| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | 
| 
 RPR'ers, 
Based on the 'underwhelming' responses that I got 
back on this, we'll consider the performance metrics discussion closed for now, 
and move on.  
As I mentioned before, I want for us to work on 
identifying the scenarios, and metrics that we want to use as a starting point. 
I know that some of you already put extensive efforts into producing simulation 
results, but we want to all get to run a consistent subset for various 
proposals. I've already posted some preliminary thoughts and suggestions (and 
got the same underwhelming response!).  
Please share with us any thoughts that you have on 
this subset, and if you have suggestions on more details. In the meantime, I'll 
work on putting together more details too. I'd like to see us go to the Interim 
meeting with some of these discussions already started, so that we just work on 
ironing out any points of disagreements that we may have. Hopefully, we can 
reach to some consensus on a starting subset that we all agree to, and start 
running some coherent simulations after the Interim and share the results in the 
November plenary. As you know, we're going to have a lot of simulation work 
to do, so getting a head start on it can help us avoid the situation where 
this becomes a gating factor in the future causing delays in establishing the 
standard.  
Thanks. 
Khaled Amer 
President, AmerNet Architecture Analysis and Performance Modeling Specialists Phone: (949)552-1114 13711 Solitaire Way, Irvine, CA 92620 Fax: (949)552-1116 e-mail: khaledamer@xxxxxxx ----- Original Message ----- 
 
From: Khaled Amer  
To: Reflector RPRSG  
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 8:48 PM 
Subject: RPR Perf. Metrics Discussions All, 
Attached is the last version of the presentation 
that I gave in the La Jolla plenary meeting in July. This includes the 
suggestions that were raised in the discussions that we had during the 
meeting. Please have a look at them and make sure 
that they cover everything that we discussed. If not, please point out any 
points that I may have missed. 
I'd like for us to reach an agreement on this 
before the interim meeting that we're having in a few weeks in Santa 
Clara. 
Please provide any input or concerns that you may 
have by Friday 8/11. I'll plan on posting the 'final' version the following 
Monday for your review. After that, we'll consider this closed (at least for 
now).  
Another couple of points: 
- I would like to request that we begin 
thinking about some simulation scenarios that we can use as a starting 
point. We'll have to start with some subset and then add on as we decide is 
appropriate. Along with this, we should also identify in these scenarios a 
subset of the output results or metrics for these simulation runs. We can 
start by addressing one or more of the of the metrics that we have in the 
attached presentation. 
For example, I'll go ahead and make a strawman 
attempt at this. We can use this strawman to open up the discussion for bashing 
it! How about starting with the following 
subset of the goals that we identified for this work such as: 
 I know that this is a rough strawman, and most of 
the items need to be defined in more details. But we can use this as a 
starting point to trigger some thoughts and discussions on the reflector. 
If you have any thoughts on this, or just any thoughts on your mind (well ... 
related to this!), please speak up. Let's start discussing this on the 
reflector in the coming couple of weeks so that we can make good progress in the 
meeting, instead of starting the discussion then.  
- Several of you indicated availability of traffic 
patterns that were taken off the Internet or other networking environments that 
would be useful for us to use in the simulations. In my mind, we need things 
like packet size distributions, interarrival times, burstiness, application 
and protocol distributions, and any other relevant characteristics of network 
traffics that we may want to consider in the simulations. If you have 
information that would help with this, please let us know on the reflector and 
we would appreciate you making it available and discussing it during the next 
meeting.  
Any other suggestions are most 
welcome. 
Khaled Amer 
President, AmerNet Architecture Analysis and Performance Modeling Specialists Phone: (949)552-1114 13711 Solitaire Way, Irvine, CA 92620 Fax: (949)552-1116 e-mail: khaledamer@xxxxxxx  | 
Performance Metrics vers 2.0.ppt