[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Simple] draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis
Hi,
I am interested in presence systems and presence traffic load in these
systems. I have read the draft
draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis-01.txt and the versions in
http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/draft-ietf-simple-interdomain-scaling-analysis-02.txt
and http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/SIMPLE_message_computation-02.xls of
draft and message computation excel file sent by Houri. I have comments
about some computations and assumptions done in the draft that are not clear
for me. Also I describe some contributions that, in my view, could improve
the quality of message computations.
1. Although in the excel file the calculation of I07 variable is correct, in
the draft (in 2.3.2 section) I07 is described as
(I03*C06*C09)+((C04/C05)*C11) which is a mistake. This variable is computed
as I03*C06*(C09+(C04/C05)*C11) in the excel file.
2. The draft focuses on studying presence traffic between presence systems.
Then, in my point of view, in order to be more accurate in the computation
of presence traffic when a RLS is used we should take the following presence
traffic into account.
a) Traffic due to initial SUBSCRIBE messages sent by the RLS to
each resource of the list when the user subscribes to his resource list.
This traffic should be included in I09 variable.
b) Traffic due to SUBSCRIBE messages sent by the RLS to each
resource of the list in order to keep presence subscriptions alive. This
traffic should be included in S09 variable
c) Traffic due to terminating SUBSCRIBE messages (with Expires
header equal to zero) that are sent by the RLS to each resource of the list
in order to terminate presence subscriptions. This traffic should be
included in T09 variable.
3. I am not sure if the computation of S03 variable takes account of RLS
case. In this computation NOTIFY messages only include one presence
document. It can be due to partial RLMI documents are used and then only
presence about the presentity whose state has changed is notified. In other
case, if full state RLMI documents are used, S03 variable should be
calculated as following: (S01*(C9+(C04/C05)*C11)+S02*C10)*C06*C04
4. In T07 variable computation only one presence document is included in
terminating NOTIFYs, including when RLS is used. However RFC 4662 (A SIP
Event Notification Extension for Resource Lists) states that any terminating
NOTIFY should be full state containing presence about all the presentities
in the resource list. Then, Why is only one presence document included in
the terminating NOTIFY when RLS is used? According to RFC 4662 the
computation of T07 variable should be: T03*C06*(C09+(C04/C05)*C11).
In addition, when partial notification is applied the presence document in
terminating NOTIFYs is partial as we can see in
http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/SIMPLE_message_computation.xls, but this
document should be full state according to RFC 4662. Sending partial
documents in terminating NOTIFYs should be an optimization independent of
standard partial presence notification.
5. The NOTIFY optimization in the draft only avoids NOTIFY messages for
refreshing subscriptions, however the draft draft-eitf-sip-subnot-etags-01
indicates that this method also avoids NOTIFY messages due to terminating
SUBSCRIBE's. Then, when NOTIFY optimization is used, T07 and T08 variables
should be zero. If we update excel file of messages computation setting T07
and T08 variables to zero, the total bytes of terminating NOTIFY messages
(T09 variable) is 16,400,400,000 instead of 93,800,000,000. The reduction of
bytes is important.
6. When partial notification is applied the size of presence documents is
200 bytes. I consider this size too small since examples of partial presence
documents in draft-ietf-simple-partial-pidf-format-08 are quite bigger. Only
root tag in these examples are about 300 bytes. In my point of view, a
bigger average size of partial presence documents, like 500 bytes, should be
more appropriate.
7. When a RLS is used, the calculations of bytes do not care all elements of
notifications. A NOTIFY message contains a multipart body formed by one RLMI
document and several presence documents. The draft does not include the RLMI
document and multipart boundaries when it computes total bytes of RLS's
notifications. Each presentity whose presence document is included in the
notification is associated to one "resource" tag in the RLMI document. An
average size of this tag could be 160 bytes according to examples in RFC
4662. In addition other elements have to be taken into account, like the
root node (also called root tag) of the RLMI document and multipart
boundaries. In a RLMI notification a multipart boundary indicates the start
of the RLMI document or a presence document. An average size for both root
node and multipart header could be 144 bytes according to examples in RFC
4662. The inclusion of these considerations into the computation of bytes
could increase the number of total bytes significantly when RLS is used. For
this reason, I have modified the excel file to take these bytes into
account. I have defined new constants and modified some variables. Now, when
RLS is used, different computations are necessary:
C13= item size per contact in RLMI document = 160 bytes
C14= size of multipart boundary in RLMI notifications = 144 bytes
C15 = size of XML root node in RLMI document = 144 bytes
I07= bytes_without_rls: I03*C06*(C09*C11)
bytes_with_rls: I03*C06*(C09+C14+C15+C04*(C13+C14+C11))
S03= bytes_without_rls: (S01*(C09+C11)+S02*C10)*C04*C06
bytes_with_rls:
(S01*(C09+C14+C15+C04*(C13+C14+C11)+S02*C10)*C04*C06
S08= bytes_without_rls= (S04*C07+S05*C08+S06*(C09+c11)+S07*C10)*C06
bytes_with_rls= (S04*C07+S05*C08+S06*(C09+
C14+C15+C04*(C13+C14+C11)) +S07*C10)*C06
T07= bytes_without_rls = (T03*C06*(C09+C11)).
bytes_with_rls = (T03*C06*(C09+ C14+C15+C04*(C13+C14+C11)).
8. The enclosed file called "normal_SIMPLE_message_computation.xls" is a
file that contains the changes described in section 7, and assumes full
state RLMI notifications (due to comments in sections 3 and 4). This file
can be compared with SIMPLE_message_computation-02.xls ( without NOTIFY
optimization. With the constants of the second figure in the draft (section
2.5, "SIMPLE with Dialog Optimization")- 4 presentities, 3 presence changes
per hour and 40000 watchers - the following total bytes (B01 variable) are
obtained:
normal_SIMPLE_message_computation.xls: 56,066,320,000
SIMPLE_message_computation-02.xls without NOTIFY optimization:
18,190,800,000
We can see that the considerations in section 7 increase the total bytes
significantly. This fact is due to this considerations assume that the RLS
always notifies full state RLMI documents. In the enclosed file called
"normal_partialRLMI_SIMPLE_message_computation.xls" the RLS notifies partial
RLMI documents when a presentity changes its presence state. In this way,
when RLS is used the total bytes computed are 21,176,080,000. Partial state
RLMI documents reduce a lot of presence traffic, but still this number is
bigger than 18,190,800,00. This fact shows that the draft should care the
comments explained in section 7.
9.- The enclosed file called
"NOTIFY_PRLMI_PNotification_SIMPLE_message_computation.xls" takes
considerations in section 5, 6 and 7 into account. Partial Notification is
applied with an average size of 500 bytes for partial presence documents and
also NOTIFY optimization is used. I have modified
SIMPLE_message_computation-02.xls to include partial notification, and the
resulting file is "SIMPLE_message_computation-03.xls" which is enclosed.
Then, we can compare "SIMPLE_message_computation-03.xls" and
"NOTIFY_PRLMI_PNotification_SIMPLE_message_computation.xls". Considering the
constants in section 2.9 of the draft - 10 presentities, RLS, 6 presence
changes per hour, notify and partial notification optimizations - the
following value for B01 variable is obtained:
"NOTIFY_PRLMI_PNotification_SIMPLE_message_computation.xls" :
19,029,560,000,000
"SIMPLE_message_computation-03.xls" : 10,630,400,000,000
I am studying methods for reducing and estimating presence traffic so i
would be grateful to any response that help me to understand better this
draft and achieve good analytical studies of presence traffic.
Thanks
Victoria Beltrán
Attachment:
normal_SIMPLE_message_computation.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet
Attachment:
normal_partialRLMI_SIMPLE_message_computation.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet
Attachment:
NOTIFY_PRLMI_PNotification_SIMPLE_message_computation.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet
Attachment:
SIMPLE_message_computation-03.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple