Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/bmwg/bmwg-minutes-97apr.txt

Text File | 1997-05-29 | 13KB | 267 lines

Editor's note:  These minutes have not been edited.



Minutes of the Benchmarking Methodology Workgroup (BMWG)

Reported by Kevin Dubray

The BMWG session was held on Friday, April 11, 1997.  Twenty-eight
people signed the attendance list for this meeting.

1. Agenda

This Friday morning session was opened by Kevin Dubray.  The agenda
was presented and approved as follows:

  1. (05 min) Agenda Bashing.

  2. (45 min) Discuss the multicast benchmarking terminology draft.
            "draft-ietf-bmwg-mcast-01.txt"

  3. (30 min) LAN Switch terminology draft.
            "draft-ietf-bmwg-lanswitch-04.txt"

  4. (60 min) Progress latest Cell/Call benchmarking draft.
            "draft-ietf-bmwg-call-01.txt"

  5. (10 min) Review and update BMWG milestones.


2.  Multicast Benchmarking Terminology Draft.

Kevin Dubray gave a presentation that was an overview of the
current draft on multicast benchmarking terminology. (Slides of the
presentation have been forwarded to the IETF Secretariat.)

The presentation was targeted to be a basis of discussion for this
early multicast draft.  As such, discussions followed on a number
of items highlighted in the presentation.  One such discussion focused
on the definition "flow."

Many people thought that it was important to have a logical handle on
a categorization of traffic as opposed to the term "stream" which has a more
physical (i.e., port or load) association.  (The term "stream" is often
used, but it is not formally defined in BMWG work).  However, folks also
thought the term "flow" was becoming trite and ambiguous in networking
parlance.

Robert Craig suggested that "class" may work well for the term's name.
Heads nodded.  Dubray said that the much of terminology offered in the draft
could have better names, and he was more than receptive to suggestions.

Another term that spawned debate was the forwarding metric, Scaled Group
Throughput.  Scott Bradner pointed out that using throughput as criterion
may be unfairly weighted to those devices that have distributed architecture.
Scott went on to say that he felt that Packet Loss Rate may be a better
measure.  Dubray countered saying that architecture was not the driving
factor in offering the term; rather, throughput is a standard, more
absolute metric.  Scott acknowledged that statement, but reiterated that
the throughput metric may not be the best choice for scrutinizing
group scaling performance.  Dubray noted that may be true; he
asked the group if ascertaining DUT forwarding performance as a function of
increasing multicast group support was a worthwhile exercise.  The
group agreed.  Bradner and Dubray agreed to further the discussion of the
choice for the basis of the metric on the BMWG mailing list.

On another scaling/performance metric, Aggregated Multicast Throughput (AMT),
Scott thought the base metric, throughput, was applicable and useful.

With the last throughput metric presented, transitional throughput, Dubray
articulated that this is another example where the behavior being
characterized was useful in a multicast environment (e.g., DVMRP), but the
benchmark's title was awkward.  He asked for better suggestions.

On the topic of fairness, Bradner suggested that it might be useful to
define a metric that can communicate "crosstalk," or the ability of one
class of traffic to impair the processing of another class.  Many agreed.

When the discussion moved to multicast latencies, the group echoed the
need to measure multiple latencies and relate them to multiple axes,
such as like multicast groups, multicast sources, or multicast destinations.

As the presentation on this topic drew to a close, a question came up on
whether the draft should consider encrypted multicast.  Dubray agreed that
this is a cogent topic that could be addressed by the draft.  He encouraged
folks to offer draft proposals and input to the BMWG mailing list.


3. LAN Switch Terminology Draft.

Dubray announced that Bob Mandeville had taken ill on travel and
forced to return home.  In Bob's absence, Kevin led the discussion of the
the LAN terminology draft.  Kevin updated the group as to the draft's progress
since the San Jose meeting. A discussion ensued on the current draft,
<draft-ietf-bmwg-lanswitch-04.txt>

In general, the group thought the document was nearing completion and
should be readied for ascertaining consensus after the following issues
are addressed:

A. The group thought it was a good idea to callout a "one source port to
   one destination port" traffic distribution.  (This was referred to
   as "non-mesh" in earlier email on the mailing list.)  It was felt
   that this addressed a very popular traffic pattern used by a variety
   of test gear.  The group thought it very important to differentiate
   between "traffic orientation" (e.g., unidirectional/bidirectional) versus
   "traffic distribution" (e.g., one-to-one, fully meshed, etc.).  An example
   that "a one-to-one traffic distribution could have a bidirectional
   orientation" was offered to illustrate that need.

B. Items 3.2.1 through 3.2.4 were thought to be liberal in their use
   of stream in light of the multicast draft discussion on "flow/class."
   People thought it would be beneficial to ensure care that no useage
   conflicts between the terms "flow/class" and "stream" occured in BMWG
   works-in-progress.

C. A general cleanup to address a variety of minor nits was suggested.
   Some examples cited aligning the Index with the documents sections,
   making the document RFC 1543 compliant, etc.

Dubray indicated that he would pass the input along to Bob.  Kevin asked
that people send additional feedback to the mailing list.  He indicated
that the group should strive to test consensus on this work before the
next session.

4.  Cell/Call Terminology Draft

Kevin introduced Robert Craig, the editor of the current draft on
cell/call benchmarking terminology. Robert stated that he attempted
to keep a "black box" style of testing in mind when offering the
benchmarks.  Robert immediately started a point-by-point discussion
of the draft.

On Item 3.1.1, Call Setup Time, a good discussion ensued - mostly with regards
to conditions that delineated the completion of the setup procedure.  In the
end, folks communicated that the definition needed more meaning in the
description of what is actually being measured.

With Item 3.1.2, Call Setup Rate, Robert inquired as to whether folks
thought that the distinction of terms with respect to the qualifiers
"sustained" and "peak" was useful.  There was not an overwhelming
response in the affirmative to do so; Robert articulated that he would not
pursue the practice.

Section 3.1.3, Call Maintenance Overhead, generated many comments. Some folks
thought the concept offered was provocative but lacked substance as
currently worded. Another person stated that the ambiguity of the term
would be problematic in comparing different results.  Robert articulated
that what he had in mind was to define a metric that would show
the difference on forwarding performance as a function of virtual circuit
mechanisms.  He agreed that the term, as currently defined, was "too fuzzy."
He thought it would be a good idea to hone the metric into a term like
"interference" or "crosstalk."

Call Teardown Time, section 3.1.4, drew similar comments to its peer,
Call Setup Time.  Someone thought clarification of what exactly was
being measured would help.  Another person interjected that identifying the
"freeing of resources" might not necessarily conform to black box
testing. A comment from the group articulated what may be more important
was the time it takes to end a call and the time required to start a new call.
Robert indicated that he liked this "call turnaround" approach and would
draft the appropriate wording.

Based on an earlier discussion, Robert indicated that he would remove
item 3.1.5, Call Teardown Rate.

The definition of "Impact of Signaling on Forwarding," section 3.1.6,
was thought to be unclear.  Robert indicated what he had intended to
convey was the impact of forwarding performance as a function of a
variety of parameters taken individually.  Such parameters may be
the number of outstanding calls, call request rate, etc.  He further
commented that this metric may be handled by the proposed crosstalk or
interference metric alluded to earlier.

On Item 3.2.1, Packet Disassembly/reassembly time, a member of the
group suggested breaking out the assembly and reassembly components
as separate metrics.  The rationale offered was that each metric may
have a different methodology and impact on the DUT.  A concern was raised
that the methodology hinted in the discussion may not yield values that
lend themselves to comparisons across varied systems.  Another
comment pointed out that integrating some BERT (Bit Error Rate
Test) functionality may provide interesting information.  Robert
thought this was addressed in Item 3.2.3.  Still another person
suggested that the metric's discussion section needed to clearly
declare that this was a black box test conducted on a system level. That is
to say, results for this test are "indirectly" derived as opposed to a
clear box analysis requiring internal instrumentation to emperically
collect the measurement.

A general discussion followed on the nature of tests addressed by this
draft and others.  The point was offered that there seems to be some
general sets of tests:  A) Tests that can be run;  B) Tests that can
be run AND provide USEFUL information; C) Tests that could provide
useful information but do not lend themselves to practical execution.

Robert declared that item 3.2.3, Full Packet Drop Rate, may fall into
set C. While it may be useful to determine how a damaged or lost cell
impacts a DUT's overall forwarding ability, it may not be straightforward
to collect this metric.  Moreover, methodological reliance on DUT internals
may depart from the "black box" model.

On "Topology Table Size," Item 3.3.2, Craig thought there needs to be
some consolidation concerning capacity with other BMWG works-in-progress.
Others agreed.  Additionally, there was some question as to what was meant
by the word "supported" in the term's definition.

Item 3.3.3, Topology Table Learning Rate, was explained to have been built
in a more general fashion than a parallel concept proposed in Mandeville's
LAN switch draft.

The metric "blocking probability," item 3.3.6, was offered in direct
response to a suggestion by Mike O'Dell.  Robert indicated that while
he drafted the preliminary wording, he was concerned with the practical
nature of the metric.  It was further noted that for "non-meshed"
and possibly "partially meshed" traffic distribution patterns, measurement
collection may be reasonably straight-forward; there was concern that a "fully
meshed" traffic distribution may be more problematic.

It was recommended that Mr. O'Dell be pinged for input.

A question was raised as to whether Dr. Raj Jain was invited to
review the work addressed by this draft.  The chair acknowledged
that a request was sent to Dr. Jain, but as of yet no reply had
been received.  The chair indicated that he would contact Jain again.

On the terms "congestion avoidance" and "congestion management," items
3.5.1 and 3.5.2 respectively, Craig noted the current wording was
fuzzy.  He added that the intent was to try to ascertain how the
DUT behaved in the presence of congestion.   There was a solicitation
for "bright ideas" on the topic.

On the concept of "Impact of Routing on Forwarding," item 3.6.1, Robert
noted the input of Curtis Villamizar.  Robert felt this was a reasonably
easy thing to demonstrate.  Some in the group had concern over the
methodological control of the metric.

"Impact of Congestion Control," Item 3.6.2, is another metric designed
to explore the overhead of congestion control on the forwarding of
data.  The concept of "stable oscillation" was an important
behavior to characterize.

On Item 3.7.1, Traffic Management Policing, Craig thought it would
be a good idea to consolidate similar terms from other BMWG work,
if appropriate. In addition, Robert thought the terms in section 3.8,
Multicast, could draw from or could be addressed in the multicast
benchmarking terminology draft.

Robert concluded his session by stating that he had received outstanding
input and hoped that folks would continue that practice.

The chair asked if there was any new business.  With no new business
introduced, the chair offered the following goals for the Munich session:

   1. Edit the LAN switch draft to reflect the input from this session.
   Issue a new version of document for comment.  If appropriate, ascertain
   consensus on whether to recommend the draft for consideration as an RFC.

   2. Take controversial components of multicast draft to mailing list
   for discussion.  Incorporate changes to draft and reissue appropriately.

   3. Continue to work the Cell/Call Terminology Draft. Reissue draft
   as appropriate.  Try again to contact Dr. Jain.

The group consented to these goals and the meeting was closed.