RFC 2544 Applicability Statement: Use on Production Networks Considered Harmful
draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (bmwg WG)
Last updated 2012-05-07 (latest revision 2012-04-26)
Replaces draft-chairs-bmwg-2544-as
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd Bill Cerveny
IESG IESG state Publication Requested
Telechat date
Responsible AD Ron Bonica
IESG note Document Shepherd: Bill Cerveny <wcerveny@wjcerveny.com>
Send notices to bmwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as@tools.ietf.org, wcerveny@wjcerveny.com
Network Working Group                                         S. Bradner
Internet-Draft                                        Harvard University
Intended status: Informational                                 K. Dubray
Expires: October 28, 2012                               Juniper Networks
                                                              J. McQuaid
                                                            Turnip Video
                                                               A. Morton
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                          April 26, 2012

RFC 2544 Applicability Statement: Use on Production Networks Considered
                                Harmful
                       draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-03

Abstract

   Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) has been developing key
   performance metrics and laboratory test methods since 1990, and
   continues this work at present.  Recent application of the methods
   beyond their intended scope is cause for concern.  This memo
   clarifies the scope of RFC 2544 and other benchmarking work for the
   IETF community.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 28, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

Bradner, et al.         Expires October 28, 2012                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                 RFC 2544 AS                    April 2012

   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Scope and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  The Concept of an Isolated Test Environment . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Why RFC 2544 Methods are intended for ITE . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     4.1.  Experimental Control, Repeatability, and Accuracy . . . . . 4
     4.2.  Containment of Implementation Failure Impact  . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Advisory on RFC 2544 Methods in Real-world Networks . . . . . . 5
   6.  What to do without RFC 2544?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     10.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     10.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Bradner, et al.         Expires October 28, 2012                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                 RFC 2544 AS                    April 2012

1.  Introduction

   This memo clarifies the scope of RFC 2544 [RFC2544], and other
   benchmarking work for the IETF community.

   Benchmarking Methodologies (beginning with [RFC2544]) have always
   relied on test conditions that can only be produced and replicated
   reliably in the laboratory.  Thus it was surprising to find that this
   foundation methodology was being cited in several unintended
   specifications [Y.1731] and products performing applications such as:

   1.  Validation of telecommunication service configuration, such as
       the Committed Information Rate (CIR).

   2.  Validation of performance metrics in a telecommunication Service
Show full document text