Re: [bmwg] New Version Notification for draft-janovak-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 [answer to Bill Cerveny]

["Jan Novak (janovak)" <janovak at cisco.com>]

Hi,

> and I'm interested in how the draft evolves. 

Great, thanks :-).

> As a compromise, perhaps the draft could state a mechanism whereas  
> measurements values for which the accuracy of the flow data 
> is somehow  
> confirmed (such as in the DUT CPU) should be suffixed "with verified  
> flow data" (or something like that).  Measurement values for which  
> flow data was not confirmed should be suffixed "without 
> verified flow  
> data"

I noticed the other presenting guys specified even the reporting format
- no problem doing that as well.

The accuracy of the flow data could be checked to certain extent (for
the cache
overflow scenarios it could check the format of the Key Fields and if
the contents 
of them falls within certain range of values) on the DUT
by collecting the whole cache contents and checking it against sent 
traffic but it would have to be a separate test or performed after the
CPU measurement - would that fulfil your requirement a bit ??

> I won't be in Dublin, but I am planning on attending the meeting in  
> Minneapolis.  I will attempt to attend the Dublin BMWG meeting  

I have troubles with travelling, might manage next meeting in Europe but

doubt I could attend in the US - will see yet, if it improves over the
next
months, may be you could discuss this with my IPFIX colleagues.

Jan





The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak
succumb young .... and the strong envy them.

                                 Dr. Johnson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Cerveny [mailto:bill at wjcerveny.com] 
> Sent: 27 July 2008 02:19
> To: Jan Novak (janovak); Jeff Byzek (byzek)
> Cc: bmwg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bmwg] [answer to Bill Cerveny] RE: New Version 
> Notification for draft-janovak-bmwg-ipflow-meth-00 [answer to 
> Bill Cerveny]
> 
> Jan and Jeff,
> 
> [I started with wanting to respond to both Jeff Byzek's and Jan  
> Novak's e-mails separately, but didn't want to say "look at my other  
> response" :-) So this is a combined response to both Jan and Jeff]
> 
> I concur that there can be a bit of complexity in verifying 
> the flows  
> 
> I also admit that I'm stuck on wanting to confirm the quality of the  
> flow data in some manner before stating that a specific benchmark  
> value was achieved (summarizing a paragraph I deleted in this e-mail  
> where I essentially stated a subtle variation of what I've said in  
> earlier e-mails :-) ).
> 
> As a compromise, perhaps the draft could state a mechanism whereas  
> measurements values for which the accuracy of the flow data 
> is somehow  
> confirmed (such as in the DUT CPU) should be suffixed "with verified  
> flow data" (or something like that).  Measurement values for which  
> flow data was not confirmed should be suffixed "without 
> verified flow  
> data"
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg