Subject: [bmwg] Protection Benchmarking

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:22:04 -0500

BMWG-ers,

Two documents for Protection Benchmarking have been posted to the BMWG
mailing list.  These are as follow:

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

Now referred to as Term draft.

and 

draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-01.t
xt
Now referred to as Meth draft.
Since Term and Meth drafts are separate proposed work items for Protection
benchmarking it is important for the BMWG to decide how to proceed.  The
authors of both drafts have worked together to create a single work item,
but the differences of the two drafts have prevented agreement.  The issues
at hand are as follow:
1. Should the BMWG deviate from other IETF working groups ?  
MPLS already has existing terms.  The Meth draft uses the existing MPLS
terms.  Every term that the Term draft uses has a different, yet equivalent
term already defined in existing MPLS RFCs.  Should the BMWG deviate from
other IETF working groups when standardizing benchmarking of the
functionality that another working group developed?

2. Is Sub-IP is too open-ended for one work item? 
The Meth draft is focused solely on MPLS.  The Term draft is intended for
"sub-IP" protection mechanisms which is below layer 3.  Protection
mechanisms are very different for SONET APS, VRRP, Link Aggregation, MPLS,
etc. Should a single BMWG work item attempt to address all of these?  An
analogy is Convergence benchmarking; BMWG has separate work items for BGP
Convergence, OSPF Control Plane Convergence, and IGP Data Plane Convergence
benchmarking.

3. Should IETF develop benchmarking documents for technologies developed by
standards bodies, such as IEEE?  MPLS is an IETF defined technology.  SONET
APS, VRRP, and Link Aggregation are standards specified by organizations
such as IEEE.  

4.  Since progress has been made specifically with MPLS Methodology, should
the BMWG focus its efforts for Protection mechanisms benchmarking on MPLS
first?

Your comments to the mailing list are most encouraged.
Thanks!
Scott

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

---

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:51:25 -0800

> 2. Is Sub-IP is too open-ended for one work item?

RFC1242 and RFC2285 were written for Sub-IP metrics.

> 3. Should IETF develop benchmarking documents for 
> technologies developed by standards bodies, such as IEEE?

RFC2544 and RFC2889 contain sections describing how to handle technologies
developed by standards bodies, such as IEEE (both Ethernet and Token Ring).

The real question, does the BMWG allow drafts along its historical workings?
Or does the BMWG charter need to be changed to exclude technologies
mentioned in RFC1242, RFC2285, RFC2544, and RFC2889?

Jerry.

___________________________________________________________ 
Jerry Perser                         Spirent Communications
Director of Test Methodology         SmartBits Division 
Phone: 818.676.2320                  26750 Agoura Road 
Lab:   818.676.2337                  Calabasas, CA, 91302 
Cell:  818.292.6457                  Corp:  818.676.2300

---

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:51:25 -0800

Jerry.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:48:13 -0500

Jerry,

This is an interesting point.  If the IETF has moved MPLS out of the Sub-IP
to Routing does that mean that the Sub-IP Protection benchmarking and the
MPLS Protection can co-exist as separate work items?  The Sub-IP work item
could address benchmarking of technologies from other standards bodies such
as SONET APS, VRRP, Link Aggregation, etc.  This may be more than a
compromise - it may be the best solution.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajiv Papneja [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:34 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Protection Benchmarking

Now Sub-IP consists of only TEWG, IPO and GSMP. MPLS and Other related
technologies, like GMPLS (CCAMP) have been moved to Routing, hence the
protection mechanisms for GMPLS and MPLS are treated in respective
working groups but under the routing umbrella. It makes more sense to
have MPLS protection mechanisms methodology to be associated with MPLS
terms rather than under the Sub-IP terms as Scott mentioned.
 
 -Rajiv 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [bmwg] Protection Benchmarking

BMWG-ers,

and 

draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-
01.t
xt
Now referred to as Meth draft.
Since Term and Meth drafts are separate proposed work items for
Protection
benchmarking it is important for the BMWG to decide how to proceed.  The
authors of both drafts have worked together to create a single work
item,
but the differences of the two drafts have prevented agreement.  The
issues
at hand are as follow:
1. Should the BMWG deviate from other IETF working groups ?  
MPLS already has existing terms.  The Meth draft uses the existing MPLS
terms.  Every term that the Term draft uses has a different, yet
equivalent
term already defined in existing MPLS RFCs.  Should the BMWG deviate
from
other IETF working groups when standardizing benchmarking of the
functionality that another working group developed?

2. Is Sub-IP is too open-ended for one work item? 
The Meth draft is focused solely on MPLS.  The Term draft is intended
for
"sub-IP" protection mechanisms which is below layer 3.  Protection
mechanisms are very different for SONET APS, VRRP, Link Aggregation,
MPLS,
etc. Should a single BMWG work item attempt to address all of these?  An
analogy is Convergence benchmarking; BMWG has separate work items for
BGP
Convergence, OSPF Control Plane Convergence, and IGP Data Plane
Convergence
benchmarking.

3. Should IETF develop benchmarking documents for technologies developed
by
standards bodies, such as IEEE?  MPLS is an IETF defined technology.
SONET
APS, VRRP, and Link Aggregation are standards specified by organizations
such as IEEE.  

4.  Since progress has been made specifically with MPLS Methodology,
should
the BMWG focus its efforts for Protection mechanisms benchmarking on
MPLS
first?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:05:06 -0500

Kevin,

I do not think it is so clear.  The original submission of the Terminology
draft focused only on SONET APS.  It was after the MPLS Protection
Methodology author team invited one of the SONET APS Terminology authors to
contribute to a potential MPLS Protection work item that the SONET APS
Terminology draft scope was broadened to "sub-IP".  The questions on the
table remain -

1. What is "sub-IP"?  The answer should be consistent across the IETF.
2. Does BWMG want to have a single work item for ALL protection mechanisms?
A precendet was set - we decided to have separate work items for Convergence
of each protocol.
3. Does BMWG want to have terminology documents that create new terms to
replace existing IETF terms for the technology being benchmarked? - Users of
Terminology and Methodology documents could become very confused if
replacement terms were introduceed.
4. Can MPLS Protection Benchmarking progress as a work item?  It is becoming
a mature document and comments to it on the mailing list would be most
appreciated. 

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Dubray [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Protection Benchmarking

Regardless of where the moving vans for other WGs stop with respect to
any given Area, I believe that this WG's stated contrainst regarding the 
scope
of the protection benchmarking effort was clear: characterize how well 
IP layer
service is protected in the light of the underlying technology's 
facilities.

-Kevin

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:05:06 -0500

Kevin,

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Dubray [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Protection Benchmarking

-Kevin

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:10:03 -0500

At 10:05 AM 11/06/2003 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>Terminology draft scope was broadened to "sub-IP".

More information will help clarify the direction given/consensus on
this work so far.  From the IETF-55 (Atlanta, Nov 2002) bmwg minutes:
=================================================================

Proposed BMWG work item: "SONET/SDH APS Performance
Benchmarking."

Takumi Kimura and Jerry Perser were present to lead a discussion
regarding the I-D. Presenters' slides can be found in the
proceedings.

Following the general presentation, a discussion was had regarding
whether this work is a good fit for the BMWG.  A question was asked as to
whether this work was better suited for sub-IP types of
organizations, like the IEEE.  It was countered that providers are asking
vendors to quantify how sub-IP technologies' failover or recovery affect the
IP layer related reachability and forwarding.

It was thought the work was OK, if it kept its focus on IP affected
responses.  It was thought the title should be changed to reflect said
focus.

Since protection could happen at various layers (or sub-layers), such as
SONET or MPLS, there was a discussion on how best to tackle this.  The
group gravitated to the idea that a single, common terminology document
with subsequent methodology documents for individual recovery
mechanisms (e.g., one for MPLS, one for APS, etc.) might be the way to go.

A specific comment directed towards the draft thought it would be a good
thing to lose the use of the term "service". I.e., reformulate the notion of
"Loss of Service," or "Loss of Service Time."

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:10:03 -0500