Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] RFC: Realtime Response Under Load (rrul) test specification

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012, Dave Taht wrote:
>> I have been working on developing a specification for testing networks
>> more effectively for various side effects of bufferbloat, notably
>> gaming and voip performance, and especially web performance.... as
>> well as a few other things that concerned me, such as IPv6 behavior,
>> and the effects of packet classification.
>
> When it is reasonably complete, it would be nice to have it as an
> informational or better yet, standards-track IETF RFC.
>
> IETF RFC non-experimental status allows us to require RRUL testing prior to
> service acceptance, and even add it as one of the SLA metrics on public
> tenders, which goes a long way into pushing anything into more widespread
> usage.

It was my intent to write this as a real, standards track rfc, and
also submit it as a prospective test to the ITU and other testing
bodies such as nist, undewriter labratories, consumer reports, and so
on.

However I:

A) got intimidated by the prospect of dealing with the rfc editor

B) Have some sticky problems with two aspects of the test methodology
(and that's just what I know about) which I am prototyping around.
Running the prototype tests on various real networks has had very
"interesting" results... (I do hope others try the prototype tests,
too, on their networks)

C) thought it would be clearer to write the shortest document possible
on this go-round.
D) Am not particularly fond of the "rrule" name. (suggestions?)

I now plan (after feedback) to produce and submit this as a standards
track RFC in the march timeframe.

It would give me great joy to have this test series included in
various SLA metrics, in the long run.



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html