Re: WG ADOPTION: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv

Hi Marius,

Thanks for your support on the draft.

Maryam and I discussed your comments briefly at the
VSPERF weekly meeting.

When it comes to comparison, which may not necessarily
be degradation, (I think) we've seen multipliers used
more frequently, as they help to simplify the result
(2x better performance, AAA switch 10x faster than ZZZ).
But this is worth discussing.

As far as De-activation goes, VSPERF doesn't have test
cases that cover this function, and it's probably a
topic which has seen light treatment in Benchmarking.
But, we could turn that around if it's important now!

regards,
Maryam and Al

From: bmwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marius Georgescu
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] WG ADOPTION: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vsperf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv

I think this work is important for the future of this WG and I support its adoption.
I also have two questions for the authors:

1. For the Comparison with Physical Network Functions, I was wondering if a performance degradation index between a physical and a virtual network function would make sense. For example, run a RFC2544.throughput test with a physical switch as DUT and  get X result, run the same test with a  virtual switch as DUT and get Y result. Express the performance degradation in percentage as:
              X - Y
       PD= ----------- * 100
                 X

2. Considering the Matrix Coverage Summary, I was wondering why no De-activation benchmark was proposed.

Best regards,
Marius

On Mar 24, 2016, at 00:46, Sarah B <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hello BWWG,
          According to the minutes from IETF94 (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-bmwg), those present in the room expressed interest in the draft. There've been several reviewers, and strong discussion during each IETF meeting since the draft was introduced. As Al is a named author, I'd like to, with my chair hat on, ask the BMWG list to confirm their support for this draft and call for adoption.

          Please reply with your opinion whether the BMWG should adopt this draft, whether you have read the draft, and any comments on the draft or this call for adoption. Let's attempt to complete this call for adoption and meet a deadline of April 20th, 2016.

Kind regards,
Sarah
BMWG Co-Chair
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg