Subject: [bmwg] Tentative Agenda for Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg)

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:01:15 -0500

BMWG,
Here's our initial agenda for the meeting next week.
Please do your homework, and participation is required.
Al/Kevin

Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg)

Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 1300-1500
=======================================

CHAIRS: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
         Al Morton <[email-masked]>

(Rochester Room)
AGENDA:

1.   Working Group Status (Chairs)

2.   Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms:
      Terminology -- Communicate latest changes & results of
      WG Last Call ending Nov 7th. (J. Perser et al.)

      http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-08.txt
      Check the BMWG mail archive for comments:
      http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/bmwg/current/

3.  IPsec Device Benchmarking Terminology I-D. New developments in 02.
     Finalize recent list discussions on the packet mix possibilities;
     this topic has relevance to many other efforts. (M. Kaeo, et al.)

     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term-02.txt
     See the BMWG mail archive on this topic here:
     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/bmwg/current/

4.  IGP Data plane convergence benchmark I-Ds.
     Changes from 00 to 01 to address issues from mailing list.
     Ready for Last Call?  Authors believe these are ready.	
     (S.Poretsky)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-01.txt

5.  Terminology for Benchmarking Core Router Accelerated Life Testing.
     Changes to Term from 00 to 01. New Framework Draft 00.
     Application of Term and Framework to build forthcoming Methodology
     Issues? Comments? Concerns? (S. Poretsky et al.)

http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-01.txt
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-framework-00.txt

6.  Revised Milestones. (Chairs)

7.  New Work Proposals on Protection Switching Methodology (now there are 2)
     Should BMWG take a broad, or technology-specific approach to this work?
      - This is a placeholder for advanced discussion of this topic
      - There *will* be discussion on the list before the meeting to
        better articulate the questions posed to attendees and the list.

     Earlier proposal: Automatic Protection Switching Benchmark Terminology
     The WG has discussed this item at several previous meetings.
     The Goal has been articulated as follows:

     The objective of this effort is to produce a terminology and
     methodology set of drafts that specifies the performance
     benchmarking sub-IP layer resiliency and protection technologies.
     There is a common terminology draft and multiple methodology drafts
     for the technologies.  The methodology drafts will include (but not
     limited to) Automatic Protection Switching (APS) for SONET/SDH,
     Fast Reroute for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS), and
     Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) standardized in IEEE. (T.Kimura, J.Perser)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kimura-protection-term-02.txt

     New Proposal: Draft on MPLS Protection Benchmarking Methodology
         The Goal has been articulated as follows:
To develop a benchmarking methodology for MPLS protection mechanisms
including Headend Reroute, Standby LSP, Fast Reroute Detour Mode, and Fast
Reroute Bypass Mode.  Test cases will benchmark the DUT in all LSR roles
including Ingress, Midpoint, Egress, PLR, and Merge Node.  Test cases are
provided for Link and Node protection.  The most common causes of failover,
such as local administrative shutdown, local link failure, and remote link
failure are considered.    The Benchmark for each test case is calculated
from the measured packet loss during a failover event.  Benchmarks can be
used to compare failover performance of different Label-Switched Routers and
evaluate the different MPLS protection mechanisms.  The methodology uses
existing MPLS and MPLS protection mechanism terminology defined in current
IETF RFCs.  (S.Poretsky, et al.)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-01.txt

Please help contribute to a successful meeting by reading the above
I-D(s) and references *before* we meet.

To offer comments on BMWG work in progress or the agenda itself,
please send email to:

             [email-masked]

Alternatively, to offer potential agenda items, please email:

             [email-masked] and [email-masked] 

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