Subject: Re: [ippm] bandwidth measuring/estimating

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:37:37 -0400

Mark-

> Better would be something like 'pathchar', described and
> implemented by Van Jacobson. (And since then some other
> implementations)

While pathchar may not fill the pipe it definatly sends quite a bit
of traffic into the network over the course of quite a long time in
some cases.  This might not actually be what you're looking for
either.

allman

---
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: Mark Santcroos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:27:43 +0200

Hi Mark,

It might not be exactly what we want, but I think it is more in the
direction.

I bet there is need for a metric that would come up with a good
calculation of the capacity without using much of that capacity during the
measurements.

My goal is to get some people together for this.

Mark

-- 
Mark Santcroos				RIPE Network Coordination Centre
http://www.ripe.net/home/mark/		New Projects Group/TTM
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailhost.advanced.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: "Gamze Seckin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:28:16 -0700

Our research team has worked on one-way, ip level,  universal and quick methods to measure bottleneck available bw. 
We also have looked in methods to measure asymmetric links..this is a huge challenge if you want to do one-way measurements.
Some standardization process on this would definetely be interesting.

Gamze Seckin, Ph.D.
Luxxon Corporation
www.luxxon.com

---

From: Mark Santcroos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:32:25 +0200

We don't require one-way measurements as we operate a measurements network.

To IPPM: 

what would be the process of trying to establish a standard?
Would it be wise, as with BTC, to come up with a framework first?
Please enlighten me on this.

Thanks

Mark

---

From: Deb Agarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:52:24 -0700

Some of the people here at LBNL have also been working on the bandwidth
measurement/estimation problem.  The tool which they developed is
called pipechar and it accomplishes similar goals to those of pathchar
but using less bandwidth and with quicker results in our experience.
Pipechar is available from
	http://www-didc.lbl.gov/NCS/

Deb
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deb Agarwal                          e-mail:[email-masked]
MS50B-2239                           phone :(510)486-7078
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab       URL: http://www-itg.lbl.gov/~deba
Berkeley, CA 94720
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: [email-masked] (Bruce A. Mah)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:52:42 -0700

If memory serves me right, Mark Allman wrote:

> some cases.

True.  But all the pathchar-like programs give you the opportunity to 
change how many probe packets to send, or how fast they should be sent. 
I know I chose non-optimal defaults for pchar (pessimal?), but you can 
change them.  :-p

> This might not actually be what you're looking for
> either.

Also true.  These programs (try to) measure raw link capacity as seen 
at the IP layer (with varying degrees of success depending on layer 2 
characteristics).

Bruce.

---

From: Merike Kaeo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:25:39 -0700

>Please enlighten me on this.

As long as there is a sufficient explanation as to why the work is useful 
it is not necessarily required to come up with a framework first.  An 
individual submission of a draft would be a good start and if there is a 
working group consensus that the work is useful and fits into the IPPM 
charter, it can progress from there.

  - merike

---

From: Mark Santcroos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:35:23 +0200

Hi Merike,

Just want to let you know that I started writing a proposal.
I think it will be good to just start with it and receive input (and go
further) from there.

I will collect all the info send about this subject on the list from last
days and will try to define a scope with that.

Cheers,

Mark