The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Defining Network Capacity ' <draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt> as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the IP Performance Metrics Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Lars Eggert and Magnus Westerlund. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-bw-capacity-05.txt Technical Summary Measuring network capacity is a task that sounds simple, but in reality can be quite complex. In addition, the lack of a unified nomenclature on this subject makes it increasingly difficult to properly build, test, and use techniques and tools built around these constructs. This document provides definitions for the terms 'Capacity' and 'Available Capacity' related to IP traffic traveling between a source and destination in an IP network, to provide a common framework for the discussion and analysis of a diverse set of current and future measurement and estimation techniques. Working Group Summary The working group has supported the document through the last five revisions, and it has been uncontroversial. Protocol Quality The document has been given thorough review by the group over its revisions, and in particular Joseph Kopena and Dan Romanescu have given thorough reviews improving document quality. Personnel Document Shepherd: Matt Zekauskas (matt@internet2.edu) Responsible Area Director: Lars Eggert (lars.eggert@nokia.com) RFC Editor Note Expand the first use of the acronym IPPM as "IP Performance Metrics". Section 2.1., paragraph 1: OLD: To define capacity, we need to broaden the notions of link and path found in the IPPM framework document [RFC2330] to include network devices that can impact IP capacity without being IP aware. For example, consider an Ethernet switch that can operate ports at different speeds. NEW: To define capacity, we need to broaden the notions of link and path found in the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) framework document [RFC2330] to include network devices that can impact IP capacity without being IP aware. For example, consider an Ethernet switch that can operate ports at different speeds. To be inserted as the last paragraph in Section 2.3.1.2: As a practical matter, it should be noted that some providers may treat packets with certain characteristics differently than other packets. For example, access control lists, routing policies, and other mechanisms may be used to filter ICMP packets or packets with certain IP options through different routes. If a capacity-measurement tool uses these special packets and they are included in the "Type P" designation, the tool may not be measuring the path that it was intended to measure. Tool authors, as well as users may wish to check this point with their service providers. To be inserted as the last paragraph in Section 2.3.2: As mentioned earlier, this definition is impacted by many factors that may change over time. For example, a device's ability to process and forward IP packets for a particular link may have varying impact on capacity depending on the amount or type of traffic being processed. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
