datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.6.2.p2, 2014-07-24
Report a bug

Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices
RFC 2889

Document type: RFC - Informational (August 2000; No errata)
Document stream: IETF
Last updated: 2013-03-02
Other versions: plain text, pdf, html

IETF State: (None)
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: RFC 2889 (Informational)
Responsible AD: (None)
Send notices to: No addresses provided

Network Working Group                                      R. Mandeville
Request for Comments: 2889                                     CQOS Inc.
Category: Informational                                        J. Perser
                                                  Spirent Communications
                                                             August 2000

           Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   3. Test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   4. Frame formats and sizes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   5. Benchmarking Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
      5.1  Fully meshed throughput, frame loss and forwarding rates   4
      5.2  Partially meshed one-to-many/many-to-one  . . . . . . . .  7
      5.3  Partially meshed multiple devices . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
      5.4  Partially meshed unidirectional traffic . . . . . . . . . 13
      5.5  Congestion Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
      5.6  Forward Pressure and Maximum Forwarding Rate  . . . . . . 19
      5.7  Address caching capacity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
      5.8  Address learning rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
      5.9  Errored frames filtering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
      5.10 Broadcast frame Forwarding and Latency  . . . . . . . . . 28
   6. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   8. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
      Appendix A: Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
      Appendix B: Generating Offered Load  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
      Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Mandeville & Perser          Informational                      [Page 1]
RFC 2889          LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology        August 2000

1. Introduction

   This document is intended to provide methodology for the benchmarking
   of local area network (LAN) switching devices.  It extends the
   methodology already defined for benchmarking network interconnecting
   devices in RFC 2544 [3] to switching devices.

   This RFC primarily deals with devices which switch frames at the
   Medium Access Control (MAC) layer. It provides a methodology for
   benchmarking switching devices, forwarding performance, congestion
   control, latency, address handling and filtering. In addition to
   defining the tests, this document also describes specific formats for
   reporting the results of the tests.

   A previous document, "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching
   Devices" [2], defined many of the terms that are used in this
   document.  The terminology document SHOULD be consulted before
   attempting to make use of this document.

2. Requirements

   The following RFCs SHOULD be consulted before attempting to make use
   of this document: RFC 1242 [1], RFC 2285 [2], and RFC 2544 [3].

   For the sake of clarity and continuity, this RFC adopts the template
   for benchmarking tests set out in Section 26 of RFC 2544.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

3. Test setup

   This document extends the general test setup described in section 6
   of RFC 2544 [3] to the benchmarking of LAN switching devices.  RFC
   2544 [3] primarily describes non-meshed traffic where input and
   output interfaces  are grouped in mutually exclusive sending and
   receiving pairs.  In fully meshed traffic, each interface of a
   DUT/SUT is set up to both receive and transmit frames to all the
   other interfaces under test.

   Prior to each test run, the DUT/SUT MUST learn the MAC addresses used
   in the test and the address learning SHOULD be verified.  Addresses
   not learned will be forwarded as flooded frames and reduce the amount
   of correctly forwarded frames.  The rate at which address learning
   frames are offered may have to be adjusted to be as low as 50 frames
   per second or even less, to guarantee successful learning.  The
   DUT/SUT address aging time SHOULD be configured to be greater than

[include full document text]