draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-05.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-06.txt 
Network Working Group B. Constantine Network Working Group B. Constantine
Internet Draft JDSU Internet Draft JDSU
Intended status: Informational R. Krishnan Intended status: Informational R. Krishnan
Expires: February 2016 Brocade Communications Expires: February 2016 Dell Inc.
June 2, 2015 June 9, 2015
Traffic Management Benchmarking Traffic Management Benchmarking
draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-05.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-06.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 2, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 9, line 36 skipping to change at page 9, line 36
traffic. To this end, the stateful tests will use TCP test patterns traffic. To this end, the stateful tests will use TCP test patterns
to emulate applications. This framework also provides guidelines to emulate applications. This framework also provides guidelines
for application modeling and open source tools to achieve the for application modeling and open source tools to achieve the
repeatable stimulus. And finally, TCP metrics from [RFC6349] MUST repeatable stimulus. And finally, TCP metrics from [RFC6349] MUST
be measured for each stateful test and provide the means to compare be measured for each stateful test and provide the means to compare
each repeated test. each repeated test.
Even though the scope is targeted to TCP applications (i.e. Web, Even though the scope is targeted to TCP applications (i.e. Web,
Email, database, etc.), the framework could be applied to SCTP Email, database, etc.), the framework could be applied to SCTP
in terms of test patterns. WebRTC, SS7 signaling, and 3gpp are in terms of test patterns. WebRTC, SS7 signaling, and 3gpp are
examples of SCTP protocols that could be modeled with this SCTP-based applications that could be modeled with this
framework to benchmark SCTP's effect on traffic management framework to benchmark SCTP's effect on traffic management
performance. performance.
Also note that currently, this framework does not address tcpcrypt Also note that currently, this framework does not address tcpcrypt
(encrypted TCP) test patterns, although the metrics defined in (encrypted TCP) test patterns, although the metrics defined in
Section 4.2 can still be used since the metrics are based on TCP Section 4.2 can still be used since the metrics are based on TCP
retransmission and RTT measurements (versus any of the payload). retransmission and RTT measurements (versus any of the payload).
Thus if tcpcrypt becomes popular, it would be natural for Thus if tcpcrypt becomes popular, it would be natural for
benchmarkers to consider encrypted TCP patterns and include them benchmarkers to consider encrypted TCP patterns and include them
in test cases. in test cases.
skipping to change at page 42, line 13 skipping to change at page 42, line 13
Vijay Gurbani, Reinhard Schrage, and Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan Vijay Gurbani, Reinhard Schrage, and Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Barry Constantine Barry Constantine
JDSU, Test and Measurement Division JDSU, Test and Measurement Division
Germantown, MD 20876-7100, USA Germantown, MD 20876-7100, USA
Phone: +1 240 404 2227 Phone: +1 240 404 2227
Email: barry.constantine@jdsu.com Email: barry.constantine@jdsu.com
Ram Krishnan Ram(Ramki) Krishnan
Brocade Communications Dell Inc.
San Jose, 95134, USA Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA
Phone: +001-408-406-7890 Phone: +001-408-406-7890
Email: ramk@brocade.com Email: ramkri123@gmail.com
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
8 lines changed or deleted 8 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/