Subject: [bmwg] WGLC on IPv6 Benchmarking - discussion review

From: "Chip Popoviciu \(cpopovic\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 01:51:19 -0500

Dear BMWG members,
 
I would like to recap last week's discussion on the IPv6 Methodology
draft Last Call:
 
1) Based on the comment from David Newman and in observance of RFC1242,
we will change "maximum throughput" to "throughput" in Appendix A.1 and
A.2.
 
2) Based on the David Newman's suggestion, we will round down the
theoretical rates listed in Appendix A.1 and will include a note
regarding this round down as well as a reference to the tolerance due to
clock slip.
 
3) Minimum Frame size for SONET. The proposal on the table is 48 bytes
which leaves room just for a basic IPv6 header, no IP payload. I can see
this as a useful test if the perspective is security threats oriented
however, on a practical network such packets would not be present as
pointed out by Curtis. I also want to point out that in RFC2544, the
minimum IPv4 packet listed was realistic (20 bytes main header plus 8
bytes UDP header). In the case of Ethernet that was still smaller than
the payload for the minim Ethernet frame size. In the case of SONET,
shouldn't we take the same approach? IPv6 main header 40 bytes + 8 bytes
UDP header (ECHO) which will give us 56 bytes minimum SONET frame size. 
 
4) Maximum frame size for SONET. David Newman thinks it would be
difficult to define the max frame size for SONET due to products
supporting different values. In the Appendix we stopped at 4096. Should
we make a note that "larger values might be supported by the various
products. The maximum supported frame size should be used in
benchmarking in addition to the recommended frame sizes."?
 
5) Maximum frame size for Ethernet. Dan Romascanu mentioned the
increases in the Ethernet max frame size to 1522 in order to accommodate
the IEEE 802.1Q VLAN header, and recently to 2000, as per IEEE 802.3as.
The Appendix lists frame sizes up to 9216 bytes. Is the recommendation
to include 2000 explicitly in order to have the data point for the size
recommended by 802.3as?
 
We wanted to take the opportunity to provide through this draft some
updates to RFC2544 such as changes in frame sizes and new, relevant
media types. This is a good opportunity to do such updates so please
send further comments on the points above or any other items related to
the draft before the Last Call closes on March 20
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01.txt>
).
 
Thank you to all those who sent comments so far.
 
Best Regards,
Chip
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "McQuaid, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 07:42:56 -0600

A nice sumary of all the frame size issues, among other things.

I would suggest that the time has come to consider a reference document
(not an appendix to another RFC) from BMWG that addressed the "frame
sizes to test" issue itself.  This info RFC could repeat the accepted
wisdom, contain new tables for new media or new variants and could also
include guidelines for testing, such as those you suggest.

In other words, obsolete Appendix B of 2544 with a new document.

?

Jim McQuaid

NetQoS

________________________________

From: Chip Popoviciu (cpopovic) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [bmwg] WGLC on IPv6 Benchmarking - discussion review

Dear BMWG members,

(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01.txt).

Best Regards,

Chip