Our code (which is used in production for a few years) unfortunately is not open source (we dont have the resources as a small company). However, i do plan to implement i2rs with quagga (zebra to be specific) and hope to show up with some results - that is if i dont get overruled to using ForCES before the next meeting.
cheers, jamal On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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
