Hello Mirja and Altoers, Should the ALTO WG consider broadening the scope of the ALTO performance metrics draft by having at least a section for potential IPPM metrics and another section covering other network performance metrics?
Indeed, network performance metrics that are already documented in the IPPM initial registry can just be referenced in the ALTO metrics document. As the IPPM initial registry is in progress, the ALTO metrics draft may include a placeholder for IPPM relevant metrics until they get adopted and specified in IPPM. Definitely, ALTO-IPPM coordination will be fruitful. However, quoting Al Morton's e-mail on July 21st: "Another way to interpret what ALTO needs is to look at cost metrics the same as link costs in routing. Routing link costs are usually static and the values might be set relative to some real metric like latency or max link line rate. These involve no measurement at all." Additionally, some network metric values may stem from both measurements and provider policy as for example, many bandwidth related ALTO metrics. ALTO may convey such information not available via 3rd party measurement tools. Besides, IPPM informational RFC 5136 points the difficulty to have a unified nomenclature for network capacity related measurements. To guide users and applications, ALTO performance Metric values may also add abstraction to measurements and/or provide unitless performance scores. Last, given the growing WG interest in wireless networks, nothing precludes ALTO metrics from covering them. Thanks, Sabine >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alto [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind >>Sent: jeudi 5 janvier 2017 15:02 >>To: Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US) <[email protected]> >>Cc: [email protected]; Qin Wu <[email protected]>; IETF >>ALTO <[email protected]> >>Subject: Re: [alto] Submitting draft-wu-alto-te-metrics as a WG item >> >>Hi all, >> >>sorry for being super late. >> >>One thing is to align with IPPM, there other question is do we need an own >>alto registry for these metric or can we use the IPPM registry? I would prefer >>the second approach if appropriate which would also mean that the other >>metrics that are not part of the IPPM registry yet, should be registered >>there. >>Given this is still work in progress, we definitely should coordinate with the >>IPPM working group and see if the registration itself should happen in IPPM >>or ALTO. >> >>Mirja >> >> >>> Am 29.08.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Vijay K. Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@nokia- >>bell-labs.com>: >>> >>> On 08/29/2016 03:47 AM, Qin Wu wrote: >>>> Here is the update of draft-wu-alto-te-metrics to address two open >>>> issues raised in the last meeting. The diff is: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-alto-te-metrics-09 >>> >>> Qin: Thanks. More below. >>> >>> Folks: Please take a look at the above diffs that address the concerns >>> in [1]. >>> >>> Authors: Please wait a few days for any feedback from the WG and >>> incorporate feedback in a -00 version. Irrespective of any feedback, >>> please generate a WG -00 and submit by next week (mid- to late next >>> week). >>> >>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg03277.html >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> - vijay >>> -- >>> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks >>> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) >>> Email: [email protected] / [email protected] >>> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: >>> http://goo.gl/x3Ogq >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> alto mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >> >>_______________________________________________ >>alto mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
