RE: RPR perf: Regarding the vote
Hi all,
I hate to be the "procedure" cup, but I have to remind everybody that we are
not in a position to take any "formal votes" yet. Also, we should not treat
previous SG decisions as binding and worry about "reopening" decisions. The
first time we can officially vote is in March. This is not just a
theoretical issue or one which concerns the perf. ad-hoc only. I suspect
that the performance work will take a significant amount of the time and
resources of the entire WG and therefore the decision of what to do and how
much needs to be taken carefully.
I realize that a lot of preparatory work is needed in order to bootstrap the
simulation work and the earlier we do it the better. On the other hand, we
cannot let the simulation work shape the outcome of what the MAC will look
like. I read a lot of references to fairness, congestion control, and other
features which 1) are far from being properly (and consensus-ly) defined,
and 2) have not been formally voted as being part of the requirements.
I plead for caution and patience. Trying to rush things will only hurt us
later on in the process when consensus will be hard to achieve.
Offer Pazy
Sr. Product Manager
Native Networks
15 Gonen St.
Petah Tikva 49170
Israel
Tel: +972 3 921-0010 Ext. 229
Fax: +972 3 921-0080
pazy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pazy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.nativenetworks.com
The Native Way = Ethernet Simplicity + SONET Reliability
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Khaled Amer
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 22:24
To: Donghui Xie
Cc: Reflector RPRSG
Subject: Re: RPR perf: Regarding the vote
All,
Please put:
RPR perf: vote
in the e-mail subject field.
and select one of the options:
- TCP
- raw packets
- Abstain
This will help me a lot.
You can add comments following that if you want.
Thanks.
Khaled Amer
President, AmerNet Inc.
Architecture Analysis and Performance Modeling Specialists
Address: 13711 Solitaire Way, Irvine, CA 92620
Phone: (949)552-1114 Fax: (949)552-1116
e-mail: khaledamer@xxxxxxx
Web: www.performancemodeling.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Donghui Xie <dxie@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Khaled Amer <khaledamer@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Reflector RPRSG <stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: RPR perf: My thoughts
>
> Hi All,
>
> TCP traffic performance over RPR is definitely the most important part of
> RPR MAC evaluation. However, I don't think TCP traffic performance over
RPR
> should be the first step. What we need here is to establish a clean and
> simplistic RPR MAC performance baseline in a timely manner. TCP network
> behavior can be pathological due to many reasons ranging from application,
> RTT estimation factors to TCP simulation models. By just specifying a
Tahoe
> or any other flavor of TCP would not bring consensus to TCP traffic
> generation specification any time sooner.
>
> Using raw UDP traffic will never produce a definitive performance
> conclusion for RRP MAC, but it does allow us to focus on RPR MAC
> performance baseline. RPR MAC performance evaluation should be a
> progressive advancing process, from simple to complex and from partial to
> complete. Any shortcut may well be counter productive and time consuming.
>
> I support raw UDP traffic as step #1 simulation.
>
> Best Regards,
> Donghui Xie
>
>
> At 10:22 AM 1/30/01 -0800, Khaled Amer wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> >I'd like to suggest that we avoid involving ourselves in heavy duty
traffic
> >characterization problems (whether traffic is self-similar or not, and
all
> >of that). As we know, this is an active area of research, and we can spin
> >our wheels trying to resolve this. There are so many schools of thought
on
> >this. I don't believe that it will have a dramatic effect on what we're
> >trying to accomplish here.
> >
> >Now, on another related point, in August, we had arrived to the
conclusion
> >that we'll start step#1 of the simulations using raw traffic with no
> >protocols involved, and make the runs with TCP and UDP (and mixes) as
step
> >#2. We voted on this and agreed among ourselves to do so. I looked at my
> >records and found that the Luminous guys didn't attend that meeting when
we
> >made that decision. Apparently they had to leave.
> >
> >I'm seeing that there are a lot of discussions on the reflector going
back
> >to this point. Even though I don't want to take a step back on decisions
> >that were already made and voted on, so that we continue to make
progress, I
> >guess we need to reopen this one and make a decision again.
> >
> >I'll open it up for an electronic straw poll vote.
> >
> >Here is what we'll be voting on:
> >
> >As the first step in running the simulations, we should use traffic
streams
> >that:
> >1) use TCP streams as step #1 in the simulations, and not just raw data.
Raw
> >data and other protocols (like UDP) will follow immediately afterwards as
> >step #2.
> >2) use raw packets with no protocols as step #1 in the simulations. TCP
and
> >UDP protocols (as well as mixes) will follow immediately afterwards as
step
> >#2.
> >
> >Please vote by selecting one of the following choices:
> >
> >- TCP
> >- raw packets
> >- Abstain
> >
> >Please remember that this vote is just for the first set of simulations.
> >Just trying to narrow down the number of runs to a manageable subset for
the
> >first batch of simulations. We all agree that we're going to be doing all
of
> >the other steps in the presentation that I gave as step #2.
> >
> >Please cast your vote by Friday (2/1). I'll post the results that evening
or
> >over the weekend.
> >
> >Please put:
> > RPR perf: vote
> >in the e-mail subject field.
> >
> >In either case, we're going to decide on some simple traffic input
process
> >that we can use as a starting point too. We can get into more elaborate
ones
> >later, if we see that it would be appropriate and productive for this
group
> >to use (and if it doesn't get us all into a black hole!)
> >
> >Waiting for your vote.
> >Best regards.
> >
> >Khaled Amer
> >Chairman, RPR Performance Modeling adhoc Committee
> >President, AmerNet Inc.
> >Architecture Analysis and Performance Modeling Specialists
> >Address: 13711 Solitaire Way, Irvine, CA 92620
> >Phone: (949)552-1114 Fax: (949)552-1116
> >e-mail: khaledamer@xxxxxxx
> >Web: www.performancemodeling.com
>