Subject: [bmwg] request for input on continuous vs. instantaneous latency collection

From: "David Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:18:59 -0800

bmwg'ers,

A team assembled at Kevin's request is working through issues with the
multicast methodology draft, and it is the consensus of this group that your
input is needed to address an outstanding question.

The question is which method the methodology should require for latency
measurement:

--the continuous method, where we record latency of all test frames

--the instantaneous method, the RFC 2544-style "blip test" in which we
record latency of 1 marked frame

Because valid arguments can be made for both approaches, the group felt it
would be helpful to hear which method you prefer.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this topic.

Regards,
David Newman

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

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:32:44 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

I see no problem with listing both, with the pros and cons of each one,
only noting that the type of test must be explained in any published
results.

:-)

Russ

--
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:32:44 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

:-)

Russ

---

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:49:03 -0500

The intent was that an a multicast latency "measurement" was atomic.

RFC 2432 focused on the atomic, to better allow relationships
like min/max latency to be built.  (Recall the discussion
on not constraining the "statistical gymnastics :-)).

A more continuous profile MAY be built from a series of individual
measurements.  But the goal wasn't to contrain the number or type
of relationships to be built, but to specify the foundation.

-Kevin

---

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 21:49:03 -0500

-Kevin