RPR perf: vote
My vote is:
raw packets
Necdet
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
begin:vcard
n:Uzun;Necdet
tel;fax:408 325 1699
tel;work:408 325 1602
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:www.AuroraNetics.com
version:2.1
email;internet:nuzun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
adr;quoted-printable:;;211 River Oaks Pkw, Suite B=0D=0A;San Jose;CA;95134;
fn:Necdet Uzun
end:vcard