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

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 22:09:04 -0500

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

---

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.

-Kevin

---

From: "Manral, Vishwas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 03:04:50 -0500

Kevin/list,

My responses:-

>   we can build in "lessons learned" from the EGP work? 
There has been a lot of work already on OSPF convergence, including
"Experience in Black-Box OSPF measurement" - by Albert Greenberg/Aman Shaikh
as Randy pointed out. We are also in constant touch with the Howard(EGP
folks for feedback, which we have readily got) on our draft, there has been
a demand for this draft and I see no reason why we cannot go ahead with the
work now in the group.

>   Is this a can of worms we wish to open?  
Although we have used show command for "SPF time measurement", which is
probably present in most existing routers, we have given a black box
alternative method for the same. However because SPF times can have
granularity of microseconds, it may not be easy to correctly measure SPF
times.

However I do agree, we have opened the lid for something new on BMWG, and
whether that is appropriate(can of worms ??) is debatable on the list.

-Vishwas

---

From: "Manral, Vishwas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 06:49:27 -0500

Randy,

The paper does not use the term "convergence" at all, it instead uses "OSPF
black-box measurement" and "OSPF processing delays" instead. 

I am ok with this terminology too (though from the last time we had the
discussion, it seemed to me that people preferred the term convergence,
probably properly prefixed). 

Thanks,
Vishwas

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 4:55 PM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [bmwg] On the proposed OSPF BMWG item.

> "Experience in Black-Box OSPF measurement" - by Albert Greenberg/Aman
> Shaikh as Randy pointed out.

did you notice that 'convergence' was only used in the multi-router sense,
though the measurement was of a single box?

randy