Initial Route Server Stats for MAE-East

Guy T Almes almes at
Mon Oct 23 12:21:09 UTC 1995

I'd like to second Mike's note, particularly the call for participation.
Learning how to characterize IP clouds with carefully defined metrics of
delay, flow capacity, and packet loss will be real work.
        Note, for example, the discussion this weekend of how simple pings
to a loaded router don't yield a good measure of packet-forwarding loss.
The same could be said for trying to measure round-trip delay to a loaded
        If you'd like to join the IPPM email list, send mail to
<ippm-request at>.  Notes expressing an interest in working on
specific kinds of issues would be particularly appreciated.  We'll also be
meeting at the upcoming Dallas IETF.
        -- Guy

At 10:06 PM 10/22/95 -0400, Mike O'Dell wrote:
>the IPPM effort within the Benchmark Methodology Working Group is
>working on "IP Performance Metrics" which apply to large IP networks
>viewed as the "device-under-test" and not "provider metrics" per se.
>(I say this as the both the Co-Area Director and the AD responsible for
>the working group.)
>understanding the performance of complex networks IS a very much
>unsolved problems.  people are thrashing around taking whatever
>measurements they can think of with hopes of generating SOME kind of
>understanding.  I don't blame them at all - there isn't much else to do
>right this instant.
>all this means, though, is that folks concerned with the problem need
>to participate in the BMWG efforts.  there is a lot of work to do here
>and with some luck, we may do some science to the point of developing
>some understanding about how to measure and characterize these beasts
>we've built.
>A lot has been done in characterizing performance of network elements,
>so now we need to draw a bigger circle around what we're testing
>but still apply significant rigor and good experimental methodology
>so the data will be meaningful.
>	yours for more consistent confusion,
>	-mo

More information about the NANOG mailing list