From matt@advanced.org Tue Oct 3 02:27:20 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA03696 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 02:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id CAA15520 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 02:14:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marina.lowendale.com.au (neale@[203.26.242.120]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA26878 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 02:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (neale@localhost) by marina.lowendale.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id RAA25840; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:30:44 +1100 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:30:44 +1100 (EST) From: Neale Banks To: ippm@advanced.org Subject: reference implementations? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Greetings, Does anyone have nay pointers to references implementations for Packet Loss or Delay metrics in RFCs 2679-2681? Alternatively, any thoughts on adapting NTP to this task? Thanks, Neale. From matt@advanced.org Tue Oct 3 05:43:56 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA04893 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id FAA19493 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA17738 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 05:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA17209; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:29:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08002; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:29:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:29:51 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Neale Banks cc: ippm@advanced.org Subject: Re: reference implementations? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Neale Banks wrote: > Does anyone have nay pointers to references implementations for Packet > Loss or Delay metrics in RFCs 2679-2681? AFAIK, there are 2 that are available to the general public: 1. Test-Traffic Measurements from the RIPE-NCC http://www.ripe.net/test-traffic ttm@ripe.net 2. Surveyor from Advanced Network & Services http://www.advanced.org/surveyor Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From matt@advanced.org Tue Oct 3 12:26:57 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA16024 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA00279 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Pedro (ppp176.197dip.netdial.caribe.net [209.91.197.176]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA01744 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:17:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200010031617.MAA01744@betelgeuse.advanced.org> From: "juan" To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:30:17 From: tunes To: tunes Subject: Fw: PLEASE READ! 5 min. of your time for $50,000 in 90 DAYS! Date: Friday, August 11, 2000 9:38 AM ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 2:39 PM Subject: PLEASE READ! 5 min. of your time for $50,000 in 90 DAYS! > > > Dear Friend, > > This really works! Don't miss this opportunity. Get involved and it will > work for you as it does for us!!!!! > > Thank you for your time and interest. > > This email contains the ENTIRE PLAN of how YOU can make $50,000 or > more in the next 90 days simply sending email! > > Seem impossible? Just read on and see how easy this is.... > > Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a major nightly > news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the > program described below to see if it really can make people money. > > The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. > Their findings proved that there are absolutely no laws prohibiting the > participation in the program. This has helped to show people that > this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home. > > The results have been truly remarkable. So many people are > participating that those involved are doing much better than ever > before. Since everyone makes more as more people try it > out, its been very exciting. > > You will understand once you try it yourself! > > ********* THE ENTIRE PLAN IS HERE BELOW ********* > > *** Print This Now For Future Reference *** > > $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ > > If you would like to make at least $50,000 in less than 90 days! > Please read this program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!! > > $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ > > THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY!! > > It does NOT require you to come into contact with people or make or > take any telephone calls. Just follow the instructions, and you > will make money. This simplified e-mail marketing program works > perfectly 100% EVERY TIME! > > E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this > virtually free method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, > the more people will be doing business using email. Get your > piece of this action!!! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Hello - My name is Johnathon Rourke, I'm from Rhode Island. > > The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my > fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave > some thought and study to it. Two years ago, the corporation I worked > for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. > After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. > Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. > I owed my family, friends and creditors over $35,000. The economy was > taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends > meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my > family and struggling business. > > AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life. I am > writing to share the experience in hopes that this could change your > life FOREVER. > > FINANCIALLY$$$!!! > > In mid December, I received this program in my e-mail. Six months > prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information > on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my > opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me > to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to > see if they would work. But as I was saying, in December of 1997 I received > this program. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off > a mailing list. > > THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure > I was reading it correctly. I couldn't believe my eyes! Here was a > MONEY MAKING MACHINE I could start immediately without any debt. > > Like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried > about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. > Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed > > legal! > > After determining the program was LEGAL I decided "WHY NOT!?!??" > > Initially I sent out 10,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time > on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don't need any for > printing to send out the program, and because I also send the product > (reports) by e-mail, my only expense is my time. > > In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. > By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to > "RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, > SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. > > My first step in making $50,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I > had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to "RECEIVE AT LEAST > > 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS > > UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU > WILL MAKE YOUR $50,000 GOAL." > > Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2. 96 more than I needed. > So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 10,000, > received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL my debts > and bought a much needed new car! > > Please take your time to read this plan, IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE > FOREVER$!!! Remember, it won't work if you don't try it. > This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! > > Especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different > place. It won't work and you'll lose out on a lot of money! In order > for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for > REPORT #1, and 100+ orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or > more in 90 days. > > I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in > this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with little > cost or risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program > and you will be on your way to financial security. If you are a fellow > business owner and are in financial trouble like I was, or you want to > start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! $$ > > Sincerely, > > Johnathon Rourke > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: > > By the time you have read the enclosed program and reports, you should > have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not > have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about myself. > I had a profitable business for 10 years. Then in 1979 my business began > falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful > for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't > me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable > economy that had been with us since 1945. > > I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate... > because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more > failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was > vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and > moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or > invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, > > "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods > of making money will never allow you to"move up" or "get rich", inflation > will see to that. > > You have just received information that can give you financial > freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT > OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months than you > have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of > this money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this > program. > > I have retired from the program after sending thousands and thousands > of programs. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it > in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a > > copy of this exciting report to everyone you can think of. One of the > people you send this to may send out 50,000...and your name will be on > everyone of them! Remember though, the more you send out, the more > potential customers you will reach. So my friend, I have given you the > ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially > independent. > > IT IS UP TO YOU!! NOW DO IT!! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Before you delete this program from your in box, as I almost did, > take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil > and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the > worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will > still make a lot of money! You will definitely get back what you invested. Any > doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. > > $$$ IT WORKS!!! $$$ > > Jody Jacobs Richmond, VA > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF > DOLLAR$$$$!!!! > > This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am > sure that you could use up to $50,000 or more in the next 90 days. > before you say "BULL... ", please read this program carefully. This is > not a chain letter, but a perfectly legal money making business. > > As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by > recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA > allows you to recruit new multi-level business partners, and we sell and > deliver a product for EVERY dollar received. > > YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not > involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, > store or office. This is the EASIEST marketing plan anywhere! It is > simply order filling by email! > > ******************************************************************* > The product is informational and instructional material, keys to the > secrets for everyone on how to open the doors to the magic world of > E-COMMERCE , the information highway, the wave of the future ! > > PLAN SUMMARY: > > (1) You order the 4 reports listed below ($5US each) They come to you > by email. > > (2) Save a copy of this entire letter and put your name after Report > #1 and move the other names down. > > (3) Via the internet, access Yahoo.com or any of the other major > search engines to locate hundreds of bulk email service companies > (search for "bulk email") and have them send 25,000 - 50,000 emails for > you about $49+) > > (4) Orders will come to you by postal mail - simply email them the > Report they ordered. Let me ask you - isn't this about as easy as it > gets? > > ******************************************************************* > > By the way there are over 50 MILLION email addresses with millions > more joining the internet each year so don't worry about "running out" > or "saturation". People are used to seeing and hearing the same > advertisements every day on radio/TV. How many times have you received > the same pizza flyers on your door? Then one day you are hungry for > pizza and you order one. Same thing with this letter. I received this > letter many times - then one day I decided it was time to try it. > > ******************************************************************* > > YOU CAN START TODAY - JUST DO THESE EASY STEPS: > > STEP #1. ORDER THE FOUR REPORTS > > Order the four reports shown on the list below (you can't sell > them if you don't order them). -- For each report, send $5.00US > CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, > YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a > problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the > report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL > PROBLEMS! Within a few days you will receive, by e-mail, each of the four > reports. Save them on your computer so you can send them to the 1,000's > of people who will order them from you. > > STEP #2. ADD YOUR MAILING ADDRESS TO THIS LETTER > a. Look below for the listing of the four reports. > b. After you've ordered the four reports, delete the name and address > under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle. > c. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. > d. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. > e. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. > f. Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. > Please make sure you COPY ALL INFORMATION, every name and address, > ACCURATELY! > > STEP #3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of > names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to these > instructions. Now you are ready to use this entire email to send by > email to prospects. > > Report #1 will tell you how to download bulk email software and email > addresses so you can send it out to thousands of people while you > sleep! Remember that 50,000+ new people are joining the internet every > month. > > Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you > can afford $20US and initial bulk mailing cost). You obviously already > have a computer and an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! > There are two primary methods of building your downline: > > METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL Let's say that you decide to start > small, just to see how it goes, and we'll assume you and all those > involved email out only 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the > mailing receives a 0.5% response. The response could be much better. > Also, many people will email outhundreds of thousands of programs instead of > 2,000 (Why stop at 2000?). But continuing with this example, you send > out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.5% response, that is only 10 orders for > REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each > for a total of 20,000. Out of those 0.5%, 100 people respond and order > > REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of > 200,000. The 0.5% response to that is 1,000 orders for > > REPORT #3. Those 1,000 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,000,000 > total. The 0.5% response to that is 10,000 orders for > > REPORT #4. That's 10,000 $5 bills for you. CASH!!! > Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5,000 + $50,000 > for a total of $55,550!!! > > REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU > MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! > DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR HALF > SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000. Believe me, many people will > do just that, and more! > > METHOD #2 - PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET > Advertising on the internet is very, very inexpensive, and there are > HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let's say you decide to start > small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 10 > people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on > > the Internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that > everyone > else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 downline members. Look how this > small number accumulates to achieve the STAGGERING results below: > > 1st level--your first 10 send you > $5................................$50 > > 2nd level--10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100).............$500 > 3rd level--10 members from those 100 ($5 x 1,000)........$5,000 > 4th level--10 members from those 1,000 ($5 x 10,000)..$50,000 > > $$$$$$ THIS TOTALS ----------$55,550 $$$$$$ > > AMAZING ISN'T IT? Remember friends, this assumes that the people who > participate only recruit 10 people each. Think for a moment what would > happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100's of > participants and many will continue to work this program, sending out > programs WITH YOUR NAME ON THEM for years! THINK ABOUT IT! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > People are going to get emails about this plan from you or somebody > else and many will work this plan - the question is - Don't you want > your name to be on the emails they will send out? > > * * * DON'T MISS OUT!!! * * * JUST TRY IT ONCE!!! * * * > > * * SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!! *** YOU'LL BE AMAZED!!!* * > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! > > This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out with YOUR name and > address on it will be prompt because they can't advertise until they > receive the report! > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > GET STARTED TODAY: PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THE FOUR REPORTS NOW. > > Notes: -- ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT. CHECKS > NOT ACCEPTED. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in two > sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper write: > > (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering > > (b) your e-mail address, and > > (c) your name & postal address. > > REPORT #1 "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" > > ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: >PETER OJEDA > 1691 JUAN KEPLER URB. TULIPAN SAN JUAN P.R. 00926 > REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" > > ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: > KATHY BRONIAK > 4200-E LYNN POINT LANE >RALEIGH , NC27613 > REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" > > ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: >JAKE PELLETIER > 128 E 20TH AVE. > VANCOUVER B.C. >V5V 1L9 > REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel > > Marketing and the Internet" > > ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: > KEN KNIGHT > P.O. BOX 535. > 2208 MAPLE ROAD.N. > SOOKE B.C. > VOS 1NO > ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* > > TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the > directions accurately. -- Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you > will have them when the orders start coming in because: > When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested > product/report. It is required for this to be a legal business and > they need the reports to send out their letters (with your name on > them!) > > -- ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. -- Be > patient and persistent with this program - If you follow the > instructions exactly - results WILL FOLLOW. $$$$ > > ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* > > Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't > receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising > or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you > should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT#2. If you don't, continue > advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 > or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already > working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! > > THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on > the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP > TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from > you. > > To generate more income, simply send another batch of e-mails or > continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no > limit to the income you will generate from this business! > > Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in > this program. Please answer one question. ARE YOU HAPPY WITH YOUR > PRESENT INCOME OR JOB? If the answer is no, then please look at the > following facts about this super simple MLM program: > > 1. NO face to face selling, NO meetings, NO inventory! > NO Telephone calls, NO big cost to start!, NOthing to learn, > NO skills needed! (Surely you know how to send email?) > > 2. No equipment to buy - you already have a computer and > internet connection - so you have everything you need to fill > orders! > > 3. You are selling a product which does NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE OR > SHIP! (Emailing copies of the reports is FREE!) > > 4. All of your customers pay you in CA$H! This program will change > your LIFE FOREVER!! Look at the potential for you to be able to quit > your job and live a life of luxury you could only dream about! > Imagine getting out of debt and buying the car and home of your > dreams and being able to work a super-high paying leisurely > easy business from home! > > $$$ FINALLY MAKE SOME DREAMS COME TRUE! $$$ > > ACT NOW! Take your first step toward achieving financial independence. > Order the reports and follow the program outlined above-- SUCCESS will > be your reward. > > Thank you for your time and consideration. > > PLEASE NOTE: If you need help with starting a business, registering a > business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your > local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal Agency) > 1-800-827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. > > Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and > free seminars about business tax reuirements. Your earnings are highly > dependent on your activities and advertising. The information contained > on this site and in the report constitutes no guarantees stated nor > implied. In the event that it is determined that this site or report > constitutes a guarantee of any kind, that guarantee is now void. The > earnings amounts listed on this site and in the report are estimates > only. > If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the > Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade > Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington, DC. > > ================================================ > > Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this > letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes > contact information and a method of removal. > > This is a one time e-mail transmission. No request for removal is > necessary. > > > From matt@advanced.org Thu Oct 5 04:12:53 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA23648 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id EAA14692 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jack.see.plym.ac.uk (root@jack.see.plymouth.ac.uk [141.163.49.98]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA18819 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:02:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from len (sfres1.see.plymouth.ac.uk [141.163.49.101]) by jack.see.plym.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA32384 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:58:13 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c02ea2$e0a58f20$6531a38d@see.plym.ac.uk> From: "Bogdan Ghita" To: Subject: Routing for UDP/real-time vs TCP Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:04:25 +0100 Organization: NRG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002B_01C02EAB.423DB700" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C02EAB.423DB700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all I have a question related to general routing issues: I am looking into measuring RTT for a specific path using 2 different = methods: TCP acknowledgements and RTCP NTP/LSR/DLSR fields. Is there any specification regarding different handling by the servers = of packets that carry TCP segments vs packets carrying UDP datagrams? I = had several discussions lately about how some/all routers tend to drop = first ICMP traffic, then TCP traffic and, at the end, UDP traffic, as = the first category is not critical and the second can recover. If so, it = would mean that there are several different transport performance rates = for the same path, depending on the type of traffic being sent. Are the = assumption/conclusion correct? Could you point me to some materials that = detail this matter? Thank you very much Best regards Bogdan Ghita ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C02EAB.423DB700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all
 
I have a question related to general = routing=20 issues:
I am looking into measuring RTT for a = specific path=20 using 2 different methods: TCP acknowledgements and RTCP NTP/LSR/DLSR=20 fields.
Is there any = specification regarding different=20 handling by the servers of packets that carry TCP segments vs packets = carrying=20 UDP datagrams? I had several discussions lately about how some/all = routers tend=20 to drop first ICMP traffic, then TCP traffic and, at the end, UDP = traffic, as=20 the first category is not critical and the second can recover. If so, it = would=20 mean that there are several different transport performance rates for = the same=20 path, depending on the type of traffic being sent. Are the = assumption/conclusion=20 correct? Could you point me to some materials that detail this=20 matter?
 
Thank you very much
 
Best regards
Bogdan Ghita
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C02EAB.423DB700-- From matt@advanced.org Thu Oct 5 09:36:19 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA28689 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id JAA25120 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from relay.cwplc.com (relay.cwplc.com [194.6.6.11]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25363 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gb-gmk-ldn-ex01.gmk.cwplc.com ([146.135.132.78]) by relay.cwplc.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA20482; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:28:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 by gb-gmk-ldn-ex01.gmk.cwplc.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:27:50 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) Received: by GB-GMK-LDN-EX01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:27:49 +0100 Message-ID: <14105DA448B8D311BDFB0008C75B6B7C02639BA9@GB-GMK-LDN-EX01> From: "Mangtani, Robindhra" To: "'Bogdan Ghita'" , ippm@advanced.org Subject: RE: Routing for UDP/real-time vs TCP Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:27:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Bogdan, can give some comments on the router question Routers discard traffic when experiencing congestion in the Wide Area, packets are not usually discarded as a result of protocol or port numbers unless policies are set up to deliberately do this e.g IP precedence bits mapping to WFQ classes. Weighted Fair Queueing is usually switched on by default for <2Mbit/s WAN links, this would ensure small packets such as ICMP packets get serviced along with larger packets e.g FTP. The set-up for WFQ can prioritise segregating traffic into multiple flow or classes and then scheduling traffic on outputs to meet specified bandwidth allocation. Therefore I believe your assumption would be correct, particularly when using DiffServ at Ingress resulting in Priority at Egress based on a policy which may rely on Precedence bits, source/dest IP address, Port no etc. Regards, Robindhra -----Original Message----- From: Bogdan Ghita [mailto:b.ghita@jack.see.plym.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 09:04 To: ippm@advanced.org Subject: Routing for UDP/real-time vs TCP Dear all I have a question related to general routing issues: I am looking into measuring RTT for a specific path using 2 different methods: TCP acknowledgements and RTCP NTP/LSR/DLSR fields. Is there any specification regarding different handling by the servers of packets that carry TCP segments vs packets carrying UDP datagrams? I had several discussions lately about how some/all routers tend to drop first ICMP traffic, then TCP traffic and, at the end, UDP traffic, as the first category is not critical and the second can recover. If so, it would mean that there are several different transport performance rates for the same path, depending on the type of traffic being sent. Are the assumption/conclusion correct? Could you point me to some materials that detail this matter? Thank you very much Best regards Bogdan Ghita From matt@advanced.org Thu Oct 5 12:13:35 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA02325 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA16660 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vader.runit.sintef.no (vader.runit.sintef.no [129.241.100.134]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA00901 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vader.runit.sintef.no (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA22841; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:05:59 +0200 (MEST) To: B.Ghita@jack.see.plym.ac.uk Cc: ippm@advanced.org Subject: Re: Routing for UDP/real-time vs TCP From: Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:04:25 +0100" <002e01c02ea2$e0a58f20$6531a38d@see.plym.ac.uk> References: <002e01c02ea2$e0a58f20$6531a38d@see.plym.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.93 on Emacs 19.34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Message-Id: <20001005180554T.he@runit.sintef.no> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:05:54 +0200 Sender: Havard Eidnes X-Dispatcher: imput version 980905(IM100) Lines: 31 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by betelgeuse.advanced.org id MAA00492 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by betelgeuse.advanced.org id MAB16660 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id MAA02325 > I have a question related to general routing issues: > > I am looking into measuring RTT for a specific path using 2 > different methods: TCP acknowledgements and RTCP NTP/LSR/DLSR > fields. > > Is there any specification regarding different handling by the > servers of packets that carry TCP segments vs packets carrying UDP > datagrams? Not that I know of. However, there are some operational practices which are fairly widespread. These operational practices are typically motivated by the desire to reduce the impact of certan classes of denial-of- service attacks. This typically translates into at least a rate limiting for ICMP Echo Reply traffic on a per-link basis. I've never heard of anyone consciously dropping TCP traffic, thus preferring UDP traffic -- in fact I can think of no good reason to do so. However, there are a number of protocols which run over UDP which do not behave as a good citizen and respond to congestion, and the net effect if such protocols are in use and try to consume a significant amount of the available capacity on a FIFO-handled queue will be that TCP experiences packet loss and backs off to adapt to the available capacity. Fair Queueing may counter some of that effect. Regards, - Håvard From matt@advanced.org Mon Oct 9 13:57:52 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA07575 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA25668 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ftpbox.mot.com (ftpbox.mot.com [129.188.136.101]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25908 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: [from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by ftpbox.mot.com (ftpbox 2.1) with ESMTP id KAA29444 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:45:48 -0700 (MST)] Received: [from il06exb01.corp.mot.com (il06exb01.corp.mot.com [199.5.78.83]) by mothost.mot.com (MOT-mothost 2.0) with ESMTP id KAA19592 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:45:47 -0700 (MST)] Received: by il06exb01.corp.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <43WFJ37G>; Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:44:59 -0500 Message-ID: <23DBE2EFD4D5D3119616009027E32671012EC52F@il06exm23.corp.mot.com> From: Grotefeld Glenn-cecl03 To: "'ippm'" Subject: FW: last call for (tewg) framework draft Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:44:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" For those who are NOT on both the tewg and ippm mailing lists: The Traffic Engineering Working Group (tewg) framework document has this highly relevant sentence to ippm (IMHO) as part of their definition of traffic engineering: "Traffic oriented performance measures include delay, delay variation, packet loss, and goodput." http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-framework-02.txt Glenn Grotefeld Motorola, Inc. g.grotefeld@motorola.com US 847 576-5992 847 538-7455 FAX ~-----Original Message----- ~From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@Level3.net] ~Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 12:33 PM ~To: te-wg@UU.NET ~Subject: last call for framework draft ~ ~ ~ ~Dan has asked for us to do a working group last call on the framework ~document ~ ~draft-ietf-tewg-framework-02.txt ~ ~please take some time to review and raise any issues by 10/23. ~ ~thanks, ~ ~Jim ~ ~ From matt@advanced.org Wed Oct 11 10:36:14 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA11883 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:36:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id KAA14215 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se (penguin-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [194.237.142.110]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA14398 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:26:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from duna (duna.eth.ericsson.se [164.48.158.2]) by penguin.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.11.0/8.10.1/WIREfire-1.3) with SMTP id e9BEPvZ13263; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:25:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: from eth.ericsson.se by duna (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA18926; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:25:54 +0200 Sender: Tamas.VargaII@eth.ericsson.se Message-ID: <39E47872.5D2D448B@eth.ericsson.se> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:25:54 +0200 From: Tamas Varga Organization: Technical University of Budapest / ERICSSON Hungary X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Neale Banks , ippm@advanced.org Subject: Re: reference implementations? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neale Banks wrote: > Does anyone have nay pointers to references implementations for Packet > Loss or Delay metrics in RFCs 2679-2681? Dear Neale and IPPMers, you can obtain and use our one-way delay measurement (owdm) tool, which is available at: http://hsnlab.ttt.bme.hu/~varga/tools/owdm.tar Tamas -- Tamas VARGA - PhD Student Budapest University of Technology and Economics phone: +36-1-437-7087 High Speed Networks Laboratory http://hsnlab.ttt.bme.hu/~varga ERICSSON Hungary, Traffic Lab mailto:Tamas.Varga.II@eth.ericsson.se From matt@advanced.org Tue Oct 24 11:24:06 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA11126 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA03572 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03908 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:12:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA13105; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:11:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA24733; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:11:53 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:11:53 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Tamas Varga cc: Neale Banks , ippm@advanced.org Subject: Re: reference implementations? In-Reply-To: <39E47872.5D2D448B@eth.ericsson.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Tamas and IPPMers, > Neale Banks wrote: > > Does anyone have nay pointers to references implementations for Packet > > Loss or Delay metrics in RFCs 2679-2681? > > Dear Neale and IPPMers, > > you can obtain and use our one-way delay measurement (owdm) tool, > which is available at: > http://hsnlab.ttt.bme.hu/~varga/tools/owdm.tar Since last week, we're offering our implementation ("test-boxes") as a regular service available to the entire community. See http://www.ripe.net/test-traffic, or contact me by private email, for more details. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A man can take a train and never reach his destination. (Kerouac, well before RFC2780). From matt@advanced.org Wed Oct 25 17:49:12 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA21228 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:49:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA00113 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lafontaine.cybercable.fr (lafontaine.cybercable.fr [212.198.0.202]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA27753 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 3025832 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2000 21:39:10 -0000 Received: from d024.dhcp212-210.cybercable.fr (HELO KAVEMAISON) ([212.198.210.24]) (envelope-sender ) by lafontaine.cybercable.fr (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Oct 2000 21:39:10 -0000 Message-ID: <00a201c03ecb$eeaf6850$18d2c6d4@KAVEMAISON> From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Kav=E9_Salamatian?= To: References: <002e01c02ea2$e0a58f20$6531a38d@see.plym.ac.uk> Subject: Active measurement Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:38:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009F_01C03EDC.B1FE1580" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties. ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C03EDC.B1FE1580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, Anybody is aware of a paper of research work that has been done about = relating the loss statistics seen by two flows sharing the same paths, = but with different inter-packet delay distribution.=20 A simple example of application, how to relate to loss process seen by a = UDP connection to the loss process seen by a competing TCP connection ? Thank you very much. Best Regards Kav=E9 Salamatian Assistant Professor, LIP6, UPMC, Paris France =20 ------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C03EDC.B1FE1580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All,
 
Anybody is aware of a paper of research = work that=20 has been done about relating the loss statistics seen = by two flows=20 sharing the same paths, but with different inter-packet delay=20 distribution. 
 
A simple example of application, how to = relate to=20 loss process seen by a UDP connection to the loss process seen by a = competing=20 TCP connection ?
 
Thank you very much.
 
Best Regards
 
Kav=E9 Salamatian
 
Assistant Professor, LIP6, UPMC, Paris=20 France
 
  
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C03EDC.B1FE1580-- From matt@advanced.org Mon Oct 30 08:45:35 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA27989 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:45:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id IAA11048 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:31:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from p-mail2.cnet.fr (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.fr [193.49.124.32]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA25364 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:29:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by p-voyageur.issy.cnet.fr with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:13:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: ADAM Yann FTRD/DAC/LAN To: "'ippm@advanced.org'" Subject: wire-time and OWD Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:11:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi all, I have questions related to the framework document (rfc2330) and to the owe-way delay metric (rfc2679): - in rfc2330, the notion of wire-time is declined in 'wire arrival time' and 'wire exit time'. The 'wire exit time' is defined as: 'For a given packet P, the wire exit time of P at H on L is the first time T at which ALL THE BITS OF P have appeared at H's observational position on L'. - in rfc2679, the OWD is defined as: 'For a real number dT, >>the *Type-P-One-way-Delay* from Src to Dst at T is dT<< means that Src SENT THE FIRST BIT of a Type-P packet to Dst at WIRE-TIME* T and that Dst received the last bit of that packet at wire-time T+dT'. I guess for the OWD metric, one should write "... Src sent the first bit of a ....at WIRE EXIT TIME T .....Dst received the last bit of ..... at WIRE ARRIVAL TIME T+dT". MY FIRST QUESTION: I have the feeling that there is a mistake here: the OWD specifies the Src sent the FIRST BIT at wire time T, whereas the wire exit time specifies that ALL THE BITS have appeared. Has anybody got a explanation ? MY SECOND QUESTION: I have read the rfc2679, and I have the feeling that it is assumed that an IPPM compliant probe should be active, but it is not written in the document. Is it possible that a passive probe (which does not introduce its own type-P packets) should be IPPM-compliant ? Thank you. Best regards. Yann. From matt@advanced.org Tue Oct 31 06:45:15 2000 Received: from betelgeuse.advanced.org (betelgeuse.advanced.org [209.211.239.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id GAA11430 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:45:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from guest@localhost) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) id GAA24060 for ippm-l@advanced.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ss3000e.cselt.it (ss3000e.cselt.it [163.162.41.5]) by betelgeuse.advanced.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA25942 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:29:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from rabadan.cselt.it (rabadan.cselt.it [163.162.4.12]) by ss3000e.cselt.it (PMDF V5.2-31 #43137) with ESMTP id <0G3A008EZL5ZAH@ss3000e.cselt.it> for ippm@advanced.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:27:36 +0100 (MET) Received: by rabadan.cselt.it with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <47JRQTN0>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:30:42 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:27:34 +0100 From: Demichelis Carlo Subject: RE: wire-time and OWD To: "'ADAM Yann FTRD/DAC/LAN'" Cc: "'ippm@advanced.org'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Importance: high X-Priority: 1 I would like to offer my personal opinion. 1) - Each definition of delay, measured by observing or sending information between two points has been always given, in standardization bodies (like ITU-T) by considering the initial time of transmission of the FIRST bit and the ending time of reception of the LAST bit. In this way the duration of the information transmitted is included in the delay, that will not be zero, even if the two Measurement Points coincide. The delay is therefore defined from the time at which the System Under Test is engaged in the information transfer, up to the time at which the SUT ends this job. With this definition the packet length is a measurement paramenter, and all the characteristics of the network between the two measurement points are considered omogeneously. With a definition that considers the time of transmission of the last bit (all the bits), the packet length is still a parameter due to the reception time and a possible different behavior of the network, but the transmission speed (speed of the first link of the SUT) is no more considered in the measurement (or it is considered in a non omogeneus way), and therefore the result is not significant. It is therefore an error to consider the time at which ALL THE BITS have appeared at the first measurement point. 2) - If the SUT is the network between the two points at which we imagine to measure the wire time (beginning and end of physical links), the measurement is always "virtual". An Abstract Test Equipment (ATE) should be defined, both for sending / receiving test packets and for observing packets not intrusively. Any real test equipment should then be characterized by a value of precision. Fixed and known differences can be taken into account, while uncertainties are part of the measurement error. In my opinion IPPM has defined methodologies for tests, using testing packets. For non intrusive monitoring, not only an appropriate ATE should be defined, but probably also other definitions should be revisited. (Packets are no more under the control of the "entity" performing the measurement, as well as intervals between packets. Packets are coming from a preceding "cloud", and it is difficult to put constraints on the characteristics of the flow assumed to be measured). Always in my opinion, there is still the need of definitions for non intrusive monitoring. I have considered this question in the first part of the paper presented in Birmingham at WTC-ISS 2000 (May 2000) C. Demichelis - CSELT: "Improvement of the IPDV concept and applications" Bye Carlo Demichelis carlo.demichelis@cselt.it > ---------- > From: ADAM Yann FTRD/DAC/LAN[SMTP:yann.adam@rd.francetelecom.fr] > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 2:11 PM > To: 'ippm@advanced.org' > Subject: wire-time and OWD > > Hi all, > I have questions related to the framework document (rfc2330) and to the > owe-way delay metric (rfc2679): > - in rfc2330, the notion of wire-time is declined in 'wire arrival time' > and > 'wire exit time'. The 'wire exit time' is defined as: 'For a given packet > P, > the wire exit time of P at H on L is the first time T at which ALL THE > BITS > OF P have appeared at H's observational position on L'. > - in rfc2679, the OWD is defined as: 'For a real number dT, >>the > *Type-P-One-way-Delay* from Src to Dst at T is dT<< means that Src SENT > THE > FIRST BIT of a Type-P packet to Dst at WIRE-TIME* T and that Dst received > the last bit of that packet at wire-time T+dT'. > > I guess for the OWD metric, one should write "... Src sent the first bit > of > a ....at WIRE EXIT TIME T .....Dst received the last bit of ..... at WIRE > ARRIVAL TIME T+dT". > > MY FIRST QUESTION: > I have the feeling that there is a mistake here: the OWD specifies the Src > sent the FIRST BIT at wire time T, whereas the wire exit time specifies > that > ALL THE BITS have appeared. > Has anybody got a explanation ? > > MY SECOND QUESTION: > I have read the rfc2679, and I have the feeling that it is assumed that an > IPPM compliant probe should be active, but it is not written in the > document. > Is it possible that a passive probe (which does not introduce its own > type-P > packets) should be IPPM-compliant ? > > > Thank you. > Best regards. > > Yann. >