From ralfluebben at gmx.de Mon Jun 9 23:12:28 2008 From: ralfluebben at gmx.de (Ralf =?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCbben?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:12:28 +0200 Subject: [Tmrg] Availability of the Evaluation Suite/TMix? Message-ID: <200806100812.28885.ralfluebben@gmx.de> Hello all, I am looking forward to use the Evaluation Suite and in particular TMix for analyzing and for parametric modeling of network traffic. I hope TMix is a good starting point for that. Are the tools already available or is there a realease schedule? Thanks a lot. Cheers, Ralf From lachlan.andrew at gmail.com Tue Jun 10 13:01:06 2008 From: lachlan.andrew at gmail.com (Lachlan Andrew) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:01:06 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg] Availability of the Evaluation Suite/TMix? In-Reply-To: <200806100812.28885.ralfluebben@gmx.de> References: <200806100812.28885.ralfluebben@gmx.de> Message-ID: Greetings Ralf, Thanks for your interest, and your patience with the slow progress recently. Caltech's testbed isn't yet ready, and I don't think Wang Gang's simulation suite is ready yet either. We don't have a release schedule, but we're looking at having something ready for beta testing in a couple of months. The specs will change once we start comparing the suite results for standard TCP with traffic measurements. Cheers, Lachlan 2008/6/9 Ralf L?bben : > Hello all, > > I am looking forward to use the Evaluation Suite and in particular TMix for > analyzing and for parametric modeling of network traffic. > I hope TMix is a good starting point for that. > > Are the tools already available or is there a realease schedule? > > Thanks a lot. > > Cheers, > Ralf > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tmrg-interest mailing list > Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest > -- Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech 1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603 http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan From weixl at caltech.edu Tue Jun 10 14:48:34 2008 From: weixl at caltech.edu (Xiaoliang "David" Wei) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:48:34 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg] Availability of the Evaluation Suite/TMix? In-Reply-To: References: <200806100812.28885.ralfluebben@gmx.de> Message-ID: <7335583a0806101448j376e1a6bw90e325ec3941b2a@mail.gmail.com> UCLA seems to have a evaluation suite http://netlab.cs.ucla.edu/tcpsuite/ I didn't get a time to try it out yet though. -David On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Lachlan Andrew wrote: > Greetings Ralf, > > Thanks for your interest, and your patience with the slow progress recently. > Caltech's testbed isn't yet ready, and I don't think Wang Gang's > simulation suite is ready yet either. > > We don't have a release schedule, but we're looking at having > something ready for beta testing in a couple of months. The specs > will change once we start comparing the suite results for standard TCP > with traffic measurements. > > Cheers, > Lachlan > > 2008/6/9 Ralf L?bben : >> Hello all, >> >> I am looking forward to use the Evaluation Suite and in particular TMix for >> analyzing and for parametric modeling of network traffic. >> I hope TMix is a good starting point for that. >> >> Are the tools already available or is there a realease schedule? >> >> Thanks a lot. >> >> Cheers, >> Ralf >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tmrg-interest mailing list >> Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU >> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest >> > > > > -- > Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech > 1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA > Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603 > http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan > > _______________________________________________ > Tmrg-interest mailing list > Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest > > -- Xiaoliang "David" Wei http://davidwei.org *********************************************** From cesar at cs.ucla.edu Tue Jun 10 15:39:46 2008 From: cesar at cs.ucla.edu (Cesar Marcondes) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:39:46 -0300 Subject: [Tmrg] Availability of the Evaluation Suite/TMix? In-Reply-To: <7335583a0806101448j376e1a6bw90e325ec3941b2a@mail.gmail.com> References: <200806100812.28885.ralfluebben@gmx.de> <7335583a0806101448j376e1a6bw90e325ec3941b2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <88d780b40806101539u1c2a797wc5aa2afe3c730aa0@mail.gmail.com> Dear David, Thanks for pointing out the UCLA TCP evaluation suite. However, this suite is not as complete as the one described in the PFLNet'08 paper. Even though, if you try out, let me know if you have problems since I'm maintaining the tool. Best regards, Cesar Marcondes On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Xiaoliang David Wei wrote: > UCLA seems to have a evaluation suite http://netlab.cs.ucla.edu/tcpsuite/ > I didn't get a time to try it out yet though. > > -David > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Lachlan Andrew > wrote: >> Greetings Ralf, >> >> Thanks for your interest, and your patience with the slow progress recently. >> Caltech's testbed isn't yet ready, and I don't think Wang Gang's >> simulation suite is ready yet either. >> >> We don't have a release schedule, but we're looking at having >> something ready for beta testing in a couple of months. The specs >> will change once we start comparing the suite results for standard TCP >> with traffic measurements. >> >> Cheers, >> Lachlan >> >> 2008/6/9 Ralf L?bben : >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I am looking forward to use the Evaluation Suite and in particular TMix for >>> analyzing and for parametric modeling of network traffic. >>> I hope TMix is a good starting point for that. >>> >>> Are the tools already available or is there a realease schedule? >>> >>> Thanks a lot. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Ralf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tmrg-interest mailing list >>> Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU >>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech >> 1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA >> Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603 >> http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tmrg-interest mailing list >> Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU >> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest >> >> > > > > -- > Xiaoliang "David" Wei > http://davidwei.org > *********************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Tmrg-interest mailing list > Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest > From ralfluebben at gmx.de Tue Jun 10 23:13:34 2008 From: ralfluebben at gmx.de (Ralf =?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCbben?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:13:34 +0200 Subject: [Tmrg] Availability of the Evaluation Suite/TMix? In-Reply-To: <88d780b40806101539u1c2a797wc5aa2afe3c730aa0@mail.gmail.com> References: <200806100812.28885.ralfluebben@gmx.de> <7335583a0806101448j376e1a6bw90e325ec3941b2a@mail.gmail.com> <88d780b40806101539u1c2a797wc5aa2afe3c730aa0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200806110813.35114.ralfluebben@gmx.de> Greetings all, thanks a lot for the quick responses. At the moment I mostly interested in the TMix tool for some further traffic modeling. Does anyone know the actual status of TMix? Cheers, Ralf Am Mittwoch 11 Juni 2008 00:39:46 schrieb Cesar Marcondes: > Dear David, > > Thanks for pointing out the UCLA TCP evaluation suite. > However, this suite is not as complete as the one described in the > PFLNet'08 paper. > Even though, if you try out, let me know if you have problems since > I'm maintaining the tool. > > Best regards, > Cesar Marcondes > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Xiaoliang David Wei wrote: > > UCLA seems to have a evaluation suite http://netlab.cs.ucla.edu/tcpsuite/ > > I didn't get a time to try it out yet though. > > > > -David > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Lachlan Andrew > > > > wrote: > >> Greetings Ralf, > >> > >> Thanks for your interest, and your patience with the slow progress > >> recently. Caltech's testbed isn't yet ready, and I don't think Wang > >> Gang's simulation suite is ready yet either. > >> > >> We don't have a release schedule, but we're looking at having > >> something ready for beta testing in a couple of months. The specs > >> will change once we start comparing the suite results for standard TCP > >> with traffic measurements. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Lachlan > >> > >> 2008/6/9 Ralf L?bben : > >>> Hello all, > >>> > >>> I am looking forward to use the Evaluation Suite and in particular TMix > >>> for analyzing and for parametric modeling of network traffic. > >>> I hope TMix is a good starting point for that. > >>> > >>> Are the tools already available or is there a realease schedule? > >>> > >>> Thanks a lot. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Ralf > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Tmrg-interest mailing list > >>> Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU > >>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest > >> > >> -- > >> Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech > >> 1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA > >> Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603 > >> http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Tmrg-interest mailing list > >> Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU > >> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest > > > > -- > > Xiaoliang "David" Wei > > http://davidwei.org > > *********************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tmrg-interest mailing list > > Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU > > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest > > _______________________________________________ > Tmrg-interest mailing list > Tmrg-interest at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tmrg-interest From lachlan.andrew at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 00:33:41 2008 From: lachlan.andrew at gmail.com (Lachlan Andrew) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:33:41 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg] Availability of the Evaluation Suite/TMix? In-Reply-To: <200806110813.35114.ralfluebben@gmx.de> References: <200806100812.28885.ralfluebben@gmx.de> <7335583a0806101448j376e1a6bw90e325ec3941b2a@mail.gmail.com> <88d780b40806101539u1c2a797wc5aa2afe3c730aa0@mail.gmail.com> <200806110813.35114.ralfluebben@gmx.de> Message-ID: 2008/6/10 Ralf L?bben : > > Does anyone know the actual status of TMix? It seems to be in beta-testing; there is basically-working code but minimal documentation and no support. Jay Aikat (ja unc.edu) could give more details. Cheers, Lachlan -- Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech 1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603 http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan From jaikat at email.unc.edu Wed Jun 11 10:24:14 2008 From: jaikat at email.unc.edu (Jay Aikat) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:24:14 -0400 Subject: [Tmrg] Availability of the Evaluation Suite/TMix? In-Reply-To: References: <200806100812.28885.ralfluebben@gmx.de> <7335583a0806101448j376e1a6bw90e325ec3941b2a@mail.gmail.com> <88d780b40806101539u1c2a797wc5aa2afe3c730aa0@mail.gmail.com> <200806110813.35114.ralfluebben@gmx.de> Message-ID: <48500A3E.2010907@email.unc.edu> Ralf and others interested in Tmix code: The Linux version of Tmix has been running in our testbed for several months. We are in our final round of testing and validation and our intent is to provide a well-tested, documented, supported release by the end of the Summer. In the meantime, we can make it available "as is" (little documentation and limited support) to a small number of researchers working with the TCP Evaluation Suite. We would expect that these early users would provide additional testing and contribute their fixes/new features back to us. We are sorry to have to be so restrictive in making the Linux version available, but we believe the limited resources we have are better used in testing/documenting for a solid release rather than supporting the current code. Thank you for your patience. --Jay Aikat. Lachlan Andrew wrote: > 2008/6/10 Ralf L?bben : >> Does anyone know the actual status of TMix? > > It seems to be in beta-testing; there is basically-working code but > minimal documentation and no support. Jay Aikat (ja unc.edu) could > give more details. > > Cheers, > Lachlan > From ralfluebben at gmx.de Thu Jun 12 22:49:08 2008 From: ralfluebben at gmx.de (Ralf =?iso-8859-1?q?L=FCbben?=) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:49:08 +0200 Subject: [Tmrg] Availability of the Evaluation Suite/TMix? In-Reply-To: <48500A3E.2010907@email.unc.edu> References: <200806100812.28885.ralfluebben@gmx.de> <48500A3E.2010907@email.unc.edu> Message-ID: <200806130749.08159.ralfluebben@gmx.de> Hi Jay, thanks a lot for the information. A preliminary version would be fine. Certainly, I would support you with testing and contribute my fixes/features back to you. Hopefully, I will have some time mid of next month, I will contact you then. Cheers, Ralf Am Mittwoch 11 Juni 2008 19:24:14 schrieb Jay Aikat: > Ralf and others interested in Tmix code: > The Linux version of Tmix has been running in our testbed for several > months. We are in our final round of testing and validation and our intent > is to provide a well-tested, documented, supported release by the end of > the Summer. > > In the meantime, we can make it available "as is" (little documentation and > limited support) to a small number of researchers working with the TCP > Evaluation Suite. We would expect that these early users would provide > additional testing and contribute their fixes/new features back to us. > > We are sorry to have to be so restrictive in making the Linux version > available, but we believe the limited resources we have are better used in > testing/documenting for a solid release rather than supporting the current > code. Thank you for your patience. > --Jay Aikat. > > Lachlan Andrew wrote: > > 2008/6/10 Ralf L?bben : > >> Does anyone know the actual status of TMix? > > > > It seems to be in beta-testing; there is basically-working code but > > minimal documentation and no support. Jay Aikat (ja unc.edu) could > > give more details. > > > > Cheers, > > Lachlan From lachlan.andrew at gmail.com Fri Jun 27 17:05:25 2008 From: lachlan.andrew at gmail.com (Lachlan Andrew) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:05:25 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg] TCP evaluation suite Message-ID: Greetings all, After a long delay, here is a draft Internet Draft based on the PFLDnet TCP evaluation suite paper. An initial WAN-in-Lab implementation should be ready in a couple of months, and I believe Wang Gang is still working part time on the NS implementation. Once that is ready, we can start setting actual parameters by comparing the results against measurement studies. There are still lots of "TBD" parameters, and comments (in bold in the .html). - Currently, statistics are listed as being measured over the last *half* of the experiment. On a 100s experiment, that gives 50s to avoid the effect of simultaneous flows slow-starting. However (a) on long experiments, it is overkill for avoiding the initial slow-start, but (b) it may be too short for the number of flows to reach "equilibrium". I vote that we recommend a particular warm-up time (say 50s) independent of the length of the experiment, and start the system "near equilibrium" (not from zero flows). - When comparing with "standard TCP", we specify which recent proposals are included and not. Which proposals should we list? I vote for: = SACK (included) = ECN (not included) = Window scaling (included, even though many Windows machines don't use it) = Forward RTO (included) = Appropriate Byte Counting (It is on in Windows, and was briefly on in Linux. If we don't include it, should we account for Linux's suppression of delayed ACKs during initial slow start when comparing against measurements?) - Currently, some of it is written in the style of a paper ("We use two flows..."). I think we should make it prescriptive ("Do this") instead of descriptive. Should we also use SHOULD, MAY etc to make clear what is part of the "core" tests? - Once there is an NS version of the test, it would be good to check that the RTTs actually give a good approximation to measured RTT distributions - All traffic loads have yet to be determined. Sally suggested setting these by matching the loss rate observed in the Internet with the loss rate arising from newReno. Since many current web servers use Linux/CUBIC, should we instead match the measurements to simulations of an appropriate mixture of newReno and CUBIC? - How polished does something need to be to be registered as an "Internet Draft"? Can we submit this as a -00 draft, or should we get more consensus first? Anyone who wants to contribute to this draft is welcome to, whether or not you were involved with the PFLDnet paper. The author list is starting from scratch. Cheers, Lachlan -- Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech 1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603 http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: draft-irtf-tmrg-tests-00.xml Type: text/xml Size: 58887 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/tmrg-interest/attachments/20080627/18148a6d/attachment-0001.xml -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: draft-irtf-tmrg-tests-00.txt Url: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/tmrg-interest/attachments/20080627/18148a6d/attachment-0001.txt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/tmrg-interest/attachments/20080627/18148a6d/attachment-0001.html From lachlan.andrew at gmail.com Sat Jun 28 11:42:00 2008 From: lachlan.andrew at gmail.com (Lachlan Andrew) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:42:00 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg] TCP evaluation suite In-Reply-To: <48667F01.30005@purdue.edu> References: <48667F01.30005@purdue.edu> Message-ID: 2008/6/28 Roman Chertov : > Hello Lachlan, > I think it would be worth while to include experiments which deal with > admission of new flows into the current steady state. Such an experiment > will allow to examine the impact of the startup stage on the already > established flows. > > Roman Greetings Roman, Thanks for your input. I agree that we need to study arriving flows. That was the goal of sections 4.3 and 4.4. Are you suggesting changing them or adding something new? We currently don't consider the impact of "slow start" on long-lived flows; is that what you are suggesting? (I hope you don't mind my Cc'ing your good suggestion to the list.) Cheers, Lachlan -- Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech 1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA Ph: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603 http://netlab.caltech.edu/lachlan From rchertov at purdue.edu Sat Jun 28 12:10:43 2008 From: rchertov at purdue.edu (Roman Chertov) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:10:43 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg] TCP evaluation suite In-Reply-To: References: <48667F01.30005@purdue.edu> Message-ID: <48668CB3.1050006@purdue.edu> Lachlan Andrew wrote: > 2008/6/28 Roman Chertov : >> Hello Lachlan, >> I think it would be worth while to include experiments which deal with >> admission of new flows into the current steady state. Such an experiment >> will allow to examine the impact of the startup stage on the already >> established flows. >> >> Roman > > Greetings Roman, > > Thanks for your input. I agree that we need to study arriving flows. > That was the goal of sections 4.3 and 4.4. Are you suggesting > changing them or adding something new? We currently don't consider > the impact of "slow start" on long-lived flows; is that what you are > suggesting? Yes, I think it would be valuable to look at scenarios where there is a collection of long-lived flows and a collection of short-lived flows. The short-lived flows send enough data for the slow start to increase the window several times, but not enough data to transition into congestion avoidance. This would be analogous to interleaving large and small file transfers. The obvious metrics to vary would be the arrival rate of short flows and the ratio of long-lived to short-lived flows. > > (I hope you don't mind my Cc'ing your good suggestion to the list.) Not a problem. Roman > > Cheers, > Lachlan > From sallyfloyd at mac.com Mon Jun 30 13:26:04 2008 From: sallyfloyd at mac.com (Sally Floyd) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:26:04 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg] TCP evaluation suite In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A9D1CE-0660-4511-9B6F-E0D83A26E4E7@mac.com> Lachlan - > After a long delay, here is a draft Internet Draft based on the > PFLDnet TCP evaluation suite paper. ... > - Currently, some of it is written in the style of a paper ("We use > two flows..."). I think we should make it prescriptive ("Do this") > instead of descriptive. Should we also use SHOULD, MAY etc to make > clear what is part of the "core" tests? I haven't read this version yet, but I don't think it needs SHOULD, MAY, etc. Those are usually used only for protocols. (For Informational RFCs that were also targeted as Best Current Practice, and became Best Current Practice RFCs, you could look at RFC 5033, or RFC 2914.) ... > - All traffic loads have yet to be determined. Sally suggested > setting these by matching the loss rate observed in the Internet with > the loss rate arising from newReno. Since many current web servers > use Linux/CUBIC, should we instead match the measurements to > simulations of an appropriate mixture of newReno and CUBIC? Either way seems ok by me. Though there is a lot of TCP traffic out there that is not from web servers... > - How polished does something need to be to be registered as an > "Internet Draft"? Can we submit this as a -00 draft, or should we get > more consensus first? I think it is fine to submit the draft as is, as -00. An initial version of a draft is not taken to represent consensus. Take care, - Sally http://www.icir.org/floyd/ From fred at cisco.com Mon Jun 30 15:32:32 2008 From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:32:32 -0700 Subject: [Tmrg] TCP evaluation suite In-Reply-To: <46A9D1CE-0660-4511-9B6F-E0D83A26E4E7@mac.com> References: <46A9D1CE-0660-4511-9B6F-E0D83A26E4E7@mac.com> Message-ID: On Jun 30, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Sally Floyd wrote: > I haven't read this version yet, but I don't think it needs SHOULD, > MAY, etc. Those are usually used only for protocols. (For > Informational RFCs that were also targeted as Best Current Practice, > and became Best Current Practice RFCs, you could look at RFC 5033, > or RFC 2914.) actually, they are intended for requirements documents. The first RFC where one could construe "SHOULD" being use that way is RFC 827, in which Eric indicates that in a certain circumstance a "gateway" SHOULD do something in particular. But it's not the word that is capitalized per se, it's two sentences. The first document in which it is defined as we use it now is RFC 1122/1123 and later 1812, and the question before the house (per section 1.3.2 of RFC 1122) is implementation compliance - an implementation can be said to be "conditionally compliant" if it implements all the MUSTs, and "fully compliant" if it also implements the SHOULDs. To be honest, I think most documents that use RFC 2119 language mis-use it. I am amused by RFC 2119's "guidance": Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability. I wish he had said Imperatives of the type defined in this memo MUST be used with care and sparingly.... :-)