On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 7:30 AM, ramki Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote:
> My point is that it is good to have an empirical performance comparison > (which would mean everything is apple-to-apple including setup, use case > etc.) between Netconf and FORCES given that both the protocols have been in > existence for a while. > > It would be good to have a pointer to implementations, open-source tools, tutorials, etc. The NETCONF WG maintains a wiki to help provide this information: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/trac/wiki Benoit asked at the London meeting, "where is this list for ForCES?" We still have not heard an answer. I agree that there may be some flaws in this particular comparison between > SNMP and Netconf. I couldn't find anything else which is easily publicly > available; if you have any better publicly available reference, please > suggest. > > Thanks, > Ramki > > Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:15 AM > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; ramki Krishnan; Joel M. Halpern; Andy Bierman; > Jamal Hadi Salim; Russ White; [email protected]; Jan Medved (jmedved); Dean > Bogdanovic; Edward Crabbe > Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model > > I see a different flaw just from the first few pages and looking at the > conclusion. > Sorry - didnt have time to look at the whole thing. > The paper picks a model entity of about 90% strings (theres one "int" > iirc). > I am not sure what that was supposed to emulate. From that perspective the > question answered to me seems to be "how bad does SNMP do when you have > mostly strings?". It seemed to do fairly well at the end. I liked the fact > they tried to batch things with SNMP. > If i was emulating what I2RS is doing by building on say the RIB model, it > will not be 90% ascii on the wire for SNMP. > > Agree with Juergen on apple-apple comparison needed. > > cheers, > jamal > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:26:58PM -0700, ramki Krishnan wrote: > > > >> It would be good to have an empirical performance analysis of Netconf > >> vs FORCES; this would substantiate performance advantages, if any, of > >> either protocol. The following reference provides a reasonable > >> empirical performance analysis of Netconf vs SNMP - > >> http://morse.colorado.edu/~tlen5710/11s/11NETCONFvsSNMP.pdf. > > > > I believe this comparison is flawed. ncclient uses a pure Python > > implementation of SSH while the authors used a Python wrapper around > > NET-SNMP (a C implementation) to measure SNMP performance. And the > > authors state that they used SNMPv2c (no security) and SSH as the > > NETCONF transport. (It is also unclear whether all NETCONF > > transactions were executed over a single session or multiple > > sessions.) > > > > The design of such experiments is not as easy as it may look at first > > glance and it is in particular important to use comparable security > > algorithms (ideally the same crypto library). > > > > /js > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
