Mark,
Hi, thanks for getting the ball rolling. Here are a few thoughts to give
the ball an additional kick. I'm not sure which of these (if any) make
sense specifically in a context like IMRG, but these are some
measurement-related things I've been thinking or wondering about...
- Education/curriculum: What do we think a measurement-oriented researcher
needs to know -- about things like (i) conducting experiments, analyzing
data, etc. and (ii) key results from past work in the area of Internet
measurement? That is, what would we consider the underlying skills and
knowledge that researchers in this space should have? Most folks didn't
start out as measurement people, and many of us are computer scientists by
training and don't (by default) get much training in conducting experimental
work and dealing with data. What do we all wish we had learned before
embarking on this kind of work?
- Network support for measurement: What basic functionality for measurement
would we like to see in network elements and protocols? Here the emphasis
could be on support that is minimal in its overhead and opertionally
feasible (e.g., people would turn it on because it doesn't reveal too much
sensitive information and/or it is useful for operational purposes such as
traffic engineering, troubleshooting network problems, etc.). For example,
suppose we wanted to monitor BGP update messages and infer the location and
cause of routing changes. What extra information in the messages would help
us do this? Is the extra overhead small enough to warrant that change?
- Measurement in support of network operations: Lots of folks use
measurement data in running their networks (e.g., traffic matrices to do
traffic engineering, packet/flow data to detect anomalies and attacks,
routing measurements to track the topology and detect anomalies, etc.).
Would it make sense to give these monitoring/management systems real-time,
direct control over the packet-handling behavior of the network elements --
elevating measurement to a first-class citizen in driving the functioning of
the network? What would it take to make this happen?
-----Original Message-----
From: imrg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:imrg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Allman
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 9:32 PM
To: imrg@irtf.org
Subject: [IMRG] imrg futures
Hi folks!
IMRG has been pretty quiet lately, with not much percolating off-list
either. So, I have started to wonder whether this RG is needed or
whether we should consider it done. From my viewpoint this RG was
created as an umbrella under which various activities across network
measurement could be pursued. And, to an extent that has happened (with
workshops and review teams and such). However, I think we need to
either come up with a use for this RG or just wrap it up. So, if you
have something that you think would benefit from operating under the
auspices of the IMRG, please let me know (or, the list).
And, remember that this is an open RG, but the charter explicitly calls
out the fact that certain activities can be closed. As long as there is
some reporting to the community I would be very happy to have some
closed sorts of group working on things because I think it can be
conducive to rapid progress. (That doesn't mean I think open activities
shouldn't be undertaken.)
Please let me know what you think ...
(Oh, I am on my way to IETF right now, so if you want to chat in person
this week and will be around, shoot me an email and we'll work something
out.)
Thanks!
allman
(IMRG chair)
--
Mark Allman -- ICIR --
http://www.icir.org/mallman/
_______________________________________________
IMRG mailing list
IMRG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imrg
Received on Wed Mar 9 21:40:15 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Wed Aug 23 2006 - 12:43:04 EDT
|