Subject: [bmwg] Tentative IETF-60 BMWG Agenda

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:24:58 -0400

BMWG,
Here's our initial agenda for the meeting next week.
Please do your homework -- there's lot's of interesting
stuff to sink your teeth into.
Kevin/Al

Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg)

Thursday, August 5, 2004, 1300-1500
=======================================

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

AGENDA:

1.  Working Group Status (Chairs)
     Especially conterm, ospf*, dsmterm, ipsec term, benchres term,
     and Network Convergence Considerations drafts.
     Check the BMWG mail archive for comments:
     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/bmwg/current/

2.  Revised Milestones. (Chairs)

3.  IGP Data plane convergence benchmark I-Ds.

     Changes from 02 to 03 to address comments raised at WGLC.
     Were the comments adequately addressed?	(S.Poretsky)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-03.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-03.txt

     Chairs may also comment here on the Active Review Template Experiment
     in the BMWG Last Call Process.

4.  Terminology for Benchmarking Core Router Accelerated Life Testing.
     First Look at Methodology. Changes to Term. Framework expired?
     Where is WG input sought? Issues? Comments? Concerns? (S. Poretsky et al.)

http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-03.txt
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-00.txt
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-framework-00.txt 
expired, see
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-framework-00.txt

5.  New Work Proposal on Hash and Stuffing (it's not "What's for dinner?")
     This is a proposal for a new category of benchmarking memo: a "plug-in"
     guideline applicable to all benchmarking work (and not a benchmark,
     related term, or method of measurement). Specifically, current
     benchmarking methods do not require reporting of addresses used,
     or address the possibility of bit/byte stuffing in link-layer
     technologies. Addresses, payload contents, and the presence of stuffing
     all can affect the results. Does the WG support an activity to document
     these potential pitfalls?

     Related draft: (D. Newman and T. Player)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newman-hash-stuffing-00.txt

6.  Follow-up discussion of drafts that "plug-in" to other work, such
     as the hash-stuffing draft. Another example is Network Convergence
     Considerations, which plugs into live network characterization:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-white-network-benchmark-00.txt
     How does this new memo category affect future BMWG work?  (Chairs)

7.  New Work Proposal on LDP Convergence Benchmarking
     With substantive progress being made on OSPF and IGP-dataplane
     convergence topics, BMWG could consider another convergence work item.
     Is there sufficient WG interest (e.g., expertise, readership,
     participation) to support this topic as a work item?

     We have the following description from the authors of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eriksson-ldp-convergence-term-01.txt
(T.Eriksson, S.Poretsky, R.Papneja)

Motivation -
The purpose of this document is to further the BMWG's efforts for 
convergence benchmarking by now focusing on LDP convergence.  This is of 
particular interest to many Service Providers that are considering 
deployment of Fast Reroute to protect VPN traffic. These Service Providers 
may alternatively prefer fast LDP convergence as the solution to minimize 
VPN traffic loss. In response, router vendors are developing 
implementations to achieve fast LDP convergence Times.  This industry focus 
is now driving the need for LDP convergence benchmarking terminology and 
methodology.

Goals -
The goal is to develop a benchmarking terminology and methodology for LDP 
data plane convergence. The convergence benchmarking will be performed for 
different types of events that trigger a change of outgoing LDP label for 
the DUT. The events include but are not limited to lost LDP session, lost 
IGP adjacency, better IGP next-hop, and changes due to local or remote 
interface failures. Measurements will be specified for the DUT as PE and P 
router. For each type of convergence event the benchmark metric will be 
calculated from the lost packets on the data plane during the Convergence 
Event. The benchmark metrics can be used when comparing different vendor 
implementations, for example during an evaluation phase. Existing 
terminology used for LDP and MPLS will be used whenever possible. In some 
cases suitable terms might not exist at all; in these cases an explicit 
goal of the work is to define and document new terms.

8.  "Old" Work Proposal on Protection Switching Methodology
     The WG has discussed this item at several previous meetings.
     Generic Sub-IP and MPLS proposals can now be re-combined into one
     using a common terminology. What are the issues for this approach?

     Is there still enough interest in this proposal to generate solid review
     and discussion?  Should BMWG take it up?
     (Chairs, S.Poretsky, et al.)

     Drafts related to this proposal:
     Draft on MPLS Protection Benchmarking Methodology
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-03.txt

     Automatic Protection Switching Benchmark Terminology
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kimura-protection-term-02.txt 
Expired, see
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-kimura-protection-term-02.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