Hi Mirja, thanks for bringing this topic to ippm. Some technical notes on this: RFC2330 does not differentiate at which layer timestamps are acquired. If the host time is considered to be an application layer timestamp, alto could immediately adopt/use the base framework and all the metrics that have been defined so far in ippm - including OWD, RTD, IPDV (alias Jitter), Loss, Loss Patterns, BTC, etc., all defined in separate documents and in substantial detail.
So yes, I share your opinion. I recommend alto to consider this procedure - unless there are specific reasons why this can't be done (in which case ippm will likely be very interested in feedback on the reasons). Some more related documents: - The update to 2330 (RFC7312) has particular focus on uncertainty factors that measurements at application level will encounter in today's networks. - Al and I have written a draft to update RFC2330 to be more specific wrt timestamp acquisition, even considering virtualization and related challenges. The draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fabini-ippm-2330-time/ ) has expired but I plan to rewrite it to fit what we have discussed in Yokohama (in particular a use-case based discussion of timestamp acquisition in measurements). - IPv6 update for 2330 is on the way. (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-00 ) Any feedback and summary on requirements from alto is very welcome; likewise some statements on the challenges in adopting the existing ippm metrics. I guess that this information is valuable feedback for ippm in evaluating past and guiding future work. Joachim On 2016-07-21 15:41, Mirja Kühlewind wrote: > Hi ippm folks, hi alto folks, > > cross-posting because draft-wu-alto-et-metrics defines a set of alto cost > metrics such as delay or bandwidth which sound to me like IP performance > metrics. At the same time IPPM is currently in the process of defining a > metric registry (draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-07 and > draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-01). How do these relate to each other and > how can we make sure that they are inline with each other? > > Mirja > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
