9 Apr 2012 18:32
Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-01.txt
Al Morton <acmorton <at> att.com>
2012-04-09 16:32:23 GMT
2012-04-09 16:32:23 GMT
At 03:24 AM 3/28/2012, Aamer Akhter (aakhter)
wrote:
OK, what if we say:
...
The mixture of sizes a networking device will encounter is highly
variable and depends on many factors. An IMIX suited for one networking
device and deployment will not be appropriate for another.
However, the mix of sizes may be known and the tester may be asked to
augment the fixed size tests. The references above cite the original
studies and their methodologies. Similar methods can be used to
determine new size mixes present on a link or network. We note that
the architecture for IP Flow Information Export [RFC5470] provides
one method to gather packet size information on private networks.
Are there any other canonical ipfix RFCs that should also be listed?
Al
Hi Al,I don't have a strong opinion against the indirect reference.
My preference would be to be more direct about it and perhaps even a mention of IPFIX as a scalable way to gather this data in private networks.
OK, what if we say:
...
The mixture of sizes a networking device will encounter is highly
variable and depends on many factors. An IMIX suited for one networking
device and deployment will not be appropriate for another.
However, the mix of sizes may be known and the tester may be asked to
augment the fixed size tests. The references above cite the original
studies and their methodologies. Similar methods can be used to
determine new size mixes present on a link or network. We note that
the architecture for IP Flow Information Export [RFC5470] provides
one method to gather packet size information on private networks.
Are there any other canonical ipfix RFCs that should also be listed?
Al
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-01.txt
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:23:09 -0400
From: Al Morton <acmorton <at> att.com>
To: Aamer Akhter (aakhter) <aakhter <at> cisco.com>
CC: bmwg <at> ietf.org
Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.bmwg
References: <20120108140704.17736.30648.idtracker <at> ietfa.amsl.com>
<4F71ACFC.5080706 <at> cisco.com>
<7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F078D5B82 <at> XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com>
<7F298ACC76CC154F832B6D02852D169F078D5B82 <at> XMB-RCD-101.cisco .com>
At 08:10 AM 3/27/2012, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote:
> Al,
>
> Just following up on the quick discussion on the live meeting at
> IETF-83 regarding the creation of a representative the IMIX:
>
> A cntrl+f search against CAIDA didn't turn up any matches.
> Perhaps this got lost in the editing
Turns out that the CAIDA study is an indirect Reference, see below:
1. Introduction
...
Streams of constant packet size differ significantly from the conditions
encountered in operational deployment, and so additional tests are
sometimes conducted with a mixture of packet sizes. The set of sizes
used is often called an Internet Mix, or "IMIX"
[Spirent], [IXIA], [Agilent].
The mixture of sizes a networking device will encounter is highly
variable and depends on many factors. An IMIX suited for one networking
device and deployment will not be appropriate for another.
However, the mix of sizes may be known and the tester may be asked to
augment the fixed size tests. The references above cite the original
studies and their methodologies - *similar methods can be used to
determine new size mixes.
*hope that does it,
Al
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
_______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
RSS Feed