered frame
     rate with a zero frame loss rate.

it is implied that you must vary the offered load, & again, that would
depend on whether you were chosing:

          a) As an independent rate for unicast class and multicast
             class of traffic OR
          b) As an aggregate rate comprised of a ratio of multicast
             class to unicast class of traffic.

as to how that offered load was varied.

Debby Stopp 
Principal Software Engineer
(818) 444-2365

IXIA
26601 W. Agoura Rd. 
Calabasas 
CA 91302 
Tel: 818 871 1800 (US) +1 818 871 1800 (international) 

[email-masked]

---

From: "David Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:55:15 -0800

Debby, I hope you're feeling better.

I've reread the old thread. Neither it nor your message below address the
issue raised -- namely, exactly what kind of traffic, in what proportions,
is offered to and received by which ports.

IMO it is not enough to say "if you combine this section and that section"
the test setup is "implied."

The best way to ensure repeatability is with explicit, not implicit,
declarations of all relevant test parameters.

I hadn't pointed this out earlier, but this comment holds true for the
reporting format sections as well as those on test setup.

dn

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Debby
Stopp
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:47 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FW: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-10.txt

----- Original Message -----

with

Debby Stopp

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

---

From: "David Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:55:15 -0800

dn

----- Original Message -----

with

Debby Stopp