Subject: RE: [bmwg] On the proposed OSPF BMWG item.

From: Jim McQuaid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:07:27 -0500

Excellent points, Kevin and here's one other general thought.

Much of the early and current work of bmwg has had the flavor of "consumer
reports," that is, methods for objectively [we hope] assessing 'stuff' for
use in building networks.  My question is, who is the audience for this kind
of metric?

Jim McQuaid

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Dubray [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:09 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [bmwg] On the proposed OSPF BMWG item.

Some things to think about when considering this proposed work item.

1) Where will it fit in with past (e.g. RFC 3222), current _and_ future
   work?  (e.g., a next step in this EGP/IGP theme might be to assess 
   co-working.)

2) Is the current EGP work mature enough so that the IGP work
   will be complementary?  Should we hold off the IGP work so that
   we can build in "lessons learned" from the EGP work? 

3) The I-Ds related to this workplan connote "white box" 
   mechanisms to characterize the device under test.
   (E.g., SPF Computation Time)  The BMWG has traditionally 
   restricted its purview to black-box (device external) heuristics.  
   Is this a can of worms we wish to open?  

-Kevin

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

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

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:00:33 -0800

> use in building networks.  My question is, who is the audience for this
> kind of metric?

consumers of routers.  we really do care about how well they perform on
routing protocols.  for a surprise in just this area, see greenberg et al
at sigcomm measurement workshop lat fall.

so we care.  but we also care that the terminology and methodology are
rigorous.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:00:33 -0800

randy